→Request: new section |
→Request: done |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
As apparently being in the same [[epsilon closure|ε-closure]] isn't enough for some people, I guess I'll have to make the state transition explicitly...Can someone resysop the {{user|Timotheus Canens}} account? Thanks. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
As apparently being in the same [[epsilon closure|ε-closure]] isn't enough for some people, I guess I'll have to make the state transition explicitly...Can someone resysop the {{user|Timotheus Canens}} account? Thanks. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:{{done}} [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:28, 2 January 2012
|
|
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.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DreamRimmer | 24 | 14 | 2 | 63 | Open | 10:02, 4 June 2024 | 4 days, 19 hours | no | report |
It is 14:23:20 on May 30, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Inactive sysops needing desysopping/warnings of desysopping
There are many admins who've met the threshold for tool removal who are listed on List of Missing Wikipedians. I thought it'd be best to leave a notice on the BN, do tell me if I should have sought another venue of discussion. Regards, —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:04pm • 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have gone through the entries with on the page and only user eligible for desysopping (after the necessary notifications) is YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), last edit on 23 November 2010 and last logged action on 19 November 2010. The other admins on the list with their last activities can be seen in the following collapsed table. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Admin | Last edit | Last logged action | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 4 September 2011 | 26 June 2008 | |
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 14 September 2011 | 29 June 2009 | 2 years inactivity before last edit |
Filiocht (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 25 January 2011 | 18 March 2008 | |
Hall Monitor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 3 February 2011 | 3 February 2011 | |
Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 16 December 2011 | 31 May 2010 | |
Kilo-Lima (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 26 November 2011 | 2 November 2011 | |
Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 17 September 2011 | 31 March 2008 | Also a bureaucrat. |
MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 27 September 2011 | 16 December 2009 | Also a edit filter manager. |
Mike 7 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 19 December 2011 | 5 March 2009 | |
Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 6 December 2011 | 1 July 2010 | |
PedanticallySpeaking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 1 November 2011 | 4 December 2006 | |
Sannse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 24 August 2011 | 16 February 2011 | |
ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 25 February 2011 | 23 May 2010 | Also a edit filter manager. |
Tom- (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 1 February 2011 | 27 January 2008 | |
Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) | 27 October 2011 | 2 August 2010 |
- Procedural removal for inactivity is coordinated at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. No further duplication of effort is advised or required. –xenotalk 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Request to close my own RfA procedure early
At the suggestion of several editors in whom I invest longtime trust (including my nominator, a wikifriend of 6 years), I'm withdrawing my candidacy at this time. I had hoped that by standing firm and replying to critique I could convince opposers to rethink their assertions. It appears that my determination may be seen by some as selfishness, stubbornness and a violation of WP:POINT. The last thing I wanted to do was hurt the pedia, speak ill of formal processes, or the good faith assertions made during such processes. I'd asked a bureaucrat last night to reopen the procedure just closed. In retrospect I should have asked that editor to reopen long enough I could make a withdrawal statement, then close for good. I will apologize to that trusted servant on user talk and make a brief withdrawal statement in the next few minutes. After my datestamp there, I encourage any bureaucrat to close the procedure. Thanks for your service. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Request to close discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship
Hi, I'm looking for an impartial bureaucrat to close the RfC discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#RfC:_Should_we_begin_a_trial.3F. This discussion was an open RfC for 30 days and was on WP:CENT for about the same amount of time, and proposes a new process whereby users can temporarily be assigned a subset of administrator tools, in order to help complete work, and to gain experience. It's quite a lot of reading, just to warn you. :-) As noted there, I'm prepared to accept the conclusion whatever it is. Thank you for your help! Dcoetzee 08:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Resysop request
Hi, I'd like to have my sysop bit back. I resigned in 2008 in uncontroversial circumstances, so I think there's no problem about it:) Max Semenik (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find the request from 2008 at the moment - can you (or someone else) help, please? --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing I could find was this showing that MaxSem desysopped himself; I could not find a request anywhere. As far as I am aware and can remember, MaxSem did resign in uncontroversial circumstances, and to see his name here is a pleasant surprise. Hope that helps, Dweller. Acalamari 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, helpful. Contribs from Dec 08 bear out Acalamari's view and now that I've also looked at global contribs, I'd be happy to approve this request and warmly welcome you back, Max. Someone around to second? Otherwise, if there's no dissent I'll resysop myself tomorrow morning my time. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Welcome back. Maxim(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Out of interest, why is this case different from the request by LC in August (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22#Request by LC). LC had made no edits for almost nine years. MaxSem had made none for three years. Perhaps that's a sufficient difference. However, most ex-admins who request the bit back after a year or more of absence start actively editing numerous pages, which allows an analysis of their editing pattern to see if they are the same editor. MaxSem's request does show that he is aware of his own history, but I am concerned that this might be a hijacked account.-gadfium 03:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Given this edit and that MaxSem used to be a steward (and therefore identified to the WMF), I think it would be fairly straightforward for Max to verify that his account has not been hijacked. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. Because I will need to edit the MediaWiki namespace for tuning Extension:FeaturedFeeds configuration after its deployment withing 1-2 weeks, I'd like to be able to do so as a comunity member, not just staffer. Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- MaxSem's edits since I posted here have gone a long way towards convincing me that he's genuine.-gadfium 08:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Given this edit and that MaxSem used to be a steward (and therefore identified to the WMF), I think it would be fairly straightforward for Max to verify that his account has not been hijacked. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
As I noted above, although he'd been inactive on en: Max's global log was fairly persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether bot flag is needed
I've just speedily approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addihockey10 (automated) as an uncontroversial task, but I'm not sure whether it should be given a bot flag or left to run unflagged. The edit rate is about 6-10 EPM according to Addihockey10 (looks to be a bit lower than that going through his contribs), which isn't a lot, but a bot flag would be helpful. The issue is that the account isn't a strict "bot" account (i.e. an automated account with a "Bot" at the end), but rather one intended for AWB/Huggling, and I don't think we give bot flags to those. A separate, dedicated account cannot be used because the bot runs cross-wiki, and it is already flagged as "Addihockey10 (automated)" on a few other wikis, as I was told. So what do 'crats think? Best, — The Earwig (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that we don't give bot flags to manually run tasks. Andrevan@ 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Aye, he's running it from his main account (which is used for non-bot edits), and it doesn't look like he has any particular need for the high limit if the edit rate is going to be kept that low. Manually reviewed edits run from a primary account don't get flagged. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Request
As apparently being in the same ε-closure isn't enough for some people, I guess I'll have to make the state transition explicitly...Can someone resysop the Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) account? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)