Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avraham (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 9 December 2013 (→‎CHU/S & CHUU: more active). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    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 14:54:36 on May 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#December 2013

    The following can be desysopped as of December 1, 2013 as inactive:

    Note that Rdsmith4 is also a bureaucrat, so a steward will need to remove that permission as well for inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, with the obvious exception of Rdsmith4's bureaucrat bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I requested Rdsmith4's 'crat bit be removed at meta and that has been completed as well. [1] Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And should anybody be curious, I just unsubscribed Rdsmith4 from the bureaucrat mailing list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest also User:Useight as well? Although I beleive they might be a WMF employee/developer so they might need to stay. They haven't edited since about August 0f 2012 though. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been editing as User:Useight's Public Sock. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok good to know. Thanks for looking. I thought there was probably some exception but wasn't sure. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies and WP:CRAT#Former bureaucrats, it appears that this is only the second year in Wikipedia history in which the number of bureaucrats has decreased. The other year was 2011, in which two 'crats were promoted and three had their rights removed, and the net-negative that year was only because that's when the inactivity de-'cratting policy went into effect. This year, by contrast, has seen two promotions and five removals; three of those removals were resignations, also an all-time record in a given year. Interestingly, prior to Hersfold's resignation in March, we were in the second-longest period without any de-'crattings. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved bot doesn't have a bot flag

    Resolved
     – No bureaucrat intervention required. Further discussion probably belongs at WP:BON. –xenotalk 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite having been approved, AAlertBot doesn't have a bot flag. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 13:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Their rights log says they got it in 2010 and their current rights show it is still flagged. Rgrds. --64.85.215.45 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its edits show it without a bot flag. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have a bot flag [2]. -- KTC (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in its edits, it was clogging up Special:RecentChanges earlier when it was set to hide bots. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When you were on the recent changes special page, on the line where you can chose to hide/show various edits, did it say "Show bots" or "Hide bots"? If it said "Hide bots", then you actually had it set to show bots (because "Hide bots" actually means "click here to hide bots"). Is this the case? Rgrds. --64.85.215.45 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It said "Show bots" and still does. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved bots are allowed to use the bot flag in their edits – and they generally should – but the bot programmer has to specifically code them to do so, and in this case it appears the programmer did not. You may want to follow up with them directly about that. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be intentional, actually, because I imagine you might want to watchlist a specific /Article alerts page and then receive updates -- through your watchlist -- when it is modified (which of course wouldn't work if the edits were marked as a bot). Of course, that might be a bit of a pain for recent changes patrollers... Just hypothesizing. Theopolisme (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Some edits from this bot are not flaged as BOT edits., this is indeed the intent of the bot operator. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ask me, bots are to always use bot=true, especially high-edit rates one. There is nothing more annoying than seeing them blow up your watch list.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 12:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opining It seems to me that it does make sense for this bot to not be forcing the bot flag. If the bot drops an alert, you want to see it in your watchlist. Has this been brought up with the bot developer/operators to see if there has been a discussion before? Tempest in a teapot much? Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    CHU/S & CHUU

    Hey all! Not sure if it's my place whatsoever to leave this message here, but CHU/S has a pretty heavy backlog (93 requests), as well as some outstanding requests at CHUU selfishly, including my own. This message isn't to rush anybody to work, just ringing the door bell! :-) iMatthew / talk 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's usually handled by MBisanz. However, he is unavailable at the moment. I'm not sure whether or not he disclosed why, so I won't for now.—cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we've gotten to the point where a single bureaucrat is handling all the name changes, we should probably either source more bureaucrats or consider moving name change into the administrative toolset. Weren't stewards supposed to be handling name changes globally by now? –xenotalk 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the whole "stewards will be doing renames soon" thing is why I'd stopped checking. What's the status of that? (If I wasn't about to head off to work I'd do some now; if the backlog is still there later, I'll definitely knock some out) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is on hold for an indefinite period of time. –xenotalk 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin tools development (which includes bureaucrat/steward tools such as global rename) is on the WMF Platform team's roadmap, but honestly we're unsure when we will get to it. That said, KMehta (WMF), better known as Legoktm, is now a contractor for the Features team and has been doing some work on a global rename tool. I'll invite him to comment here. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did one. I did a few a few weeks ago. It's not just one bureaucrat. Andrevan@ 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, it does appear that MBisanz is handling a disproportionate amount of the CHU load. –xenotalk 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit, I feel particularly rusty when it comes to renames and that's been putting me off. Most of the renames in the list below that were done by me are random things like people asking me to rename them at editathons. I'll try to remember that there's a backlog here whenever I'm bored and trying to think of something to do! ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make a point of being more active there. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=585310410"