Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Crat tasks
USURP reqs 6
CHU reqs 3
RfAs 1
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 10
Approved BRFAs 1


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Opabinia regalis 2 36 11 0 77 09:37, 2 May 2015 6 days, 3 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 05:58:29 on April 26, 2015, according to the server's time and date.



Q. re: WP:INACTIVITY[edit]

When admins are desysyoped due to inactivity, is it S.O.P. to check their user page for admin templates, etc.? I stumbled upon one & updated their user pager per INACTIVITY (if I overstepped, please correct as appropriate). Does a bot ever scan CAT:ADMINS for non-admins just to check? Rgrds. --64.85.217.6 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When processing the inactivity requests, I don't believe the processing bureaucrat usually updates userpages. I believe other users who assist with this process are doing so, though. –xenotalk 14:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I've never updated a userpage. The admin template includes a "check" button for a reason :) WormTT(talk) 07:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never done that. Having that on one's page doesn't make them an admin, however, and people can easily find out if they are really an admin. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually do update the userpages (e.g. [1], [2]) but it sounds as if I might be in the minority. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I may have at one time, but I found that not all admins even had one of those templates on their page, so I think I stopped checking the userpage due to lack of results. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in... I haven't ever checked either, including when I remove the mop for other reasons. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 9 please[edit]

Resolved

Can someone purge this name from the record? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Requests to hide abusive usernames should be sent to the Wikipedia:Oversight team / special:EmailUser/Oversight. –xenotalk 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a note of that, Xeno. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Xeno and Drmies: From an Oversight perspective, it's also sometimes better just to send it to the stewards' mailing list for global lock and suppression since all usernames are global now. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Please feel free to update the advice in the Front matter if that is now the case. –xenotalk 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I should clarify that that was personal opinion as an Oversighter. I'll have a chat with the team and see what they think. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Whaddayaknow--I never saw that sentence (in the front matter) until now. No wonder I get such mediocre evaluations. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just resurrecting this from the archive to say that I've made the change (to the front matter). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reports bot[edit]

Hello all. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reports bot please grant the bot flag to Reports bot. Thanks, Harej (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins[edit]

I was looking at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive and noticed that it's been over a year (in one case, 3 years) without any edits by Thunderboltz, Useight, Tijuana Brass and Friday and yet they still have admin status and, in Useight's case, bureaucrat status even though it's been 2 years, 8 months since they were active. Did the bot just miss them? Liz Read! Talk! 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All but Useight have deleted pages within the last 12 months so that is why they have not been desysopped yet. Not sure why for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As for Useight his alternate account User:Useight's Public Sock made an edit in December 2014 so I expect that is the reason for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess those actions don't show up as "edits" in their contribution history? I guess their names should be removed from that list. Although, I've seen admins marked as "active" who have 7 edits over the past 3 years...that hardly seems active. IMHO. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, deletions do not show up as edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion here? The community has decided that inactive admins may have the tools removed without prejudice in cases of inactivity. The cases mentioned above are certainly within the spirit of such inactivity, if not the letter. Maybe these cases could be referred to WP:ANI for discussion by the community. Any such approval by the community could then be acted on by a beaurocrat. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
But surely an admin who does one or two deletes is a more active admin (doing admin tasks) than one who does one or two normal edits. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's less about who is more active than who, and more the other reasons listed for desysopping after periods of inactivity, like not being up to date with current policies. I've forgotten who it was now, but I saw an admin recently who seemed to come back every two years to make an admin action or two before going inactive again. That's definitely what I'd define as inactive, and I think there should be some scope within the procedural desysopping for those administrators who do the bare minimum in order to simply retain the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think the bare minimum is insufficient then perhaps a proposal to add the words "or less than a 100 edits on all Wikimedia projects in the last three years" might get consensus. The advantage of an additional three year test extended to all Wikimedia Projects is that someone active on other projects is less likely to be a lost and now suborned account, and whilst they may not have kept track of changes here, they will still be familiar with mediawiki and changes like V/E. ϢereSpielChequers 05:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)