Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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.

Click here to add a new section

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	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 06:29:12 on May 22, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

WP:BAG request

I need Shadowbot3 given a bot flag since it is a Werdnabot clone. It is operated by shadow1, I need this replacement since Werdnabot malfunctioned and Werdna is MIA. And NolBot also needs a flag see the WP:BRFA Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged both =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 RfAs that probably need early closes

There are a couple of RfAs at the moment by pretty inexperienced users that probably should be closed early out of kindness to the candidates:

-- WjBscribe 06:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Nichalp has noticed already. Never mind. WjBscribe 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot deflagging

Hi - I'm not sure whether it's possible for 'crats to do this (I hope it is :)), but could the bot flag please be removed from User:MediationBot1, so that edits will appear on people's watchlists, considering that it often makes edits (listing new cases, for example) which are of great interest to mediators and others? I understand the the pevious MediationBot, operated by Essjay, was also operated flagless, and as the use the same code.... :) Martinp23 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bureaucrats can do this. They can flag and de-flag them. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) - Taxman ^Talk 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit this bot's edits to no more than 2-3/min to prevent flooding without a flag. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Martinp23 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bot edits automatically appear on people's watchlist? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, forgot about that. All the flag does is take it off recent changes. - Taxman ^Talk 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the flag need to be taken off? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edits can be turned off in watchlists (although they're on by default). Also, minor bot edits to usertalk pages don't trigger new-messages flags, although I don't think that's relevant here. --ais523 14:08, 20 March 2007 (U T C)

I'm not sure of exactly why the bot should be defalgged, except that I have been informed that the old mediation bot was. I suspect that many users, after a while, turn off bot edits in their watchlists, but mediators in particular often take great interest in the edits made by the bot to both case pages and the listing pages. I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bot is doing the job of an editor, and that its edits are often important to people when they see them on the watchlist (especially as it should be the only editor to the pending cases page, where new cases are stored). Martinp23 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's page states that it is operated by the Mediaton Committee. I take it from that that the MC makes concerted decisions regarding the bot's functions. So the question would be: does the MC wants this to be left without a flag? If someone specific is responsible for operating the bot, then the question is directed to whomever it may be. This is only limited by one aspect: as Xaosflux mentioned above, if this is going to be left without a bot flag, then the pace of editing has to be limited. If this would not be desirable, then the bot would have to be flagged, unless some kind of understanding can be reached with the BAG, which are the people responsible for the technical decisions regarding bots. The fact that the previous bot was not flagged would not seem like sufficient reason, especially since MC members can still view bot edits on their watchlists simply by adjusting their preferences, unless they would like to see only this particular bot's edits, but not any others' (which doesn't seem like something that would cover every single member). If that were to be the case, we would just have to reconcile the individual preferences with the technical/policy-related limitations. But the decision can be very much of a practical nature. Redux 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally operate the bot, for the mediation committee. Personally, I have no problem with there being a bot falg in place, but have requested that it be removed on the request of the committee's chair, ^demon. To get a wider consensus from the mediators on the issue, I'll make a post on the mailing list, pointing here to the valid points raised. The bot does have a fairly low edit frequency, and is throttled by the pywikipedia framework, so it is easy to restrict the edit rate, especially as the tasks are not really time critical. Martinp23 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we ran the original without a flag was because of that very issue, some people do have bot changes hidden on their preferences. Now, as to the speed of the bot...the bot is only set to run at various intervals, it's not running constantly, so the issue of "x number of edits within a minute" is rather irrelevant. The bot might make 5-6 edits max within a 2 minute period, then not edit for a good number of hours, if not a day or so. I had brought up the point of flagging the original MedBot with Essjay at some point, and that was his justification. If consensus is against what we have done previously, and the BAG does not agree to this, then we can flag it, but I would prefer leaving it unflagged, if at all possible. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-flagging this bot seems like a good idea to me. The MediationBots aren't very active, from what I have seen, but do spread important announcements around from time to time. Also needs to be corrected sometimes. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that being the case, unless the BAG would have any objections, which I don't see happening, we can leave things as is. Cheers, Redux 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A belated note that I agree with ^demon on this. I haven't heard any objection from a MedCommer, either onwiki or onlist, so I presume it's OK. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

Time to close one RFA... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dannyisme

Since Danny has resigned from his position, what shall become of this office account? It's still a bureaucrat and admin, and if Danny no longer works for Wikimedia, would the process be to remove its status? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]