Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dweller (talk | contribs) at 18:20, 25 October 2018 (→‎Resysop request (Liz): r). 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 10
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 10:10:22 on May 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Interface administrator (Dinoguy1000)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 22:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'm requesting interface administrator for myself: I periodically make corrections to the sitewide CSS/JS files (often in the context of reusing styles/scripts on other wikis), and it would be more convenient to be able to continue making these changes myself rather than requesting them be made. I am also willing to handle any requests left on my talk page for such edits. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 22:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Standard 48 hour hold for access. — xaosflux Talk 22:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-bureaucrat comment) Are you really retired from Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 22:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I explained on WT:Interface administrators, I consider myself to be "soft" retired: while my editing here has greatly decreased from when I was active, I never stopped editing completely, nor did I intend to; the bulk of my editing activities just moved to other wikis. I've always left the possibiliy that I might return to full editing here one day. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 09:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Dinoguy1000: If your retirement is "soft", do you think you could use a {{Semi-retired}} template on your user page to avoid confusion? SemiHypercube ✎ 21:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, yes! I don't think I was aware of that template before now, otherwise I'd have been using it already. Thank you for the pointer. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special bot flag

    Done. By 28bytes. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi 'crats. Would someone please review and process Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EranBot 3. I closed this in my BAG capacity. This account will need the new "copyviobot" flag added in addition to its existing bot flag. Posting here as this won't show in the normal reports since it is unusual. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Resysop request (Liz)

    Hi, Bs! I'm back after an absence and I'm requesting admin status to return to some gnomish work. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, compliments or complaints. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely excited to see this!! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the welcome back! Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pile on welcome back. Mkdw talk 22:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had first seen you at Special:PermaLink/852883127. So yeah, this is a pile on welcome back too.
    It is genuinely nice to see you back :) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no issues once the 24-hour waiting period has been completed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no issues. Should be good to go after 24 period is up. WormTT(talk) 08:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Delighted to see you back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, Yeah!!! S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Kudpung)

    user:Kudpung following a voluntary absence from adminship due to health and other domestic reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • ​Very happy to see this my friend. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome back, standard 24 hour hold. — xaosflux Talk 03:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your behaviour before handing in the bit was shocking and inappropriate. I hope you have taken some time to reflect on your approach and will avoid such actions in the future. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Since Kudpung left me a message on my talk page accusing me of making personal attacks at him, I'll clarify my comment. I'm concerned with three things: how he responded to a simple and non-confrontational request from GorillaWarfare, how he then created drama by withdrawing support from an unrelated wikiproject and left messages on multiple talk pages about it, and most of all, how he refuses to recognize that his actions were inappropriate and apologize for them.
    I don't see any policy-based reason to block his resysop, nor do I believe in removing people because they made a mistake (or a continuing series of mistakes in this case). But if it is appropriate to welcome people back on this venue, then it should also be appropriate to flag serious concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to echo the comments of my colleague above, and too hope we don't see a repeat of such behaviour - TNT 💖 06:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with my (former?) colleagues above, and find this post quite disturbing. --Rschen7754 06:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Circuumnavigated all the way to en.Wikiversity to request a enwiki desysop away from prying eyes (v:en:Special:Diff/1905766)
    ✓ Requests a resysop without even mentioning the controversial context at the time of the desysop request surrounding GW and Kudpung (User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2018#Minor point)
    ✓ Already accusing BN responders of making personal attacks for expressing criticism (User talk:Ajraddatz#You comment)
    An interesting way to go about things, to say the least... I bear no ill will towards you, which is why I hope you'll carefully consider the path you seem intent on following. Everybody could use a bit more zen. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvidrim!: regarding the wv posting, Kudpung asked to have access removed off-wiki, I asked for a posting somewhere to confirm the access removal and suggested that as an option, it was linked in the rights log. — xaosflux Talk 11:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the additional insight. This actually only further confirms that the desysop was intentionally discreet, presumably to avoid any discussion of clouds or other silliness. And hey, for what it's worth, it may well turn out to have been the best decision, but I still think it's worth noting, at the very least as an explanation to people who can't find the usually-expected BN resignation thread. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, neither is this conversation appropriate here; this belongs to user talk pages or relevant administrative noticeboards. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to echo Alex here. These issues do not build a cloud, more a WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. If you wish to take them further, there are processes to do that, starting at Kudpung's talk page. I see no reason that we should not re-sysop after 24 hours. WormTT(talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      While I would say too that these issues certainly don't lead to a cloud, though Kudpung's talk would be a better place to do so, I think it is reasonable for people to express their concerns/advice in the fora where Kudpung is requesting resyopping (and thus again becoming an admin with high standards of conduct expected), and one could as well say that the people saying "welcome back" (who are not crats) should do it on Kudpung's talk rather than here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I'm not sure yet if it is appropriate or not. Comments so far are alluding to conduct that may or may not be relevant to this request. WJBscribe (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome back whilst echoing Ben in a more nuanced manner.∯WBGconverse 09:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I exactly echo Tony, and especially Xaosflux. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I echo the use of the word echo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess that I am finding it hard to follow the comments above, and don't have time to dig through the contrib histories of those involved today. Could someone please provide a succinct explanation of the circumstances that lead up to Kudpung giving up the tools? Were there any pending complaints at any noticeboards/ indications that a case might be submitted to ArbCom? I would also appreciate any comments @GorillaWarfare: may wish to make in relation to this request. WJBscribe (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome back. (I do believe Kudpung just requested to be desysopped, I'm not sure if there was any on-wiki problems) SemiHypercube ✎ 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudpung and I rub each other the wrong way, I think. Perhaps competing for position of Official Cranky Old Man of WP. Still, I think the question isn't "Is he a sufficiently great admin and human being", nor is it "was he inexplicably rude a couple of times, and generally grumpy frequently". The only question is, was anything brewing at the time he requested a desysop that would lead us to think there was any kind of risk to his admin bit (ArbCom, recall, long block) was coming, and the answer is no. Maybe an ANI thread, maybe a trout, maybe a warning to tone down the needless aggression, but no reason to think anything more was imminent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reviewed the sequence of events helpfully summarized by Galobtter. While it could be said that Kudpung resigned in "controversial circumstances" (the only relevant criteria mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal), their administrative actions were not called into question at the time and accordingly, their administrative status did not seem in jeopardy i.e. they were not "evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions" (the criteria in place at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat#Restoration of permissions). Please consider this as your semi-regular reminder that these two pages are somewhat out of sync and that bureaucrats should generally defer to policy pages (Wikipedia:Administrators) over information pages (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats); accordingly, the guidance at the policy page should be clarified to reflect actual practice as it is presently rather vague. –xenotalk 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To paraphrase my comments at a similar resysop request from July, we usually don't desysop (or refuse to resysop) admins for being an asshole even though it would tend to be a reason to fail RfA. Or, to phrase that much more diplomatically, conduct that would sink an RfA (like not getting along well with others) does not necessarily mean a desysop could or would happen. Whether that's good or bad, it appears to have been the status quo pretty much since day one... Maxim(talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any new rule that leads to refusing to resysop admins will lead to admins not choosing voluntary desysoping. This is undesirable from a security standpoint; inactive admins who retain the tools are less likely to notice someone compromising their account. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back Chris. I hope any health issues have abated somewhat. Simon Adler (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Old friends like Alex and WTT should not try to curtail open discussion here. Having the temerity to suggest that Kudpung's Talk Page is a suitable venue is absolute twaddle. Any mention of the concerns raised here would lead to an instant TP ban and guaranteed accusations of making a personal attack [1]. Maybe you do not know him as well as you think. Leaky Caldron 17:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since someone requested my comment, I don't actually have any issues with Kudpung being resysopped. I agree with those who have described his behavior shortly before resigning the tools using terms like "shocking and inappropriate", but I also don't think that he would've been desysopped for it and I don't think his resignation (although weirdly roundabout, as Salvidrim has pointed out) was under a cloud. I just hope he won't repeat the behavior, although I'm also not terribly heartened by his comment on Ajraddatz's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=865719379"