The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulpermissions request. Please do not modify it.
Result: I am proud to announce that the request for bureaucratship below was successful. Ferien has the support of most community members, as well as two bureaucrats. I am certain he will be a good bureaucrat. I have therefore awarded him the right. Congratulations.--Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 19 administrators, and 5 bureaucrats (26%).
End date: 22:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
We currently only have one "active" bureaucrat, according to Wikipedia:Administrators#List of administrators. Recently, I have noticed a few bureaucrat requests that haven't been responded to, like the latest request at WT:BOTS and a permissions request that never ended up being closed by a bureaucrat. This shows to me that we need a new bureaucrat so I would like to volunteer to help out, particularly with RfPs and bots. I'm happy to answer any questions the community may have.
Support Responsible editor, can be trusted with the role. Jolly1253 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I mean, is this even a discussion? Ferien is an active, experienced and responsible editor; don't see a reason why they can't be trusted. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose User has a tendency to fail to step up and make the tough decision without it having the landslide backing from the community. There are also cases of them reading things into policy that is not there. Too often a B'crat needs to IAR and do what is best for the wiki. I just do not see that as a character trait here. --Creol(talk) 03:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Ferien, thanks for this request. My question is as follows (It is up to you if you want to answer it):
1. On an RFA the number support votes is 72%, there is a dispute going on of whether some oppose votes are legitimate, you happen to be closing the RFA when you see this. In this case how would you handle the situation?
Hi つがる, thanks for the question. I am assuming here that the reason there is a dispute is either because the accounts that made these oppose votes are recently created or potentially from a sockpuppet. If some of the oppose votes are from accounts that were created after the RfA, then I would simply strike them and close the RfA as successful. If they are potential sockpuppets but they are older accounts that have edited before the RfA, then I think that's one of the few cases where we should put the RfA on hold until an uninvolved checkuser takes a look. I hope that answers your question :) --Ferien (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for volunteering. I have a question regarding bot approvals. How would you monitor a bot's trial run? How should a bot perform its trial run?— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Fehufanga, thanks for the question. In a trial run, a bot should do up to 50 edits that show the work it will do, then a bureaucrat checks the edits to make sure there are no errors in how the bot is operating and that it is doing the task that the operator said it would do. The bot does these edits without a bot flag, and the bot flag is not given until the bot is approved, after a successful trial run. I hope that answers your question :) --Ferien (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, the typical way we've done this sort of request before is if 2 bureaucrats support the nomination, that is the end of the discussion and the user is given the flag. If any one Bureaucrat opposes the nomination, we go to a community discussion/vote. With that in mind, I don't think I'm going to make a vote, just as its not quite how the process works, and I think I'd be surprised if a crat opposed.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to the above, we now have the support of 2 crats, so this is a successful request. Congrats, I'll prepare the ticker tape parade. Alas, I'm all out of ticker tape.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We may be in murky waters here, with very limited crats available to close this request. As was done in the most recent request, we may need to call on the services of the active crat, either @Eptalon: or @Chenzw: to actually close this request.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 07:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't really matter. Everybody here is a volunteer. Activity is very much fluid. You can be active 5 years, do something else for 4, and then come back, and be just as effective. I have no doubt that everybody who has made regular changes here continues to have a passion for this project.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 07:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.