Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

As I was managing a user talk page at Meta, I noticed that a local admin has been inactive globally for two years. Per our procedure about inactivity, I have left a note about retention of rights during their editing hiatus (see User talk:Bjelleklang#Activity: no edits or actions for over two years.) I will try to come back in a month, though that I cannot guarantee my memory on that one. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The User has edited on 15 July 2018 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: not sure what tool you were using, but it appears to be inaccurate, both w:en:Special:Contributions/Bjelleklang and GUC (warning slow loading page) show edits here last year. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Enterprisey (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi everyone! I'd like to request intadmin for myself. I will primarily maintain

There is a standard 48 hour hold for this request. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scratch tokens. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have indeed enabled 2FA. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fastest admin-to-int-admin in the West. SemiHypercube 22:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1989 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I'm a mean SOB, and because his reply-link script doesn't work on my talk page, so he's clearly exclusionist, and because my crackers I'm eating now are too dry, and I'm hungry, and thirsty, and pizza, and what was I talking about again?end humor—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Purple - ABOUT TIME SQL^{Query me!} 00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously. I was wanting to make a humorous oppose but couldn't think of one.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment on his RfA — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep Mz7 (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose if reply-link works in this reply, because that means he's overqualified for the job :P Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter, it works. :p —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't understand - why are so many non-bureaucrats chiming in here as if it was up to them? This is the bureaucrats board and this is a decision made by the 'crats - isn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  MelanieN, Editors may discuss the applicant, but the final decision rests with the reviewing bureaucrat. Hhkohh (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In this specific case, I'll admit the pile-on support commentary is pretty useless because Enterprisey is such an eminently qualified candidate. However, as this is a pretty sensitive permission in general, I think it's a good idea to allow endorsements and objections from non-bureaucrats in the community during that 48-hour "hold" period between the request and the earliest the permission can be assigned. The quote that Hhkohh referred to comes from the page Wikipedia:Interface administrators. Mz7 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say it is really that people don't need an excuse to vote support or oppose on things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per Galobtter. He sums it up well: wiki[pm]edians liking !voting, especially when it's a lot like voting. I agree that most don't need an excuse. On a more serious note, it's possible that such standardization of bold support/oppose/delete/keep/etc. !votes, while wholly unnecessary here, makes providing dissent more palatable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nbo}}s helping us with the decision. –xeno^talk 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. Thanks for clarifying. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a hard decision, if I may be so bold, but regardless I do want to point you to to WT:INTADMIN, where Enterprisey was an active participant in initial discussions around interface-adminship. Specifically, archives 2 and 3, where you will not only find dozens of instances of individuals urging Enterprisey to run for RfA ( Done) but also noting that Enterprisey was one of the few editors who made the "Should RfA be required?" question actually worth discussing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That is a >99% Support rate. There must be something wrong with this guy. Lourdes 03:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just to offset some of these ridiculous opposes ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis Brown, what's so ridiculous about my oppose?? Apologize immediately! :D —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis's comment is an affront to all of us making perfectly reasonable, totally serious opposes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now as I review the candidate. Mz7 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [insert lengthy rant about placeholder neutrals] Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Galobtter, [insert complaint about ranting at a neutralizer] —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, if I knew this was happening, I would have opposed for hat collecting! He's been an admin for a week! ;) Natureium (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Galobtter (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello folks, per

 Bureaucrat note: There is a standard 48 hour hold for this request. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Geez, where's the love for Galobtter? Enterprisey is a hard act to follow I guess... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No Problems. I don't see any reason Galobtter shouldn't get them. ···
  Join WP Japan! 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've seen Galobtter around, and nothing I've seen suggests they would abuse this flag. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Why not? Galob has a need for the tools and I think it's highly unlikely that he would abuse them.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  GLOB!!?? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Galobtter: Fixed, I'm very surprised I didn't catch that earlier. :) Please don't block me!!!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can all agree that admins are not likely going to abuse this permission, otherwise it would have already happened a lot more in the last decade. The real question should be is the requesting account secure enough to ensure that they won't be compromised while possessing the bit and will the requesting account be responsible with JS files? These are general questions not being specifically asked to Galobtter.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would trust Galobtter with my JS files. No problem. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support shows need, trustworthy, account is secure, if we can have an admin become an int-admin within a week of being promoted, I guess this should happen too. SemiHypercube 14:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]