Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ferien

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions 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)

Ferien

Ferien (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 22:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

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.

Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination --Ferien (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

• Support Responsible user. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Koqkpa talk 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Active and experienced admin, no apparent concern or disputes about user rights abuse. MathXplore (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support He deserves it. --Haoreima (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support An experienced user like this deserves this no cap. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Experienced and trusted enough, no issues.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Deserving editor. -Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 10:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Good editor. YIEWI talk 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Responsible editor, can be trusted with the role. Jolly1253 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Chenzw  Talk  11:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support I honestly find no reason for opposing Ferien; he has been a good admin so far.--Eptalon (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Yes. Operator873 ^connect 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Honestly, this user should have been nominated awhile ago.🄰🄽🄸🄼🄰🄻 🄴🄳🄸🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Definitely! :-) Thank you for volunteering. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• 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)

Comments

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?

Thanks --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

thank you Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you for your response. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  @Chenzw, Djsasso, Enfcer, and Eptalon: As this was done on the last RfB, I'm pinging all crats to make them aware of this request. --Ferien (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  @Gordonrox24: I have some drywall tape on order, but it won't be here until Friday. Will that do? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  That should do quite well. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 07:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  I agree as DJSasso and Enfcer are not that much active now. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 07:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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.