Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Attacks in my RfA

After finding my first RfA close fiddly I have now spent time (as seems to be the case with all my code work these days too much time) with a script to close RfAs. It can theoretically do RfBs also but I haven't done any testing of that. I've done as much testing as I can think of but I'm sure there are bugs. But I think it will successfully guide crats (or admins for SNOW/NOTNOW) through the steps. I've tried to make it simple to use (either doing it with a button press or with a copy followed by a paste of the code). There is one action where I haven't been able to get it completely working (the chronological table updates) and this is prominently noted. The script can be found at User:Barkeep49/rfxCloser.js. Please let me know any thoughts or bugs you find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Very cool. Looks like we'll have a few chances to test it out in the next week. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I discovered an issue, someone pointed out the recent RfX table didn't get updated (because it wasn't in the instructions which I changed), and Stephen on my user page pointed out a problem I hadn't seen in my testing. I hope to fix all these by the time the next RfA ends. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This is terrific. I think we always put up with all the legwork because ... well, 'bureaucrats', but I really appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

When you're happy it's working properly, {{u|Barkeep49}}, I suggest that Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures is updated to reference it. I would also suggest we keep the directions for the manual version somewhere (and not just in the diffs), in case one day your bot fails for some reason. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The idea of adding instructions for the script to that page makes sense so that crats have equal choice here. I am definitely not really happy with it at the moment, but also have had so little time for anything that's not U4C at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Rfplinks|Tinucherian}}

In accordance with this motion please desysop Tinucherian. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{resolved|The CC was closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I have opened up a 'crat chat for EggRoll97, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EggRoll97 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal to create an Election Administrator user group, located at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal. The Election Administrator user group would have the ability to create and edit local (English Wikipedia) SecurePolls. English Wikipedia setting up its own SecurePolls is a new feature (normally SecurePolls are set up by Wikimedia Trust & Safety on votewiki) that would be used in administrator elections.

If implemented, this will affect CheckUsers because they will receive the ability to view private data in the SecurePoll extension, and this will affect Bureaucrats because they will be involved in the process of adding and removing Election Administrators. Please take a look at the proposal, and if you have feedback, feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:What impact will this have on Arbcom elections, which can now also have local election admins? Risker (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I want to think this proposal through with my crat hat on. But @Risker, as a former Arbcom electcom member as long as consensus remains to have Stewards and explicitly not enwiki CUs do the scrutineering for ArbCom elections, I do not think those elections should be setup locally and should instead continue through the current votewiki/securepoll process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Scrutineers are not election administrators; they are two different roles. The election administrators set up the (SecurePoll) election, but also can review votes. Scrutineers do not do that. Risker (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I misread the impact of giving securepoll-view-voter-pii; my concern was that CUs would get PII that they otherwise would not be eligible to get if we held arbcom elections locally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Agreed, but this question should probably get added to the annual election RfC. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{small|(non-crat comment)}} I argue that the technical implementation should come first as NL rightly says and we can sort out details in a follow-up RfC. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)