Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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.

Click here to add a new section

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 21:28:57 on June 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

CHU/CHUU

A picture of my boss. Sorry I'm not around at the moment to help. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz seems to be the only one patrolling these pages anymore. Are we down to one active bureaucrat? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I take a visit it usually seems it's under control. Of course, you probably have better perspective than I do on that matter. bibliomaniac15 06:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Almost every time I've visited the page over the past few weeks, everything's been done. I managed to do one or two requests by catching them immidiately after they were posted. It's the same with RFAs. But I'm active, if I'm needed. --Deskana (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're talking about... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know one's work is being appreciated: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I realise those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed, but I do find these sorts of threads a bit depressing. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies from my perspective. Sudden stress IRL means lower profile here. But we don't seem to be drastically backlogged anywhere, do we? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread was more to ruffle some feathers to direct attention to the outstanding requests that have been sitting there for a while. At least it worked... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just not that high priority of a task. While we are here in our role to serve the community, the real reason this project is here is to improve articles and as such something like WP:VITAL is drastically higher priority. That's why I've long advocated reducing the types of renames that we perform or at least discouraging those for most reasons. - Taxman ^Talk 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll ruffle YOUR feathers... Andre (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth remembering that I have a much more distinctive signature than most of the other crats, so at a quick scroll of a page, my comments tend to stand out a bit more. Certainly don't feel like I am the only person doing work, although it would be nice to see some of the less frequent names (i.e. those who haven't responded here already) at CHU. MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at them almost daily, and I'm ready to step in if necessary. — Dan | talk 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know from experience that Dan does good work ;P — Ched :  ?  20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh 3

Do we need a broader discussion about this RfA? I note that a non-crat has marked it as closed, pending decision. As a matter of personal reaction, by vote total and strength of argument, I would be tempted to close as unsuccessful, but I'm leaving it for a more experienced/active crat or for a discussion. -- Pakaran 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's expired and so no one should be voting, but too close for a non-crat to give consensus hence the closure with the "pending decision" colour. So it's up to the crats to decide the outcome.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  286° 59' 0" NET   19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Expired" does not mean "no one can comment" - The expiration time is the earliest that the request can be closed, not the exact time that it must be closed. Mr.Z-man 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but don't comments go on the RfA talk page after it has expired?   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  291° 8' 45" NET   19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And uh, sevenseas, if you could tone down the colors in your signature, it'd be much appreciated. My eyes hurt >.< iMatthew ^talk at 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should change my signature soon, but is it really that bad?

"Perhaps we should let a bureaucrat add this?" I agree a bureaucrat should add this, but it seems it should have been done a few hours ago and I'm pretty sure that nothing more should be added after an RfA has expired.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  291° 8' 45" NET   19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's really that bad. And I'm not sure you saw Mr.Z-man's comment above? An expired RfA doesn't mean it can't be commented on. iMatthew ^talk at 19:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven days is the minimum time for an RfA to run, not the maximum. RfA timing is not rigid. It closes when a crat says it is closed. — neuro 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven Seas, please do not add that template in the future, comments may be made anytime up until a crat closes it and non-crats should not be determining the conclusion of the comment period unless it is NOTNOT/SNOW or the user requests withdrawal. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakaran, since I commented in support on his first RFA, I can't close this one, but I don't see anything so unusual about it that would render you incapable to decide on your own. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my errors, I wrongly thought that once an RfA expired, the priority was to close it as soon as possible.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  306° 29' 45" NET   20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to break any rules, I only wanted to help out.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  307° 9' 45" NET   20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you want to help out, but it's best to look at what policy says before taking action. WP:BOLD is one thing, but closing an RfA is another. :) — neuro 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to take you, thesevenseas, or anyone else to task. After some consideration, I agree with MBisanz that there's no exceptional circumstances present here (other than a closer vote total than I've closed since becoming active again). If there's no objections in the next half hour or so, I'll close. -- Pakaran 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As the candidate, I do have a request. I ask that whoever closes my RfA provides an explanation of the reasoning behind their verdict, as the !vote percentage is in the discretionary range. Timmeh 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems very undiscretionary to me, very rarely (about thrice iirc) have RfA's ever been closed when below 72 or so percent. — neuro 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed now and seems unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to. Perhaps I'm more hesitant than warranted, but after being inactive for some time, and the minor drama that ensued after my first close, I've been erring on the side of caution. Certainly, to promote at 70% would take truly exceptional circumstances. -- Pakaran 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pakaran shouldn't touch this RFA. With three and a bit years largely "missing" regarding Wikipedia edits I would have no confidence in his ability to be sure he is closing one way or the other within community norms. That's not any attack against Pakaran's general ability, simply a statement of fact that the evidence of his recent activity does not deliver confidence in his knowledge of RFA. Wisely, Pakaran highlighted the RFA to BN without taking action. Whilst Pakaran would be a more than welcome addition to the 'crat team I would feel that after this length of inactivity there are, shall we say, issues with him returning and suddenly closing RFA's. Perhaps a reconfirmation RFB that does not pass at 13/1 would be a good idea. Sorry to be so mean, and again it's nothing against Pakaran personally of course. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, closed anyway but I leave my comments Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If a significant number of others share your concerns, I'll be happy to ask at admin review or RFC for suggestions on what I might do before continuing as an active crat. I was one of the first crats, and have been one of the less active, certainly. Since returning, I've performed 3 closes, all of which were successful by reasonably wide margins. Only one of them attracted concern about my actions, which turned out to be due to a misreading of a typo on my part (rather than a significantly early close, which was originally thought) [11] as well as some outside issues regarding interpretation of a vote that shortly preceded my close (I'll link details if anyone asks). At any rate, at this point, you're the only one to raise concerns - and I think standing for a re-RFB would shed more heat than light and is, so far as I know, unprecedented. -- Pakaran 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I have closed Timmeh 3 as unsuccessful, explanation on his talk page. Pakaran, I do not feel a RFC is necessary. I'm glad you're back active in crat work. I just suggest you close obvious ones first and work into the more borderline/discretion ones, like we all do at first, but of course you could move along at a faster pace than a brand new crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I wish no more dramaz than we have at the moment I would note that Pakaran's chances of passing an RFB with his 3.5 year inactivity would be zero. Actually he'd not even pass RFA in the current climate or tenure requirement. However closing a 90%+ RFA is hardly the most complex task in the world so, basically, whatever. I certainly would not want a drama fuelled RFC. The project is fucked anyway, so another crat who has barely edited in four years isn't likely to make it much worse. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A significant proportion of the older admins and crats wouldn't pass at current standards (and, certainly, my getting admin at ~550 edits and crat at ~2k wouldn't now). (Incidentally, Angela for one became an administrator at under 100 edits, significantly earlier than I did). As for your claim that I wouldn't pass RFA or RFB now, I'm not sure. I certainly think that my contributions are more narrowly focused than the "median" successful RFA, but my overall edit count is higher. Of course, if you want "would pass now" to be the standard for folks to continue, that would be a pretty major change in policy, and one that I don't think would solve any practical problems (but would lead to a flood of reconfirmations). All that said, I don't think the tone of your remarks is helpful in raising opportunities for improvement for myself or "the project". -- Pakaran 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, the caustic nature of your comments here aren't helping at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my apologies for upsetting anyone. There's never any point on commenting on anything is there really. I'll strike the lot, to keep you both happy. After all, hearing a different opinion from your own is clearly "caustic" and, as usual, simply ignorable. However the fact that Pakarn seems to think he would pass RFB (or is "not sure" that he wouldn't more accurately) (per his comments above) are, I'm sorry to say, proof he knows very little about the current RFA/RFB climate. Any RFB from anyone with his sporaidc recent history would bomb. We all know that. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, if you ran for RFA or RFB today, I would oppose based on these comments. Andre (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you ran for either I would oppose you for your utter lack of communication skills evidenced by your lack of definition above. Nothing is getting improved here, sadly. The thread is done I feel. I am off to bed so will not be able to reply until around 07:00 UTC so please do not mistake my lack of response with a lack of interest. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get into a flame war, but although your comment disparaged my communication skills, I have no idea what you mean by "[my] lack of definition." Personally I think Pakaran is a valuable contributor and a guy whose years of experience more than qualify him to make any consensus call he wants, regardless of his recent inactivity. RFA is one of our more timeless processes, and is today as petty and political as it was in 2005. Regardless of either of our opinions on this RfA closure and Pakaran's fitness to perform it, your comments here are inappropriate, and smacks of bitterness about the lower numerical standards it may have had in the past. There's really nothing TO bureaucrat as a position and I don't understand why people spend time making comments and taking stands here. Andre (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, they must spend time making comments and taking stands here because they feel it is important. I do worry sometimes that we get carried away in criticising people for not raising points nicely enough rather than understanding that the reason they are being brusque is that it really matters to them. There are a not insignificant number of editors for whom the fact that long inactive bureaucrats who have lingered around without involvement in the community may involve themselves in controversial actions. Instead of brushing the whole thing away because Pedro was rather blunt, perhaps it's time we had this debate openly and properly? On the one hand, I think the concerns Pedro is voicing have merit, and I remember the matter being of concern to Cecropia when he was one of the most active crats, but on the other I think that both Kingturtle and Secretlondon have done great work as bureaucrats despite early appointments and long absenses. Why not have the debate about these issues properly, rather than reacting whenever they are brought up in a less than ideal manner? WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, thank you for assuming good faith on Pedro's behalf, but I can't see the legitimacy of doubting the competence of Pakaran, Kingturtle, Secretlondon, or even many of the others like Cimon avaro or TUF-KAT. My perception has been of many of these issues, as you mentioned above, that "those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed," and certainly deleting a few inactive ones would help that. I also find these sorts of threads a bit depressing. Andre (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I can certainly reassure your Andre that not only do I have absoultely no intention of running RFB, I would also fail one dramatically if I did. So you can at least be comforted that I don't raise these concerns out of some hidden agenda - I raise these concerns because they are, well, concerns. Pedro :  Chat  06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

←I've banged my head a few times and I still can't get a decent argument to fall out one way or the other. The community certainly seems to take an uber-serious approach to RfB these days, and by those community standards, Pakaran shouldn't be closing RfAs. OTOH, Pakaran seems like a nice guy with a solid history on en.wp, I doubt he'd make a mistake, and it's likely that any mistake he might make would be dealt with properly ... and he does in fact have the authority to close under the rules the WMF set up, so as long as he does a good job, why not? That's the problem here, I think ... cratship was mandated in 2003 by the WMF, and although I have a lot of respect for the people who have worked for the WMF and gratitude for what they've done, bad things seem to happen when you mix WMF thinking and Wikipedian thinking; the community as it exists today would never have set up a process with a lifetime appointment that failed everyone who got less than 87% (after the first two months). I'm not personally unhappy with how RFAs are closed, crats do a good job with that, but I can understand Pedro's discomfort with an institution with very un-Wikipedian rules, and I second Will's motion to open debate, it can only help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Will and Dank. And my apologies for the edits above, in particular to Andre. I certainly understand that me coming shouting and swearing is not going to give anyone a positive view of my point and that was poor behaviour on my part. WJB essentially captures it neatly - I find it very frustrating that these tools can be held by long dormant or virtually inactive accounts - or accounts that simply do not partake in the project side. I also agree very much with Dank's sentiments. I'm not saying the closes Pakaran has undertaken where poor - they were not - but I did find it very concerning that he might swoop onto an RFA that was clearly less than blindingly obvious. To be honest at first I assumed Pak was a rename from one of our more active team!!. As I noted elsewhere I believe the close by Rlevse was fully accurate (even though I supported). My beef is not that RFA but as outlined above. Rightly or wrongly (most wrongly) RFA is a big deal for people and the trust placed in 'crats magnified because of it. That's just the way it is. A venue for discussion (not here) would (hopefuly) be beneficial. Pedro :  Chat  17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand Pedro's concerns, probably along the lines of WJBscribe, but I am far less concerned with Pakaran appearing and doing something stupid than I would be about one of the redlines of Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal/2009 popping up and closing an RFA without mentioning on BN that they didn't know how to. At least Pakaran knows how the procedures work and that 70% was something close enough that he might not be ready to close it without asking others. I really can't blame someone for being cautious and asking for help as opposed to leaping blindly and hurting himself. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Uncle G

In light of the comments made at a current Request for Arbitration, I have proposed a new process, that the Arbitration Committee can choose to employ, for referring de-sysopping proposals to the editor community at large. Full details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proposal by Uncle G. The proposal involves Bureaucrats. I don't expect you to be wildly surprised by the details of the proposal. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

CHU

I popped in to do some cratwork as I had a little spare time for once and found that the bots aren't working. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick, now's the time to strike, before the bots can recollect themselves to overthrow humanity's tyrannical rule! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

E-mail Canvassing at Kww's RfA

Just FYI, I was canvassed via e-mail to support Kww's RfA by User:Provingyourhuman. It looks like a likely sock. I'm not sure who the sockmaster is though, or for what side. The request was to support Kww, but I opposed Kww's last RfA and it could be drawing up individuals in that camp and looking to discredit Kww at the same time. The request used some fairly inflammatory language about inclusionists, but was still "civil" on its surface so I am refraining from taking any action or replying myself. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Has a check-user been done? Irbisgreif (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so. –Katerenka (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things to say: first, I did not canvass, nor ask anyone to canvass on my behalf. Second, I think events are supporting IronGargoyles "discredit" theory. Note that since IronGargoyle's !vote, there have been three opposes in relatively rapid succession, one of which (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_3&diff=320154703&oldid=320153601) specifically receives mentioning the e-mail as his method of being alerted to the RFA. Two of the three are from editors that opposed at my second RFA:

• Dekkapai
• Dreadstar.

Needless to say, I do not like seeing my RFA marred in this fashion. I can't predict what change this will make in an RFA has been sitting at the 70% threshold for days, but I can ask that a detailed enough investigation be launched that we know who received these e-mails, and hopefully can determine who sent them.—Kww(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Any chance we can get a log of who those e-mails were sent to? I assume that is logged...Hobit (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, the log only records that an email was sent and it hashes the identity of who it was sent to; only the devs have the hash and it would take something upwards of a subpoena I suspect to convince them of the need to violate the privacy of communication. MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah "This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail." I always thought the recipient would be known... Never mind. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What about how many messages were sent? I don't particularly care for the recipients. I trust they can use their own judgment to declare that they received the email or it influenced their decision (which, given the intended recipients it probably didn't). But it would be helpful to get a hold of the scale. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That should probably be retrievable without too much hassle and given to the crats in their private mailing list. Since this RFA looks like some of the more complicated RFAs to close (at least at the moment), I imagine that it might lead to a crat chat or at the very least, require an extensive rationale by the closing crat and in both cases this canvassing should be addressed. I agree with Kww that this looks like someone trying to discredit him to sway people to oppose this RFA - on the other hand, some people might have taken it for face value and supported because of the email. Today, 5 people supported the RFA and 6 people opposed it, so if we assume canvassing to have happened, it might have influenced both sides equally. Needless to say, it needs addressing anyway... Regards SoWhy 10:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just noting that I have received the e-mail from User:Provingyourhuman, presumably because I opposed a previous RFA by KWW. It has not influenced my decision over the RFA which I was aware of and have not decided whether to comment on or not. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also received this email and opposed last time. I am still deciding whether to vote this time but the email will not influence me either way. Dean B (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)