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	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 09:55:59 on November 1, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Copied from WP:VP/A - username change queue

The bureaucrat who usually does the username changes (Nichalp will be inactive on Wikipedia until the end of October (as per his user page), and there is a long list of Wikipedians awaiting name changes who seem to be getting increasingly rowdier. Is there possibly another free bureaucrat who can take over his duties until he gets back? Ellie041505 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (or, hopefully, Eilicea)

The backlog is only two days, but still looks a bit long, so I decided to post this here. Kusma (討論) 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any one Bureaucrat who is reponsible alone for any particular duty, Nichalp just prefers to focus on username change. This [small] waiting period in answering the requests is happening because we only have 4 Bureaucrats who are active on a regular basis, and two of them are temporarily inactive. Don't worry, Taxman and I will get around to answering all of the requests. We always try to answer requests as soon as possible, but a waiting period of 48 to 72 hours is not uncommon in those cases. Regards, Redux 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Essjay did the lion's share by far, and he's not as active now. I started a thread on Wikipedia talk:Changing username relating to reducing the number of allowed reasons to change a username to reduce administrative and server overhead. Please comment there. - Taxman ^Talk 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm back from a lengthy holiday, and will be available to help with bureaucrat duties for the foreseeable future. — Dan | talk 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Making it up as you go along

I don't recall approving bureaucrats to hand out arbitrary lengths of adminship service because they don't really know how to make the decision. Adminship has never, ever been handed out for 8 weeks at a time as a result of an RfA. Did you actually tell anyone anywhere taht you planned to do this if they supported Carnildo? Or are you just making it up as you go along? You don't own RfA, you merely implement its decisions, and no part of its decision referred to two months. -Splash - tk 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also object. I did not comment on RfA/Carnildo3; I can't recall having anything to do with this editor; so perhaps I'm neutral on him. I have been occasionally active on RfAs. This editor may be rehabilitated, a fine admin -- or not; I have no idea. I do see that the RfA was contentious and the tally borderline. My instinct in such matters is to err on the side of caution; I would invite the candidate to reapply in a few months and see if community sentiment changes. Guesstimating from the change since RfA/Carnildo2, clear consensus may well form in favor -- then.

I definitely don't like the precedent set by "temporary" adminship. Has this ever been done before? Has the community expressed any desire for this measure in general? Where does this door lead? B'crats are expected to make tough judgement decisions; it's routine. Is this a creative solution or a failure to make the call? Also, exactly under what circumstances and by what method will Carnildo's sysop privs "expire"? Who will make the decision to revoke or extend them? Sorry, but evaluating admin performance is not a b'crat function; it is ArbCom's or a steward's, if not the community's. John Reid 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not involved in the decision that led to Carnildo's resysopping, but to clarify: his adminship is not temporary exactly. It is under probation. This means that, after a given period of time (two months), the ArbCom, not the Bureaucrats, will review his record as an admin for this period of time and decide on whether or not to remove his admin bit again or let it stay. If the decision is made to remove his adminship again, a member of the ArbCom will post on Meta, at a forum called Request for Permissions, where a Steward will take care of the request and remove the flag. Redux 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that RfA doesn't own bureaucrats either. Presumably they are empowered to take actions that in their best judgment are for the good of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no precedent for probationary adminship and I dislike to see it set by fiat. I object to the term "own"; it is an inappropriate straw man. RfA determines who will and who will not become an admin; b'crats are empowered only to implement community will -- not to paternalistically watch over the community and do what's best for us. If we want a probationary admin, we'll ask for one.

This is a very old, well-established principle: Power is divided between the rank-and-file on one hand and Jimbo and the Board on the other. ArbCom is a comparative novelty; power is expressly delegated to this body. Power is not delegated to admins or b'crats -- not in any way. These classes of users exist solely to implement community will.

If there are any b'crats who don't agree with that last statement, please speak out clearly right now. John Reid 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the Carnildo decision, and am reposting my comments here from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carnildo_3. Discussion has also reached User_talk:Carnildo and WT:RfA.

The role of bureaucrats is to gauge community consensus. WP:CRAT says that bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community", WP:RfA says that bureaucrats "review the discussion to see whether there is a general consensus for promotion", and Taxman, one of the three bureaucrats behind the decision to promote Carnildo, acknowledges that "As a bureaucrat it is my job to determine consensus in RfAs." Yet the decision makes no mention of consensus, and only references community opinion to say that while many users oppose Carnildo's adminship, he is being promoted anyway.

The threshold for consensus was not met here. Although RfA is not a rigid vote, consensus tends to be gauged by percentage, with bureaucrats "generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone", in Taxman's words. Carnildo's RfA closed with 112 supports and 71 opposes, a 61% ratio. The true ratio may be even lower due to users (like [1] and [2]) not bothering to oppose when they saw that the RfA was already well below the threshold for promotion.

There has arisen a dangerous misconception that when deciding whether to promote, bureaucrats are permitted to "weigh the arguments" or make arguments of their own at the expense of community consensus. Neither WP:CRAT nor WP:RfA gives them such authority. Rather, it is the job of the community to make arguments and weigh each other's arguments during the discussion. The job of bureaucrats is strictly to gauge consensus. Of course, they cannot do so by mechanically counting supports and opposes, but must watch carefully for sockpuppets and other consensus-obscuring factors. And of course, bureaucrats are part of the community too, and in their role as community members, may participate in the discussion themselves. But in their role as bureaucrats, when deciding whether to promote, they are bound by the community's will.

In addition to lacking consensus, this decision had other problems. First, although bureaucrats may participate in RfA discussions, it is best for impartiality that they not close discussions in which they have participated, unless the outcome is uncontroversial due to an obvious consensus or non-consensus. Danny, who supported the RfA, nonetheless holds "primary writing credit" for this very controversial decision. Second, transparency requires that bureaucrats discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion openly. Taxman pledged to do so when he became a bureaucrat, but now admits that with respect to the current decision, of which, as far as I know, not a peep was made prior to its surprise announcement, he "did different from what [he] said [he] would", a "mistake", in his words.

In short, the decision to promote Carnildo was made without transparency and without consensus. If the bureaucrats believed that "special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case", they could have presented that view to the community and sought consensus in the ensuing discussion. Instead, they issued a highly irregular decision without public consultation. It is disappointing and worrying to see trusted users exhibit such disrespect for the community which granted them their positions, and I urge them to recant. Tim Smith 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think what transpired is that Carnildo was put up for RfA by User:UninvitedCompany. Word rapidly reached the members of ArbCom, sparking a discussion on what to do. Three members of ArbCom that voted to have Carnildo's sysop powers removed subsequent to the pedophilia userbox war came out in support of the RfA in the first day. As the RfA's time period waned, it became obvious that the RfA would not pass. Discussion ensued between some bureaucrats and some members of ArbCom on what to do. A decision was made to promote Carnildo, and use the closing RfA as the vehicle for doing so. I could be wrong in some of the above; it's speculation.
• In my opinion, what should have happened is the RfA should have been allowed to fail. Subsequent to that, a case should have been submitted to ArbCom re-opening Carnildo's role in the pedophilia userbox war, to re-evaluate whether the desysopping should have been permanent, or temporarily suspended.
• What should happen now, and so far (to my knowledge) has not happened is a full accounting of exactly what transpired. This is a highly controversial case, and transparency is being demanded by a number of users. If the case can not be presented in a convincing way that the community can support, then it would seem there would be basis for overturning the decision. Mistakes can and do happen. In the least, some statement by the bureaucrats as to why this case should or should not be a precedent for future considerations and what impact this decision has on future (and some would ask for) past RfAs should be made.
• The bureaucrats didn't just make a controversial decision. They shattered the mold that RfA has held to for years. To date, this has been without satisfactory transparency or explanation. I am not going to say the bureaucrats made a mistake. I've been witholding personal judgement on that pending explanation by the bureaucrats. However, such explanation has not been forthcoming. This is...disappointing. --Durin 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Durin's speculation as to the chain of events is interesting but not wholly accurate. Please note that Carnildo's nomination was offered by UninvitedCompany, a former Arbitrator and a member of and regular participant in the Arbitration Committee's private discussion list, the same as I. UC specifically raised the issue in our discussion list, and the matter was discussed at some length. UC's nomination was after this discussion and the Arbitration Committee was appraised of, and generally not opposed to the nomination, in advance of it being made. The nomination was not a surprise to the Committee, as Durin suggests. Several of us (acting as individuals, but with the gravity that a members or former member of the Committee has) deliberately supported the nomination early on.

The decision to promote him was made by the three bureaucrats who claimed to make it. The Committee was not (as a whole) consulted on the question as to whether he should be promoted. One member of the Committee objected after the fact to the promotion, although that member's opinion appears (from the discussion that followed) to be a minority of one within the Committee. I was present for the tail end of the discussion to promote Carnildo, but by the time I joined the discussion the decision had been made; I played no role in that decision. I did not represent the ArbCom in that discussion. I am not, at this time, at liberty to name who else was present, although I will state that at least one member of the current ArbCom was present at the time I joined the discussion.

It is my belief that if the ArbCom were asked to consider whether Carnildo should be returned to sysop status, prior to the RfA, the Committee would likely have agreed to do so. Even after the RfA was completed, I believe the Committee would have done so. I believe that I am not alone in this evaluation of the Committee's likely action, and that any member of the Committee would likely come to the same conclusion after reasonable consideration. I believe the three bureaucrats who decided to promote Carnildo, were advised of this state of affairs by representative(s) of the Committee, and concluded that promoting Carnildo on their authority, rather that on the Arbitration Committee's, was in the best interests of the project at that time.

I see that someone above has made some starkly legalistic argument about bureaucrats and sysops not being delegated their authority from the Board and therefore restrained to act only as agents of consensus or some such folderol. That is, frankly, nonsense. Sysops and bureaucrats, as with all editors on the English Wikipedia, are charged to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Consensus is a tool we use to gauge the best interests of the project, but it is not an end in and of itself. I applaud these three bureaucrats for having the moxie to break from the stifling expectations of the pseudoconsensus that typically erupts from any given Request for Adminship and instead evaluate the broader picture and make a decision that reflects more than merely the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Close withdrawn RfA

It appears that User:Nimur has commented (just below his answers to questions, just above the !votes) that he's ready to withdraw his RfA and try again later. Close? Newyorkbrad 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, yes, you can close out any RfA in which the candidate indicates their withdrawal, and add to WP:RFAF. NoSeptember 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot flags needed

2 Bot request have been approved for bot flags, please see:

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Escarbot &
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of the two. Cheers, Redux 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Renewing my call to suspend RfA

A couple of months ago I called for the bureaucrats to suspend RfA. I'm renewing that call. I am asking all bureaucrats to refrain from promoting new admins until such time as the community develops a process for promoting admins that isn't broken. The current process is too capable of promoting unqualified candidates, excludes qualified candidates for thoroughly irrelevant reasons, and often generates hostility and bad blood. But as long as it functions at all, there's no incentive to change it. An agreement by the bureaucrats to suspend promotions would force the community to actually deal with the issue, instead of blithely ignoring it. The Sean Black and Carnildo RfAs are great examples.

At least give it some thought. Don't dismiss it out of hand, the way you did last time. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that RfA is broken and that it needs replacement. I strongly disagree that this is the place to propose turning it "off". B'crats are not given that latitude, sorry. I will surely entertain a proposal to overhaul RfA and I pledge to work with any serious proposal. I oppose any b'crat sit-down strike.

I'll repeat: In regard to promotion, the sole job of b'crats is to implement community will -- not to determine, control, or correct it. John Reid 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree. Bureaucrats are given that latitude. They are expected to act in the best interest of the project; they are not mere automatons who exist only to promote people who meet certain numerical standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The role of bureaucrats is to gauge and implement community consensus. WP:CRAT says that bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" and WP:RfA says that bureaucrats "review the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for promotion". It is the job of the community to determine the best interest of the project by making arguments and weighing each other's arguments during the discussion. The job of bureaucrats is strictly to follow community consensus. Of course, they cannot do so by mechanically counting supports and opposes, but must watch carefully for sockpuppets and other consensus-obscuring factors. And of course, bureaucrats are part of the community too, and in their role as community members, may participate in the discussion themselves. But in their role as bureaucrats, when deciding whether to promote, they are bound by the community's will. Tim Smith 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Whatever our written policy may say, Bureaucrats may not, for instance, promote a clearly unsuitable administrator even if it's the community's will. Ignore all rules applies to bureaucrats, too. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that the sampling on RfA is not very reliably a "consensus" of the community. The largest RfA I've seen had some 175 votes. There are over 10,000 active editors on the English Wikipedia. Frankly, I think a sampling of less than 2% of the community can't really be characterized as a "consensus". I know that I don't participate in RfA not because I think it's unimportant or that I don't care, but because I find the toxicity of RfA sufficiently unpleasant that I don't want anything to do with it. My opinion is not counted because I find the process unpleasantly repulsive, not because I don't care. I wonder how many other editors are avoiding RfA because they find the process distasteful; I doubt I'm the only one. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly actually participated in five RfAs during the past month ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]), the last just hours before the above post. Consensus on Wikipedia—about an article, an adminship, or anything else—rarely involves a sizeable percentage of active editors. In practice, because RfA is open to the community, the consensus of editors in a discussion is taken as a proxy for the consensus of the community. It's true that sampling irregularities can skew the result, and bureaucrats must watch carefully for such consensus-obscuring factors. But their job remains to gauge and implement community consensus.

To address Tony's example, different people have different standards of suitability for adminship. If community consensus is to promote, then the candidate is suitable in the eyes of a large majority, and unsuitable only in the view of a small minority. In that case the closing bureaucrat may indeed promote. In fact, that commonly happens. If the bureaucrat decides instead to ignore all rules and not promote, then they must answer to the community for doing so. Tim Smith 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I join Kelly in urging the bureaucrats to seriously consider suspending the process of making new administrators. An alternative to this would be for bureaucrats to routinely close out RFAs in a more conscientious manner, instead of just counting up sacks of me-toos from the RFA groupies. But I think that might require an expanded corps of bureaucrats to cope with the workload. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think bureaucrats are not already closing RfAs in a "conscientious manner"? Angela. 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself understood. My point is not that they're not conscientious (they are), but that perhaps routinely increasing the amount of work being put into closes, distinguishing good reasons for oppose or support from poor ones, listing editors who contributions are against the spirit of RfA (such as those who always vote support), might be an alternative to Kelly's proposal. I also recognise, you will see, that this would entail substantially more work and might require more bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Angela, I certainly do not believe that the bureaucrats are acting unconscientiously. Rather, I think the current structure of RfA itself engenders harm to Wikipedia, and that bureaucrats should refuse to participate in it in order to put an end to that harm. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's consensus (that word again!) that there are times RfA isn't working smoothly, though no consensus at all about how to improve it. But this suggestion is not a solution to anything. We have a pending RfA in which the votes expressions of opinion are running something like 90 to 0. Are you suggesting that the closing 'crat should refuse to promote, in a clear case where RfA worked fine, to draw attention to the fact that in other cases it doesn't? Sounds highly counter-productive, and a bit like a WP:POINT situation to me. Newyorkbrad 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is that all promotions should be suspended. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly's suggestion was that the bureaucrats "refrain from promoting new administrators" and "suspend promotions" until the RfA process is revised, to "force the community" to come up with a new process. If that is done, then even the uncontroversial promotions in cases where there's no dispute about application of the RfA process at all will be held up. I still don't see the value to that. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the "uncontroversial" candidates are uncontroversial because nobody asks the right questions. We've had uncontroversial candidates who turned out to be bad admins, after all, and a lot of people who make admin these days do so because they've deliberately gamed the system in order to become admins. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the right questions aren't being asked, you are as free to ask a question or present a comment as anyone else. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The value is obvious. Produce a non-broken process. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'crats are doing the best that they can and are attempted to act in a manner that is both professional and effective. If a process is screwed up, it doesn't mean the 'crats are. They are human beings capable of seeing beyond simple numbers or a list of names. They may mess up, but everyone does. I think the 'crats should be and can be trusted in the vast majority of circumstances. Yanksox 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, closing the RFA is not the best solution. I agree with you that the RFA has become a mess, and the quality of admins in the past are much better than some of the present day ones. So why is this happening? I have a few thoughts: Well, power corrupts and as the size of admins increases it's becoming more of a cabal and we find many users shooting down valid candidates on really flimsy reasons. I've noticed that the RFAs that have the highest chances of passing are the ones which have been nominated by well known wikipedians. Calling and end to the process without proposed solutions is certainly not the best way to move ahead. Why don't you give 'crats the mandate some more elbow room in subjectivity? Either way if we go ahead (as Splash has put it above), we're accused of being partial or not considering 'legitimate' concerns. My concerns are mainly the fact that if just *one* well known user objects, you're going to get a whole army of mechanical "nodders" agreeing with the editor, without going in the reasons why the candidate may have acted in that fashion and the opposer could be wrong. What do we do then? I know that the candidate may have just got a little hot one incident, so can it be integrated for all instances in the future? I certainly don't feel so, but if we do promote, there are accusations of us having ulterior motives and what not. Please do suggest some alternatives before calling for a suspended session. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an alternative that makes sense to me. Most of the comments/concerns are centered around voting and unreasonable oppose rational, and many are suggesting giving Bureaucrats more discretionary power. Instead of turning RFA off, why don’t we try something like this for the next 5 nominations? See what happens. Rx StrangeLove 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, as it were, recently I started a new guideline called Requests for adminship is not a vote. It has effectively been incorporated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter. It clarifies that bureaucrats have wide discretion in determining community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Having contributed to the current language, I'd like to say that I consider it a reflection of the existing system and not a license to expand bureaucrat discretion. In my opinion bureaucrat discretion is and should be narrowly construed except when exceptional circumstances exist. It is important to the sense of community involvement and fairness that the closing of average/normal RFAs be handled in a way that is transparent and predictable. Also, I would be very dissappointed in any Bureaucrat who felt that RFA should be suspended in the absence of a community mandate to do so. Bureaucrats are trusted to implement community standards and expectations; they are not empowered to force their own views upon the community. Dragons flight 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that suspending RFA will solve anything. However, I do once again urge everyone who is interested, and most particularly Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin, to participate in earnest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship or otherwise start a discussion independent of RFA itself. I believe that a major barrier to any sort of change at RFA is that no demonstrably better alternative has been presented in sufficient detail to withstand scrutiny. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is in part because no concerted effort has been made to determine just what is wrong with it and what the goals of such an effort would be. Lots of people say its broken (of course, lots say it isn't). Fine. You can say its broken. But, without any idea of what is wrong with it and what the goals are, you're just taking shots in the dark and are likely to make it worse, not better. --Durin 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously broken because it's changing rapidly in unexpected directions. Hopefully it will become unbroken pretty soon. Perhaps those who are changing it know what they're doing, perhaps not. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing whether it is broken or not. --Durin 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing RfAs via WP:SNOW

I've got just a brief question - can a non-bureaucrat editor (in good standing, invoking WP:SNOW or WP:IAR) close and delist normal RfAs as failed if they accumulated far more opposing votes/comments than supporting ones in a short period of time? --Charon 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely yes. If a mistake is made this can always be reversed. If he's merely being disingenuous or shows poor judgement then his snows and iars will not prevail. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be common practice, though I would advise it only in cases where the outcome is very obvious. Anything approaching a close call should be left to run its course (unless it's particularly acrimonious, in which case it might be best to ask a bureaucrat to consider closing it early). — Dan | talk 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only a few editors whose RFAs I would close myself. If an editor is under several existing arbitration remedies, which he habitually breaks, has recently been blocked, is associated with an anti-Wikipedia website, was desysopped a few days ago, and his RFA has turned into a rout, well I think it's a bit obvious. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)