Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 151: Line 151:
:::::::{{ec}}. I agree that where there is no ostensible grounds to discuss it, e.g. a possibly contentious userbox already on the candidate's page, such a question is beyond the scope of RFX, and I would endorse its removal had it not already been answered. But there is no need to sanction the asker. That would be purely punitive. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] ([[User talk:WilliamH|talk]]) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}}. I agree that where there is no ostensible grounds to discuss it, e.g. a possibly contentious userbox already on the candidate's page, such a question is beyond the scope of RFX, and I would endorse its removal had it not already been answered. But there is no need to sanction the asker. That would be purely punitive. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] ([[User talk:WilliamH|talk]]) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::<small>A mildly Reaganesque solution the asker would doubtless agree with LOL <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</small>
::::::::<small>A mildly Reaganesque solution the asker would doubtless agree with LOL <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::For what its worth I also agree that the question was inappropriate but that emphasizes one of the many flaws in the RFA system. That isn't my main concern though, I am more concerned about the tone and attitude being displayed in the comments. It seems that they can say anything that wany to the nominee but if the nominee responds with anything they are pointy, defensive, battleground mentality, etc. I would suggest that it would be greatly beneficial to have some kind of RFA committe like AUSC or teh FA process that overseeas the RFA process and keeps the process civil. With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free. I'll just have to try again in a few months if I don't get banned first by those that should be banned but are in the positions of power. It just means I won't be able to help out and the backlogs will continue to grow in areas where I would be glad and willing to help out. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:04, 17 May 2013
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    Shortcuts

    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 1
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 12
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    Asilvering 0 0 0 N/A Discussion 09:15, 6 September 2024 6 days, 2 hours no report
    It is 06:18:27 on August 31, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Bureaucrats will lose a right (renames)

    This is to inform the bureaucrats that all usernames will become unified across every Wikimedia Project and that the usernames will become global starting May 27. This means local bureaucrats will no longer have the ability to rename or usurp users.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a relevant link. Graham87 09:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not just usurpation. Special:RenameUser will no longer work locally so all renames will be done on meta. WJBscribe (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Far too many changes all at once for my tastes - but maybe I'm just at an age where I want things to all go back to the way they used to be. (see: WP:ECHO for reference to "too many changes", which I realize is different than the topic here). And if I get renamed "User:Ched~en" here simply because there's a "User:Ched" on the French wikipedia - boy am I gonna be having a hissy-fit. — Ched :  ?  15:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Avi ... wait. Which is at a foundation level? The missing notification bar? The 'Crats ability to rename? ... or are you saying I really am going to be "User:Ched~en" ... Cause if it's the last one - I want time to go to something like "User:Ched#1" or something. Ya know - the "Foundation" really does need to stop and think about WP:WER, and I'm not being sarcastic or humorous on that. If it's their intention to drive away all the adults just so the kids have a playground to run amuck on .. then they may well be headed in the right direction. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I find out that MZM is behind this missing orange bar .. boy is that young man gonna get an earful from me ... errr ... I mean "screen-ful" — Ched :  ?  16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news, everyone! Writ Keeper was kind enough to create a script that lets you keep the old orange bar. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js I like the new system, but at least you have a choice now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did they remove the orange bar?—cyberpower ChatOffline 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Today. See Wikipedia:Notifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a most unusual day. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    m:OBOD --MZMcBride (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rats. Now I have to come up with another April Fools joke for next year. :p—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Global SUL is a foundation-level initiative. If you are the most active "Ched" in Wikimedia, you shouldn't have to worry. Moreover, you actually have the current SUl for "Ched" and are merged on most projects, so you are almost certainly going to own global SUL Ched. There are four unattached Cheds (commons, es, fr, and ru). So if RuWiki Ched is not you, likely that person becomes Ched~ruwiki. But the foundation is firm that we must go to a global SUL, so conflicts must have some form of resolution. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DerHexer made a flowchart of how we should handle SUL Finalization in the leadup to the switchover. MBisanz talk 22:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Is there a way to get a list of all enwiki users who will lose out as a result of SUL Finalisation and be renamed to User:Foo~enwiki? It would seem a good idea (especially if we want to retain these users!) to send talkpage/email notification to them and invite them to choose a new global name. I realise the same result will occur if we don't warn them in advance, but it would be courteous to do it if we are able... WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created an FAQ page for this SUL finalization: Wikipedia:Unified login/Finalization. Don't hesitate to spread the word and share the text (and correct it because I'm not a native speaker). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks DerHexer! I've gone through and copyedited it all. — Scott • talk 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thank you! Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    While on the subject of names, I have a proposal which will help stave off the otherwise inevitable problem that "good" names will be depleted. See User naming convention proposal--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tools

    Now that the Crat's responsibilities are being reduced, maybe now is the time to consider splitting up the Admin tools in some way, to let some editors get the editor based tools to deal with history merges, deletes, etc. and a different "rank" that has those tools and the block tools. I know it is a perennial topic, but the timing might be better now. Maybe "Crats" get the block tools. Of course, that means a lot of admin would have to get the crat bit by some means that is likely to be problematic, but not all admin are interested in blocking, and many non-admin would pass RFA if not for the block tool. Just a thought. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This does remove the main concern I've had to lowering RFB standards or otherwise breaking up the toolkit, so I'm generally in favor of it. MBisanz talk 14:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you're seriously suggesting that the countervandalism tools should be moved over to 'crats? That all admins who have any interest in countervandalism would have to go thru a RfB to be allowed to continue their work? Said RfB where they'll get opposed because they're not a good fit for promoting new admins or bots? ... Snowolf How can I help? 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if this change was implemented, I think the voter attitude at RfB would change drastically. Frankly, I'd say it's a great idea. It would seriously rejuvenate the oft-inactive RfX process. Of course, there would probably have to be some kind of transitional period so we could get enough people promoted to crat to be able to deal with spamming and vandalism and the like. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If this goes through, be prepared for an immense surge of RFBs by antivandal admins. I'm talking on the order of 50+ simultaneous RFBs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that CUs would have to be crats or have the blocking tool added to them. Countervandalism benefits from having a lot of admins. --Rschen7754 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And be prepared for most of them failing for lack of content work, lack of the bureaucrat-like behavior that the community expects from Bureaucrats, etcetera. If this idea was considered seriously, one of two things would have to be adopted: a) allow all current admins who desire to keep doing antivandalism work to obtain the 'crat rights by simple request or b) make all current admins 'crats and in any case c) seriously rethink the 'crat promotion procedure. I'm not exactly sure what we'd be gaining thru this massive undertaking. Snowolf How can I help? 18:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary role of the bureaucrat will remain to identify and implement community consensus with regard to RfX's, no? -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I think changing the sysop flag just to compensate for the bureaucrats loosing a right is a Bad Thing. We'll be just fine without being able to rename people, we don't need to be consoled... EVula // talk // ☯ //
    • No one is suggesting consoling, or even just moving the block tool to Crats instantly, but now is a good time to consider something in the way of changing the structure of the tools, since the fine line between Crat and Admin just got thinner. There are valid reasons to split the purely editing tools from the vandal tools, and now may be a good time to discuss the idea. Whether it stays two levels, or goes to three, I will leave to the discussion, but change is often easiest to get when there is already more change happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we've only just concluded a 3 month RFC on RfA reform which included looking at alternative tool set arrangements. Just because 'crats are loosing a fairly uncontroversial function does not make this a good time to discuss what amounts to a sizeable upheaval. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis mentioned "rank", albeit in quotes. That's all I need to see I'm afraid to know that this is not one of his best ideas. "Rank" implies selection, bureaucratic process, badges, official roles and hat collecting and every thing that is bad about RfA duplicated so that more editors can have more access to privileged use of tools than others because of some self perceived notion of need or competence. More trips to ANI and more disputes would be inevitable for an unquantifiable benefit that no one has presented. Leaky Caldron 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What about giving crats bigdelete (deleting pages with over 5000 revisions)? It would save people having to flag down a steward. --Rschen7754 20:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My thought was that as long as we're going to have massively under-utilized crats, using this as an excuse to reconfigure the allocation wouldn't be a terrible idea (like giving BAG +bot and Crats +IPBE). But I see that's probably not something that's workable. MBisanz talk 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I still don't understand what the issue is now. So renames will be handled by stewards. The crats have a primary role, and that is to decide community consensus re: flipping bits; that has not changed. And that is the primary difference between an admin and a crat, no? So we'll have less to do as crats now, good. That's more time for admin work, or dare I say it, editing? . -- Avi (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do think that now is a good time to reconsider the distribution of tools. I do know that a great many users would like and could be trusted with the editing tools, and have no interest in the blocking and reviewing of deleted contribs. Again, I don't care if it is a new "moderator" bit for just the editor tools, or moving some to crats (which would mean a lot of RfBs, I'm aware). I'm just saying that the difference between Crats and Admins has never been so small, so a realignment or adding of a new tool set bit might be a good idea about now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing tools are given to all users, including IPs. Snowolf How can I help? 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you understand what I'm saying, the delete tools for CSD, AfD deletions and merging, which are editing tools. There is arguably some merit to giving just those tools to trusted editors who go through some type of RfX process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a complete process for determining trust - RfA. Long may it continue - at least until it isn't granted on a life-term basis. No difference in my book between trust needed for extended editing tools and trust to exercise use of blocking rights. It all amounts to maturity and judgement. Indeed, some might say that more trust is needed for article management which can be less visible than, say, blocking someone. Leaky Caldron 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis, from the perspective that bureaucrats have historically been drawn from the pool of admins, the line between them is thin, but the bureaucrat role itself is clearly separate from that of administrator (managing permissions of users based on community-approved processes, including what bots they can run, and for what purpose). Keeping the roles distinct helps avoid conflicts of interest on the part of the bureaucrats. I realize this is actually tangential to your general proposal of looking at changing how user permissions are bundled and granted, but I think your statement is clouding the discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What is now, and what would be, the position of a user name that is an obscenity or other unacceptable term in one language, but perfectly acceptable in another? (Can't think of an example for the moment...) I mean the sort of thing that DQ's bot and patrollers load up at UAA. If a name is acceptable, say, on frwiki, but not here on enwiki, how can it be blocked for name change? Peridon (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have to file a request on Meta to be changed, instead of locally on en.wiki, per your example. We have had SUL for 5 years; the fact that it's being finalised doesn't change username policy. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So it will still be blockable in the one language, but usable everywhere else? But to edit in the one, it would have to be changed for everywhere? Peridon (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Correct. 2. Correct. If it were to be changed now, then per your example, an en.wiki bureaucrat would rename it, breaking the SUL, and effectively creating a second account. Following finalisation, they would either have to be renamed by stewards on Meta, thus changing it for everywhere as you say, or they would have to create a second account with a different name for use on that project. The end result is the same regardless of SUL finalisation: change your name, or have more than one account. WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I think real names should always be OK. If your name is "Chew Kok," you should probably go through OTRS to verify your identity, but after that it should be fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing obvious RfAs/RfBs

    It's always obvious that RfA's with a less than 70% result will fail and an RfB with a less than 80% result will fail too. WOuld the 'crats be opposed to having a bot make these kinds of closes?—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A 'crat can close failed RfA/Bs with a rationale to assist the candidate in any future application. Can't see a BOT doing that. Leaky Caldron 14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many problems with how RFA works, but RFAs having to be closed by humans is not one of them. I can't see one single benefit to this proposal. What problem would this solve?--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit is obvious. However, I agree that the personal note from the closing bureaucrat is important, so see that "cost" as materially exceeding the benefit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit would be obvious if we had 50 RFAs a month. Right now we have 50 a year. It looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer the question directly, yes, I think on the whole the bureaucrats would be opposed to an RfA closure bot. It isn't an area that we need assistance with, and to drag out an oft-used comment, the percentage thresholds are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. We retain the human element to make sure that consensus is gauged and that RfA doesn't become a straight vote (though it often appears to be), and using a black-and-white numerical threshold removes that human element. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not "always obvious" whether an RfA will pass or fail at a certain threshold. Or, for example, what if we wish to extend the RfA? Or hold a 'crat chat? So I am opposed to an RfA-closing bot. At any rate, closing RfAs has not overwhelmed us in many, many years. Maxim(talk) 23:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are so few RFA's, this is more of a technical solution looking for a problem that's not all that apparent. Plus, RFA is truly a judgement situation - and some candidates really want the feedback. No harsh words intended to cyber, BTW (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have the 'crats indicated (by word or deed) that they feel overwhelmed by the current load of RfA/RfB closures, or that their other responsibilities aren't being fulfilled due to the handling time associated with the closure of unsuccessful RfAs/RfBs? I know that there are a few editors who get horribly twitchy when any RfA stays open an hour or two past its official closure time, and a few others whose sense of propriety is offended when any obviously-failing RfA is allowed to run out its full duration, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to feed their neuroses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting idea, but certainly a solution looking for a problem. 12 hours can be a frustrating eternity for a candidate waiting for an obvious closure, especially a successful one , but technically it's not an issue. Any positive changes to the RfA system would probably require more intervention from the crats rather than less. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    SUL Finalization Delay

    Please see: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-May/000233.html for more details. MBisanz talk 23:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We're relevant for a few more months! (in all seriousness, thanks for the heads up) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh .. well by Aug. we'll probably be gearing up for the Arb election - but yes, thanks for the info Matt. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid point, though one would expect that there will always be some sort of reason to delay the finalization. Still, I think I'll try Echo's handy-dandy pinging capabilities to grab jdforrester's attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @EVula: I hope there will be minimal interference for that, given the way that the ArbCom election works. Also, there's a difference between a cross-wiki vote involving tens of thousands of users, and a vote for ArbCom here that doesn't, even at its peak. [I corrected your link, BTW.] Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving on from one broken deployment to another doesn't seem like a strategy designed to fix anything. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate RFA question

    Hi, what is the opinion here of question #9 in this RFA? I almost felt like removing it but the candidate already answered it. It seems not an appropriate question to ask. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it's inappropriate, but as you say, the candidate was willing to answer it, so there's probably not anything to be done at this point. I suspect other RfA candidates will respectfully decline to answer the question should it be asked again. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave my 2¢. Since when does a candidate's political views become an issue in a RfA ? Mlpearc (powwow) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I see it in a future RfA I'll remove it. That's just asking for trouble. Wizardman 17:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be helpful since he is planning to ask it in every RFA from now on. See here Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The asker of the questioned should be sanctioned. Basket Feudalist 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I be sanctioned for asking for transparency? There is at least one other user who is for admins, and potential admins, to display their "political/social beliefs". We can discuss the question, and perhaps it can be improved, but I do not see the need to be punished for asking a question. If I am punished/sanctioned for asking questions, what does that say about those who oversee our community?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant. It's an unscientific, totally subjective uncontrolled 'test'. And WP's integrity and independence is going to be nailed to the wall as a result. And talk about P -O- V-! Basket Feudalist 18:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think sanctions are appropriate, but neither was that question. It smacks of McCarthyism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict). I agree that where there is no ostensible grounds to discuss it, e.g. a possibly contentious userbox already on the candidate's page, such a question is beyond the scope of RFX, and I would endorse its removal had it not already been answered. But there is no need to sanction the asker. That would be purely punitive. WilliamH (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A mildly Reaganesque solution the asker would doubtless agree with LOL Basket Feudalist 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth I also agree that the question was inappropriate but that emphasizes one of the many flaws in the RFA system. That isn't my main concern though, I am more concerned about the tone and attitude being displayed in the comments. It seems that they can say anything that wany to the nominee but if the nominee responds with anything they are pointy, defensive, battleground mentality, etc. I would suggest that it would be greatly beneficial to have some kind of RFA committe like AUSC or teh FA process that overseeas the RFA process and keeps the process civil. With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free. I'll just have to try again in a few months if I don't get banned first by those that should be banned but are in the positions of power. It just means I won't be able to help out and the backlogs will continue to grow in areas where I would be glad and willing to help out. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=555553126"