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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Significa liberdade	115	11	1	91	Open	22:18, 21 September 2024	4 days	no	report

It is 22:03:58 on September 17, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Arbitrators participating in RfAs following desysoppings

Forgive me for raising this ahead of time, but the thought occurred to me (prompted by an arb saying explicitly that they intended to !vote in any such RfA) that in cases where arbitrators have voted to desysop an admin or (ahem) voted to maintain a 'desysop' (those following along will know what that means, but best to keep this general), is it left to individual arbitrators (indeed even ex-arbs) on whether to !vote in an RfA run by an editor who asks the community for the bit back, or is there some etiquette where this is best avoided? What I am trying to say is would bureaucrats discount such !votes or give them less weight? Would this apply more or less in cases where arbs were privileged by sight of off-wiki or private evidence? i.e. Should arbs be allowed to influence RfAs both by voting in a case and by !voting (or even just commenting) in an RfA? In some cases, I can see arguments for it being seen as arbs interfering. In other cases, there may genuinely be reasons arbs feel they need to speak up again at an RfA as well as at the case where the desyopping took place (in some cases, it is a support after some time has passed - but where the RfA takes places very soon after the desysopping, then it can become political if arbs are seen to be !voting to maintain the result of their recent vote in a case). If you want to leave this bridge until it actually needs to be crossed, that is fine, but I thought it worth raising as some of these issues may be coming your way soon. (I am sure someone has the time to find examples where arbitrators and ex-arbs, including me, !voted in an RfA following a previous desysopping by ArbCom where those arbs had voted on the desysopping). Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• If memory serves there was an incident in a RfA a few years ago where a (then ex) arbitrator caused a controversy by writing a long argument that was effectively an oppose but wasn't called such. Beyond that I don't think there are any special rules for arbitrators partaking in a RfA that I know of, but I am not a bureaucrat. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I feel like this is starting to get into WP:CREEP. --Rschen7754 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I stand behind this opinion. I don't see this as any different than someone who was desysopped for private and offwiki reasons. And besides, if it is anything like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2, even if every arbitrator votes oppose it will be 10 opposes which will be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other votes. --Rschen7754 06:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I seem to recall generally supporting those who are willing to try for another RfA after an desysop by Arbcom - it goes with my thought process that adminship should be easy to give and remove, and if the individual has moved on, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In this particular case, obviously I would be an extremely inappropriate 'crat to close an RfA and wouldn't touch that with a bargepole, but being able to make a statement on whether I think Fram is fit to be an administrator - as a community member? I would expect to be able to. I don't honestly know how I would vote at the moment, and I'm not sure I would vote - but I don't like the idea of having that choice taken away from me. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of any relevant policy or consensus prohibiting Arbs from !voting and as a Crat am well trained to follow policy and consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is that the five day training course they send you on before appointing you as crat? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  In modern organisations, only 10% of training is given using such methods and in actuality, 70% of training comes "on the job" and Dweller has been on this job for quite some time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• TBH, I'm in the same boat as Dweller in that it is likely not against any policy or even guideline; perhaps there's not even an essay about it. Still, to be perfectly blunt, I would consider it VERY poor form, and it would likely influence any of my future voting for that individual Arb. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC) (edit:) I'll add that goes for both situations; supporting or opposing - I strongly feel that anyone promoted to sit in judgement should not be involved in the individual RfA, even as far as a strong comment. — Ched (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see any policy based reason that would preclude a member or former member of the arbitration committee from participating in an RfA discussion, even if the administrator candidate was a party to a case they voted in. I certainly wouldn't see cause to exclude only committee members that voted for or against specific remedies. Likewise, other parties to a case involving the candidate wouldn't be summarily barred. I may give less weight to !votes where the only reasoning was something like "Oppose - because I know a secret that I can't talk about" - as its value in contributing to the consensus measuring exercise that is an RfA is weaker. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Arbitrators have in the past fairly routinely supported and opposed admin candidates who ran again after desysop by ArbCom (or resignation during pending Arb requests) where the candidates ran some time subsequent to the desysop. In that context, the arbitrators tend to be offering opinions on whether the concerns that resulted in the desysop has been addressed. I am not aware that there has ever been a candidate who ran immediately after a desyop by ArbCom, effectively to test whether the ArbCom remedy had the support of the community. That does change the picture somewhat, but I can't see a policy basis for discounting Arbitrators' votes - it is a matter for them whether they think the community would expect them to steer clear in the circumstances. Echoing Xaosflux, were I still a bureaucrat, I would be minded to treat with skepticism opposition by anyone on the basis of secret evidence that won't be shared and the candidate has had no opportunity to address. I have to say that were I an Arbitrator and someone I voted to desysop immediately ran a successful RfA afterwards, I would feel obliged to resign - but that will be a matter for individual Arbitrators if we end up in that territory. WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously there's no policy or guideline that forbids it, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure we're in undiscovered territory here. It would appear to be a unique situation where an ex-admin who was desysopped on the basis on private (but on-wiki) evidence ran an RfA, and I can see issues with any Arb voting against them but declining, for obvious reasons, to show the diffs on which they based their decision. The other issue here is that even bureaucrats can't see that evidence, and would therefore be hamstrung on whether to give such a vote any weight. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know if this is the episode referred to by Jo-Jo Eumerus above, but i do recall it happening and, going back, i still find the undeclared oppose rather shocking. That being said, the arbiter in question was called out several times by other editors, which leads me to believe that as a community we are sufficiently intelligent to generally sort through chaff and bran to find the grain ~ in particular, the bureaucrats whom we trust to do so in this arena do so well and properly. Which is really just a way of saying that should the hypothetical proposed turn into reality, i for one trust that the 'crats will work out what to do without having to have it all laid out beforehand. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I had forgotten or was not aware of that (it is on the RfA talk page). That is the same arbitrator (courtesy ping) who has been saying during the case that "I would believe him and vote for him" (6 September) changing to "I will likely vote oppose at a future RfA" (16 September). I am sure I was not the only one that was uncomfortable to see potential future RfA !votes being used in that fashion during an arbitration case by an arbitrator who was tasked with fairly deciding on a desysopping remedy, but appeared instead to be wanting to express his opinion in an RfA and trying to push the case result that way. I hope that makes it clearer why I am concerned about the potential for any future RfA to be derailed by arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Ched, and if I were an Arb I'd feel ethically bound to sit out an RfA for Fram in these circumstances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I had intended to get involved by asking Fram some questions and then voting either support or oppose depending on Fram's responses. However, as there is a feeling that such an approach from an Arb who had voted to desysop would be inappropriate, and that I had previously got involved in an RfA for someone I have voted to desysop, which proved controversial enough that it prompted changes to the layout at RfA so that general comments now come at the end, I will not be getting involved in Fram's RfA. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just adding my opinion that all sitting arbs should recuse themselves from a Fram resysoping RfA, and naturally lest we forget, any WMF staff members of involved departments, even if using their non-staff en.Wiki accounts Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• My feelings are the exact those of Ched and Kudpung - Common sense really would say "It's probably best I don't !vote here given I've already !voted to support their desysop" however there is no policy or guideline that forbids it, I just hope for the sake of keeping the peace and making it less-dramatic as poosible Arbs/WMF don't participate it in but like I said nothing forbids it. –Davey2010^Talk 08:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• My feelings are the same as WJBScribe, and different from Ched and Kudpung (and others). I would appreciate the votes and comments of Arbs at an eventual Fram RFA, in line with appreciating thoughtful and considered commentary from everyone at any RFA. We have uncontroversially accepted supports from (ex)Arbs - Newyorkbrad and Opabinia Regalis come to mind - in recent re-RFAs for people desysopped previously by Arbcom. And while doubtless some people will treat an eventual Fram RFA as a referendum on Arbcom's desysop, I do hope at least part of the discussion will be about how Fram intends to behave going forward and whether the community feels that is compatible with adminship. Depending on Fram's timing, nomination, and answers to questions, I would not at all be surprised to see some arbs who voted for a non-return of the bit at RFAR vote for Fram's return to adminship at RFA. Martinp (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Consideration of a secret T&S dossier at RfA

As the arb case stands right now, Fram isn't going to get resysoped at the conclusion. For the outcome to change, two arbitrators would need to switch votes and from an outsider's perspective it looks unlikely for it to happen. If Fram were to run to RfA, how would we consider opposes based on this T&S dossier? If we look at proposed FoF #15, it would appear that this dossier is a major consideration for proposed remedy #2d. If memory of previous similar cases serves me right, a healthy percentage of opposes would probably just cite the arbitration case. We would have no coherent sequence of diffs to work with. Another thought... if there is an RfA and goes into the discretionary zone, what's the bar for recusal? It seems that most active crats have commented at length in the case (requests)/WP:FRAM/used tools. Frankly I dont think it's difficult to figure out what most of us think of the whole matter... Maxim_(talk) 12:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As a head's up, there is a non-trancluded RfA already created (not ready yet, as far as I can tell, see creator's talk page) and being !voted on... Good point about how impartial bureaucrats can be. Hope that can be resolved somehow. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: I commented above regarding how I may weigh opposes based solely on the participant knowing a secret. As far as participants citing the conclusions of functionaries with access to NDA'd information in their rationales, I think I'd give them the same sort of weight that I usually would give to other such NDA information (i.e. the conclusions of checkusers or oversighters) - even the weight that we may give participants that cite the conclusions of administrators' reviews of traditionally deleted contributions. As far as recusals go, the only bright-line rule traditionally observed is participation in the RfA. I certainly could see a call to recuse if a 'crat were recently and directly involved as a party to any escalated dispute resolution with the candidate. I don't see merely discussing a dispute to require recusing. In general, I trust that our 'crats will self-identify if they have a conflict of interest, and engage in discussion should someone else perceive such a conflict (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2/Bureaucrat_chat#Additional_recusals for a recent example). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Typical NDA-ed information is private and almost always inaccessible by the peasants whereas this part. case explicitly covers information, all of which is public. This ought to be a basic reasoning line, (irrespective of wherever you find yourself ultimately) and that's missing in your analysis. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that both checkuser and oversighted information is available to other checkusers and oversighters, so even if they can't discuss the information itself, they can contradict someone using that information incorrectly. Here, we have "something I've seen but I can't say what it is", which is effectively impossible to confirm or contradict. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As regards bureaucrat recusal, the rule of necessity might have to be invoked. Probably deserves a separate subheading. –xeno^talk 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the much less active 'crats might not have made any posts in re Fram. Whether they would be more impartial is less clear. UninvitedCompany 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If there's no crat who's considered neutral so it can't be performed locally, then presumably the technical responsibility for flipping the bit will default to someone on this list. The level of irony would probably exceed Wikipedia's quota for the next three years. (In all seriousness, in the unlikely event that this does end up in the discretionary zone and every current crat is considered as being unable to close it, this might be one of the rare situations where Jimmy dusting off the Founder bit might make sense.) ‑ Iridescent 19:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: it would fall to stewards well before employees were engaged, as they take care of administrator promotions in the case where local communities are unable to (though they may kick it back and tell us to elect more bureaucrats first!) — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a dedicated section on Stewards policy: "Local bureaucrats are responsible for granting sysop, bureaucrat, and bot rights. Stewards should only grant these rights on a project if there are no active bureaucrats available on that project" [emphasis mine]. So I'd rather argue you will have to de-crat everyone or every crats should remain silent for at least few months before we can kick in which is just not going to happen. :P — regards, Revi 11:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: I see the word "available" in that section as important - a crat with a conflict of interest is not available to act as a crat on that case. Obviously not all conflicts of interest are equal, e.g. if a crat is (co-)nominator then there is no circumstance in which they should be closing the discussion (even if it is unanimous support), but "expressed opinions in a related matter" is more fuzzy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: agree it just not going to happen - just that in some bizarre situation it still wouldn't end up with WMF employees to deal with as the next step. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And as UC alludes, we have 'crats who have been practically or actually inactive for the last several months that could be tapped. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made any statements regarding Fram. Useight (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone should give the "super secret evidence" a second thought. According to what we've been told, there is actually nothing secret about any of it, it was all compiled from diffs that can still be viewed. The only privacy concern is T&S own invention, that they can never tell us who submitted the evidence even though we all totally know who it was. If the evidence is here on wiki, let if be presented here on wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• +1 Lourdes 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• +1 — Ched (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for several Bureaucrats who would be willing to read/comment on a paper about Wikipedia RfAs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The paper describes an ML algorithm that (over 1K RfAs) predicts RfA outcome 98% of the time, even though the admin vote supports ~ 66% of the candidates. I am submitting the paper and wish to find Buureacrats willing to review the paper for the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1500:3A60:F9CB:3239:1322:A06D (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a crat, but I'd be interested to read the paper. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please give some more information - who is doing this research? Are we just proof-readers or is there a "survey" or other such information-gathering? I can totally understand a willingness towards some level of privacy, but even going so far as to create an account would be helpful if only for interaction sake (sending of emails etc). Primefac (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd read it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Great. We can use this and fire all the bureaucrats except one or two who will just nap at their desks all day and occasionally push the button. Three years later...we discover that all the new admins are named "James" or "Katya". Where is this paper. Link? Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• It'd be much less controversial than the current Crat Chats! @2600:8805:1500:3A60:F9CB:3239:1322:A06D and 2600:8805:1500:3A60:F9CB:3239:1322:A06D: (please make an account) - your opening sentence seems to compare apples and oranges. The Admin vote supports 2/3, but that doesn't mean they can't predict the result in those they don't !vote for. What would be great is if predict better than crats could. I'm not a Crat, but when you release the final version please drop a copy here so I can have a read. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't, and still am not, sure what "even though the admin vote supports ~ 66% of the candidates" means, which is one of the reasons I'd like to read the paper. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a crat, but I'd read this. However I would point out that the last 1,000 RFAs takes us back slightly more than ten years, into an era where the criteria for passing were not quite the same as today. If the 1,000 are not the most recent 1,000, or it is meaningfully over 1,000 then the study would become less useful. In particular, before Rollback was unbundled in early 2008, it was possible to pass RFA simply by being a "good vandalfighter", without having improved the pedia at all. As for the crat support percentage, some people have looked at that a little, I remember three theories about crat votes, one that we are dogs in the manger, opposing candidates to maintain our privileges, another that we tend to support with low criteria similar to when we were appointed, and a third that crats have the institutional memory to oppose certain longterm contentious candidates. As many as two of those three could be partially true. ϢereSpielChequers 09:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Another issue is that 1000 is a fairly small sample set by ML standards. Especially if, as noted above, criteria have changed over time. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Another non-crat who'd be happy to read the paper, and possibly comment. What if an ML algorithm could pre-emptively identify editors who should be admins? Have you looked in that direction? — JFG ^talk 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Prospecting for potential admin candidates is more a subject for WT:RFA, there have been various lists made of people who would likely pass. But most potentially successful candidates don't fancy running. The problem is RFAs reputation. Everyone remembers the occasional dramafest of a marginal or unsuccessful candidate, and people overlook the fact that the vast majority of the last 100 successful RFAs were 95-99% support. Finding people who would easily pass if they could be persuaded to run is not the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 20:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sign me up. I'm a former 'crat (yes, it's hard to believe, but it's still true) and I'm very much interested in how ML could replace this bunch of miscreants. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Seems like something interesting. I take that non-bureaucrats can also comment? Because I'd be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Since nobody has yet, and someone probably should, I call bullshit. Article writers don't get to choose the reviewers for papers being submitted to legit journals. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop request (Xeno)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Xeno (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Please remove the administrative userright from my account. To the best of my knowledge, the weather is clear. –xeno^talk 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done best wishes xeno. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the purpose of requesting removal of the admin right and leaving the bureaucrat status? There is no security advantage to doing so, since if compromised a bureaucrat account can add sysop to itself. Might as well have just kept the userright and not used it, or requested both both be removed until needed again. Seems silly. Prodego ^talk 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Because we don't know what the rules even are anymore, with the foundation banning people based on secret reports and invisible rules and the arbcom desysoping admins based on evidence they won't show us despite claiming its all publicly viewable? Just a guess... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Prodego: I’m not willing to use the administrative toolset until certain questions are settled and concerns have been addressed. Accordingly, I do not wish to inflate the count of administrators or to have users seeking administrative actions from me. Also will provide a much-needed reconnection to the project as a (mostly) regular user.

I was going to suggest the “self-adminning” concern could be solved with a technical change but this wouldn’t solve anything as a bad actor could just add sysop to some other random account instead. –xeno^talk 06:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I still remain uncomfortable wielding the administrative toolset until the administrative community has been properly advised the rules of engagement under which they're operating, and whether existing community procedures for review of administrative actions will be respected by the Foundation." Seems far from silly to me - more like principled and honorable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Boing! I have been sorely tempted to resign my bit, but I think I can provide a better service for the work I do by keeping it. Full respect however for those who have made a magnanimous demonstration against all that's not well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Seems silly". Uncalled for, easily avoidable insinuation by an experienced, largely absent editor. -1 to Prodego; +1 to xeno. Lourdes 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Well; than goodness for those...Err...hundred mainspace edits on the last four years. Where would the 'pedia be without them :D ——SerialNumber54129 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, where can I read about this latest drama? Prodego ^talk 15:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRAM/wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2. Might take you a minute to get up to speed.... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.