Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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

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	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 07:13:17 on May 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

RfA behaviours

I wondered if any other Crats had seen this, or this (permanent link)?

Leaving aside discussions of specific individuals' behaviours, I wonder if we should consider some, erm, policing of RfAs? --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship would be a more appropriate venue for discussion on this topic. Crats have a mandate to judge the consensus at an AfD, not to enforce civility or other conduct guidelines. If crats start to take an active role in policing RFA conduct, it will undermine their appearance of neutrality in making RFA closes. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm aware of the difference and of our responsibilities. I wanted to communicate with the other Crats, not with the regulars at WT:RFA. As it's not a privacy matter, the mailing list is inappropriate and this is the appropriate forum. Any Crat can intercede at any RfA without breach of neutrality, and we often do. We just opt not to close it. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "policing" of RfA/Bs outside of deciding on the consensus, which includes, at times, the weight given to particular opinions? DO you mean striking out unhelpful comments? If so, we are going to have to decide between someone voicing honest passion and someone acting like a troll. Do you mean flat out removing certain statements? Do you mean applying blocks to troll-like or highly incivil respondents at RfX in order to protect the integrity and dignity of the process and the project? -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, so much of the discussion at Wikipedia is so, well, bureaucratic. Someone raises a point that is at least worthy of discussion and the first response is to quibble over the venue for discussion and the second is to quibble over meaning. Avi, if you think it would be far too difficult to decide who is voicing honest passion and who is acting like a troll, come out and make that point. Cut to the chase. Enter the debate. There is one of those bluelink thingys that some people love to pepper their posts with that talks about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. It is must be Wikipedia's most widely ignored guideline. Dean B (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi. I have an open mind on what we do. What I am convinced about is that we should do something. Happy to let consensus guide what that something is. But first, I want to know if other Crats think 'something' needs to be done. --Dweller (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Dean, this is the Bureaucrats' noticeboard . In all seriousness, my response to Dweller would depend on what Dweller has in mind. Personally, I would like for bureaucrats to be as non-intrusive as possible in RfX. If someone is acting like an idiot in RfX, I'd hope we, as bureaucrats, would recognize it and take the activity into consideration when we measure consensus. As for more extreme measures, we do have processes in force for handling disruptive editors (RfC's etc.) and any admin (bureaucrats included) can take protective measures in the case of harassment. A question for you, Dean (and everyone else, of course), if you saw a bureaucrat take protective action by blocking a misbehaving editor, would you feel that would affect said bureaucrat's impartiality when closing the discussion? -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a crat who "policed" an RfX should close it; they might not be partial because of those actions but there is no point in a crat acting in any way that might make people even slightly question their impartiality. Although we don't imho have a sufficient amount of crats, there should be enough of them to ensure that "policing" crat and closing crat are two different people.

On the topic itself, I think Dweller is correct. Of course crats shouldn't watch RfXs like hawks and delete any possibly offending content or block anyone making a slightly unorthodox comment but they should intervene when people use the RfX for off-topic discussions or general discussions not related to the candidate and move such discussions and/or block people insisting to have them on the RfX despite warnings. For example, discussions about whether admins should be article creators belong to WT:RFA, not the RfA of somebody who did not create articles; on the other hand, the discussion why this user did not create articles belongs there (or maybe the talk page). Of course any user can already "clean up" RfX discussions but they are often challenged by others, leading to more controversy and potentially edit-warring (for example there was an edit-war about the inclusion of one of Keepscases' questions recently). Crats on the other hand are respected by almost all participants in such discussions and their job is to preserve the "institution of RfX", so if they "police" an RfX it will be better for all involved. Regards So Why 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. Policing of behavior is not a part of a bureaucrat's job. (And I don't see why incivility in an RfA is different from incivility elsewhere. I looked at the link above and it would have been far better to have taken it to WP:WQA that to rant and discuss it on the RfA itself. Determining what is or is not civil is a consensus issue rather than a straightforward judgement.) --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats may no more act as police than admins. Bureaucrats may judge finished RFAs, and nothing more. The community is more than up to the task of policing incivility. Andrevan@ 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The community has not been policing incivility at RfA very well. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's the community's failing. I'm not sure that bureaucrats should necessarily step in and pick up the ball that's been dropped. If we (as 'crats) police an RfA, it shouldn't be because it's part of our job description, but because we're seasoned editors with relatively level heads, a description that can easily be applied to non-bureaucrats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true in theory but in practice a crat "policing" such problems will not be met with the same resistance as a non-crat seasoned editor. Maybe the better way would be to accept that the community failed and make it part of the crats' job description instead. Regards So Why 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bureaucrats do tend to enjoy a bit of added freedom in policing stuff, but I prefer to consider it being because of who we are as individual editors, rather than just because we have a userright flag that most people don't. So... we're agreeing about how things currently are, just with different points of view about it. :)
I'd rather it not become a codified part of our job description, however, if only because it's not something that has to do with gauging consensus (such as with RfX closures) or something assigned to us for technical reasons (renaming and userright modifications). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks for a relevant proposal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stale BAG nomination

Resolved

A request has been made that a bureaucrat close Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Snottywong. Thanks. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the discussion, I can't tell if the BAG has approved or denied the request. Generally speaking, 'crats don't do that part; we only flag the approved bot once the BAG approves it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd appreciate a 'crat deciding/judging the apparent consensus. "Snottywong" is not a bot! Chzz ► 07:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that was a joke, I think it really highlights that we need a better system for dealing with BAG membership. See Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bot_Approvals_Group and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures, for the relevant instruction on how-to close. --Chris 08:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could make a bot to close BAG nominations.

—SW— ^confess 15:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I was reading that as a request to close a bot discussion, and I couldn't see anything about that on the page you reference, Chris. I can see now I was misreading it (shows how often I visit BAG...). As for the nomination, the discussion seems fairly non-consensus to me. I'm not sure why BAG doesn't make the determination themselves as they seem to be a fairly insular group which has pretty-much all authority over their little domain. I'm not even sure why someone has to go through that little thing to join the group, so I don't know that I would be a good person to do anything regarding that closure. Maybe BAG ought to elect some term-rotating coordinators who can make the determination for such discussions. It seems to me it would be better made by someone in the know about what they need. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. By the same principle, do you think that RfA !voters should decide the outcome of RfA's? Sorry...of course not...and that's facetious. But fact is, for better-or-worse, 'crats are empowered to give out bot rights - so we have to ask you dudes to decide requests for that flag. But, for the next level up - BRFA? hm. Interesting. Trouble is, we have no 'úber-BRFA', and so we call on 'crats to adjudicate and appoint them (or not). That may not be a fair request upon our 'crats; I'm not sure -but I'm not sure how it could be better, either.

It may be a small group, 日本穣, but it also carries massive weight - one single "rogue bot" can cause massive disruption in a very short time (as I'm sure you appreciate) so being a BAG member does carry considerable responsibility. To date, it's mostly been a genial discussion/consensus, and I dearly hope it won't become another "RfA" - but I do believe it needs due process, and someone to evaluate and adjudicate, and for now, that's 'crats. I thank you for helping in this specific inst, but I encourage any further discussion... Chzz ► 08:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't deciding to give out a bot flag; it's deciding whether someone should be able to collaborate with others in deciding who gets a bot flag. I'm fine with flagging bots based on a discussion (and I've done that before), but I fail to see why a 'crat should decide who joins an un-flagged group of editors/bot-writers on WP. For all intents and purposes, BAG is basically a WikiProject which oversees bots and makes sure they are operated according to policy. 'Crats shouldn't be deciding who can join that group. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, 日本穣, and I understand your point - but - who do you think should decide it? <honest, straight q> Chzz ► 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By deciding who does and does not join BAG we would (indirectly) be deciding what bots do and do not get the flag. Because of this, it could be argued that it's our job to close BAG nominations. In fact, since bot flaggings reside with bureaucrats on a technical level, it could even be argued that it's our responsibility to make sure that everyone in BAG can be trusted, and one way that this can be accomplished is by closing the BAG nominations. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint (and I've not thought about it enough to have an opinion yet), but I am saying that Chzz makes a logical argument and I can appreciate his point. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, closing a BAG nomination is essentially just assessing consensus in a discussion, so couldn't any uninvolved admin do it? —SW— ^squeal 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small, but important, point: you don't have to be an admin to close almost all consensus-discussions. Chzz ► 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've closed the discussion as "no consensus". This should be resolved now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bit

Resolved

Please can a bureaucrat remove the admin bit from my account. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your work as an admin over the last few years. WJBscribe (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Resolved

– done

I would like to have the admin flag restored, please. I've noticed many backlog requests at AN/I (particularly AIV) and would like to pitch in. I will gladly answer any concerns that may arise. Thanks Tiderolls 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The self-request for removal is here http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2751916&oldid=2751528&rcid=2683597. Looking at the edits around July of this year, I do not see anything resembling a cloud that would prevent Tide_rolls from getting the bit back. Does anyone else have any issues with this? -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any concerns. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no concerns; it'll be wonderful to have you back. Chzz ► 09:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could someone please remove the admin flag from my account? I've dipped back into a second period of inactivity as my chronic fatigue related illness seems to be worsening, and I could probably benefit from having any subconcious guilt at lack of activity here eased. Many thanks. --Taelus (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of admin bit?

Hello. I was de-admined because of activity in July 2011. The desire to run a Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries event at my school, though, has driven me to resume editing from this account. A mop would be useful! I've been around anonymously while inactive and believe that I'm still competent to be an admin. I will keep a look-out here for any questions. Thanks! Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]