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	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 02:32:27 on May 21, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

BAG reconfirmations

There are some confirmations at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group that are in need of closing by a crat. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, past practice was that BAG regulated its own membership and that bureaucrats were asked to weigh in only where consensus was unclear. That seems sensible to avoid the process becoming too "bureaucratic" (in the general sense). I suggest that a BAG member close all those where the consensus is clear and that only those where there is some difficulty reaching agreement need be refered to us. WjBscribe 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed one in which consensus was clear. Mønobi 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know past practice, I re-edited the BAG policy page to reflect that. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot change

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c over the actions of a bot and of course, a parallel MfD over that discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c. Since the bot owner has already said [1] he won't listen to a consensus reached at that page, and the people at that page want a binding consensus, there is sort of a shouting into the wind aspect. Since you guys (crats) at the end of the day flag and deflag bots, where (policy rfc, user conduct rfc, WP:BON, etc) and in what form (change of underlying policy, feelings on bot activity, etc) of consensus on a Bot would you require to act? MBisanz ^talk 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well remember that bureaucrats are not responsible for approving bots, only for flagging them. Bots can operate without flags if BAG approves that. Having local Bot Approvals Groups predates bureaucrats being able to assign bot status - previously requests were made to stewards based on the decision of the local groups. When bureaucrats gained the ability to flag bots (in April 2006) they adopted the same role as the stewards, flagging based on the recommendation of BAG. Although a bureaucrat could exercise their judgment and withdraw a bot flag, we are very unlikely to do this without a recommendation from BAG or instructions from ArbCom. It is probably only in a situation where members of the group could not agree that bureaucrats would need to decide ourselves.

I think it might be a good idea though for BAG to develop a mechanism for reviewing the approval of bots - a designated place where someone can raise problems with bots and BAG can evaluate whether to require changes to the bot's operation be made in order for approval not to be withdrawn. Of course this may be open to abuse from frivolous complainants but I presume BAG would be able to identify these... WjBscribe 07:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another WP:SNOW request

Does anyone mind stopping by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anon126? I think it might be about time to call for the mercy rule. --jonny-mt 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You do know anyone can close it, right? Majorly (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Sam Korn closed it. Majorly (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked back through a few and noticed a mix of bureaucrats and admins closing WP:SNOW RfAs. Since I'm neither and there's no RfA equivalent to WP:DPR#NAC that provides clear-cut guidance, I thought it would be best to err on the side of caution and ask here. Though for what it's worth, I only thought to do that after I had the close set up on preview :) --jonny-mt 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the recent past, there was concern expressed over non crats snow closing too boldly. In this instance, it was the thing to do. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But it's good to follow the instructions on WP:CRAT, such as removing the "Voice your opinion" link and updating the final tally, which wasn't done here. --Deskana (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I was so tempted on that one, but I did not want to mess up the process. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

This question does not matter, but, may I ask why RedirectCleanupBot was flagged this way, instead of a bureaucrat flagging it? On the requests for approval page, I saw something about it being given sysop rights before being flagged, so a steward had to do it. But this doesn't make much sense. Bureaucrats cannot remove administrator access, but I do not see why they cannot flag a bot that has administrator access. This is similar to how a bureaucrat makes an administrator a bureaucrat, the administrator has sysop rights, the bureaucrat just added to it. Could someone tell me how it could be any different for a bot? Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that there were two different pages to make someone into a sysop or a bot. (Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot). I'm not sure whether it was intentional, but it was impossible to use Makebot over an account with +sysop. Hope that answers your question, Maxim_(talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Is it done through Special:Userrights now? If yes, is it possible to flag a bot with sysop rights with it? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I'm not a 'crat, but +bot +sysop +crat can be made using the same interface, so unless there's a hack preventing that, it's possible. Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. As long as you are given the rights to assign (and/or remove) groups, you can do it through Special:Userrights. I'm not sure if enwiki ever got the configuration changes to make this possible though, as that's the only reason I could see that a B-crat would be using Makebot or Makesysop now. MakeXXX extensions started showing up when more permissions were being added and more "levels" being created. As Special:Userrights wasn't written to deal with this, the various extensions made it possible. The new Userrights makes that system largely obsolete though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, RedirectCleanupBot was flagged before Special:Userrights was made available to bureaucrats locally (that has happened since I've been a bureaucrat myself). I presume now that interface is available, a bureaucrat could assign Bot status to an admin account locally. WjBscribe 07:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/robfergusonjr

Appears to have been withdrawn by candidate, but is not closed. Dlohcierekim User:Dlohcierekim/deletion 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't too bold, but I went ahead and closed it. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have, but I'd already voted. Dlohcierekim 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed WP:CRAT. Look's OK to me. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the candidate has withdrawn, I don't think it matters if someone has already participated in the discussion (as you aren't exercising any judgment). Anyone should feel free to close these. WjBscribe 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)