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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 08:23:24 on May 12, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

RfA discussions

Unresolved

 – There is an ongoing RFC: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. –xeno^talk 15:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO, this would be a good time to discuss whether

1. "weight of argument" should be used or not used in closing RfAs.
2. Whether arguments which are related to information which we are officially barred from asking as questions of editors should be given weight or no weight in an RfA discussion (I understand age, gender, gender preference, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc. are topics which one may not reasonably ask of an editor - correct me if I am wrong).
3. whether consideration should be given to specifically assigning greater or lesser weight where an RfA has been discussed on sites outside the direct purview of Wikipedia (including IRC discussions, blog discussions etc.).

This appears to be almost the "perfect storm" for such a case as all three elements I suggest should be discussed did appear to be salient to this RfA. Collect (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope nobody minds my weighing in as a non-crat and frequent RFA opposer. Bureaucrats shouldn't weight arguments on either side unless an RFA is in that community-accepted 70-75% discretionary range. Outside that, oppose rationales should not be expected to be particularly comprehensive or forceful. Unfortunately, certain 'crats like WJBScribe (see his post in the topic above) categorically reject this premise, and as a result opposers sometimes err toward being loquacious assholes so their opposes will fully count, which results in RFA being the unpleasant gauntlet we all know and love. Townlake (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RFA was not meant to be a straight vote, no? And RFAs have passed at under 70%. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

They have. The statement on WP:RFA is "Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to bureaucratic discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion." Worm^TT(talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I read your position as "never assign weight even if the number of improper votes is greater than the number to effect a different result." In the case at hand, I read about 40% of the "opposes" (24/58) as being specifically and primarily directed at age, where there is no basis for saying that we can demand "proof of age" for an admin any more than we can ask "what gender are you?" and "what is your education level?" or "are you gay?" or the like. So on that basis, I think I would demur with your response. Of course, the community absolutely can formally impose age limits on admins, but I do not find any record of such a proposal gaining past approbation. Collect (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (note: Anyone of any age may edit articles or register. Wikipedia does not even require that users disclose their age when registering! seems apropos here. Coppa states: (1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection WMF sets a minimum age for Arbs on the basis of confidential materials - not on the basis of judgement ) Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we put aside the age question for a second I am left with one question: "Is it reasonable for people to oppose someone based on private information that was improperly leaked which had nothing to do with behavioural issues, and is it reasonable to give such an oppose significant weight?"

This is a case where private information was leaked about the candidate. This information did not in any way reflect poor judgement from the candidate, just their private circumstances(private info like age, gender, nationality, religion etc). Opinions on age aside, this information poisoned this RfA and I think it should have been taken into account, just like sock puppetry or canvassing would be taken into account.

This candidate had their private info leaked and then used against them. Then when it was time to determine consensus these opinions based on private info were seemingly given significant weight.

I think we have failed this wikipedian in more than one way at this RfA. HighInBC 14:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we had improperly leaked information that would be a valid concern, but when the user themselves revealed that information I don't think we can call it improperly leaked. -- GB fan 19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case the information was oversighted. HighInBC 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the original edits were, but the comment that was found and mentioned in the !vote in the RFA was put in place before the disclosure was oversighted. So who improperly leaked the info? -- GB fan 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is information that was oversighted years ago. HighInBC 14:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what was oversighted and when. I also know what wasn't oversighted and when it was introduced. The timeline is important. The information was introduced by TAP (under a different username). The comment that was introduced into the RFA to support their age was made on the old user talk page. Finally the original disclosure was oversighted. The comment should have been oversighted at the time also but it was missed. What I would like to know is who you think improperly leaked the info? -- GB fan 17:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not attempting to lay blame or suggest that any editor acted inappropriately, that is a much murkier issue. My concerns is that the information was private information and that private information should not be a valid basis for an argument against a person. The fact that one mention of their age was oversighted demonstrates that it was a privacy issue. The fact that a repetition of the information on a talk page was not oversighted does not make it cease to be private information. HighInBC 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood the post above where you said "private information that was improperly leaked" and thought you were saying someone leaked information that was private. Thank you for clarifying what you were talking about. -- GB fan 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in hindsight it was a poor choice of words. HighInBC 23:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the RfA discussion page, if the Request for Adminship process is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote, then arguments should not be weighed on individual opinions in order to alter how they are counted, as this is still a voting process. Whether or not a given argument has consensus support of the community should be evaluated, and the relative weight of each argument determined. In other words, lay out the pros and cons, determine by consensus the relative importance of each, and then see if the advantages outweigh the negatives. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• As a relatively newer bureaucrat, I've been seeking some clarification as to exactly what the community understands our role in the RfA process to be and what specific mandates we have been given in the past. Remember, the bureaucrat's authority at RfA is entirely dependent on the Wikipedia:Administrators policy. If the community wishes bureaucrats to take a more involved role in "policing" RfA (rather than determining the consensus result), it should be explicitly written in to Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator so there is some policy-based reason for our acts. The RfA process also has no separate policy or guideline surrounding it, it is perhaps time to implement one. –xeno^talk 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hopefully not. Traditionally the bureaucrats have been perceived and respected as low drama, no drama, boring -- well, bureaucrats -- who faithfully execute the will of the community / arbcom without letting their personal opinions (rarely can we tell if they actually have any) interfere with their dedication. This is important as these are the folks with the hands on the sysop / desysop switch. Policing Rfas will always be a gray area quagmire, and asking the BN community to get sucked into that will inevitably tarnish that reputation. NE Ent 02:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If this is the feeling of the wider community, then bureaucrats are the judges, not the referees, of the boxing match that is RFA and the community needs to be reminded that they should provide the referees so the bureaucrats can remain impartial as judges. –xeno^talk 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Xeno the admin policy already says the RfA is determined by consensus and not a vote. The consensus policy says that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

While practice may differ from policy, the actual wording of policy does require that the arguments given on various sides of the issue have their quality ascertained through the lens of policy. I don't think this is what is being done though. If AfDs were closed like RfAs then we would count I like it votes with equal weight as strong policy based reasoning. HighInBC 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever, or in a specific case? –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant in general. I don't take issue with this recent close, it was well within the realm of discretion. HighInBC 17:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the merits of this discussion. However, unless the crats want it here, wouldn't it be better to move it to the Talk page? Normally, there aren't that many posts to this board, and generally they have to do with resysopping, desysopping, and other substantive matters involving the crats. Now there's so much activity here I feel like I've walked into a partial clone of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, which, at least from my personal point of view, is not a place I enjoy visiting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  It doesn't belong on the talk page.

  I don't think any of my fellow bureaucrats mind hosting this discussion here, but our participation at RfA is at the pleasure of the community. A discussion about how bureaucrats are/should be handling RfXs could be held here or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, as this is currently the governing policy for us using our technical ability to add the sysop userright (or indeed, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but please draw our attention to any consensus result). –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. –xeno^talk 15:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Resolved

For reversing an arbitration enforcement block out of process, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysoped. They may only regain adminship after a successful RfA.

Supporting: Courcelles, Thryduulf, Seraphimblade, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone

Opposing: None

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

Inactive: AGK, Euryalus, Roger Davies, DeltaQuad

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Noting for the record that this was actioned by 28bytes. –xeno^talk 12:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cratstats

One of the surprises that greeted me upon my emergence from extended Wikibreak was the fact that crats no longer perform renames at WP:CHU. With that in mind, should we remove the CHU entries from Template:Cratstats? bibliomaniac15 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, either that or grey it out and mark it as "historical". Removing it all together gives a different impression. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstood the template, which I don't use, it's not a stats template at all, it's a "what needs to be done" template. Anyway, Xeno's below answer is right. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because bureaucrats still perform renames if they are global renamers. Also USURP can only be tended by local bureaucrats as there is no global usurpation policy. –xeno^talk 11:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Crats' opinions on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

Chaps. I've just become aware of this page and haven't read it in detail yet. I wondered whether we ought to be involved individually, see if we can compose a group response that we can all agree with (I know, I'm an optimist) or whether we felt that we should keep a watching brief? Totally open-minded. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a read this morning. I'm an advocate of reform but I don't think that RfC is going to go anywhere as it's far too much of a free-for-all at the moment. That said, I'm interested in the idea of a group response that we could agree on - not so much for this RfC, but more that we could actually lead some reform as a group in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a group response on RfA reform at any time in any venue. We're too passive - albeit for good reason - and RfA can be a horror show, yet I'm sure we're all passionate about improving it. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Request Re-Adminship

Hello,

I am an admin that was less active in the last year, and hence got provisionally suspended. If possible I would like to request re-adminship. Please let me know if there are any actions I would need to take beyond this request. Many thanks :) Chris 73 | Talk 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)