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 7 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	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 19:22:19 on May 19, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Nomination for deletion of Template:@Bureaucrats

Template:@Bureaucrats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm in the minority here and the rest of the 'crats like this? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are; you also recently opposed the {{@BAG}} template for what appears to be similar reasons (despite no real opposition at its creation). Primefac (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BAG was discussed at the appropriate noticeboard, then created, and I chose to opt-out. I will certainly opt out of this one as well if it is kept, but think this is more egregious - not just that it is 300% larger in distribution, but its frequency of use is increasing as well. Could you imagine dropping a @sysop or @rollbacker request somewhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic statements are unnecessary; there is zero reason to ping every sysop or rollbacker and you know it. Remove yourself if you don't like it, but don't try to use some weird slippery slope argument to try to invalidate its existence. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Xaosflux's point is not that {{@sysop}} is the next stop on a slippery slope, but just that somewhere between {{@BAG}} and {{@sysop}}, there's got to be a boundary. Seems like X thinks this is on one side of that, and you think it's on the other, but establishing that there's actually a boundary somewhere is a useful thing to say. Plus, there's a maximum 50 pings anyway, right? -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the boundary is ultimately a group size of 50. Izno (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I think {{@editors}} might come in handy if I had something Really Important to tell everyone. 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the first time in my editing career, may i say: may we hit that technical restriction one day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never have 50 crats. I'm sure of it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not thought of it that way; that's a fair point. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA clerking

Perhaps, what we need is for crats to volunteer to oversee particular RFAs. A note at the top or on the talk page saying, "Bureacrats Primefac and Lee Vilenski are overseeing this RFA." If no bureacrat volunteers, we can do the RFA like the small projects do. Community does their process and waits for someone with necessary permissions to show up on their leisure to click their buttons. If someone does volunteer, editors get to ping that bureacrat or put their requests to bureacrats on a section on the talk page but they don't get to ping all the bureacrats. That should take care of most cases. When all else fails, there's always this board to post to.
Almost all the bureacrats seem to want to just do cratchats and rights changes, while editors increasingly seem to want at least one bureacrat undertaking an active clerkship in an RFA, a task for which only Primefac has ever demonstrated willingness. I think a conversation is long overdue as to what purposes the community wants the bureacrats for and whether bureacrats who volunteered for the role with the understanding of more limited expections are willing to adapt to that. If not, the community will have to learn to live with it or make new crats. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind watching RfAs, but it would be nice if someone else were there for the times when I'm away (this last weekend, the whole "religion question" thing, etc). Maybe it's a case of empowering admins to take these sorts of clerking actions (if a 'crat isn't about), and have a 'crat sign off on them afterward? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Usedtobecool that if we find there aren't enough crats willing to do the work asked of them at RfA the community needs to fix it somehow. I will also say that we've made a number of crats since the community asked for more crat intervention at RfA and I'm a little surprised that Primefac is the only one who does that work (but appreciative that he does). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to actively clerk an RfA, I'm pretty happy to leave notes and the like and moving extended conversation to the talk page and the like. I think the issue we've got is to not have crats get involved with the conversation. There's also no real rule as to what can be asked/said at an RfA. If we want to empower clerking (or crats in general) to interevene with personal attacks, misleading arguments or leading questions, then we need to make that known.

The big worry for me is, as a crat is to wade in with clerking and then not being perceived as neutral on a close or later cratchat. I would always recuse in such a situation, but it wouldn't stop a long conversation.

That being said, I do watch the RfA and I actually appreciate the pings, as it's not a full-time job checking for things to clerk. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more – it feels like there's a lot more we could do in terms of policy and personnel to make civility enforcement at RfA more robust. We need a fresher blood – the median current bureaucrat was elected in 2010. We also need a better system for RfA civility enforcement than "the 'crats need to figure it out", and we need a way for participants to be able to have a say in the outcome with minimal disruption so that those who intentionally cause disruption can be held to account for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I echo my comments below for reference, but beyond that, I have clerked a few RfAs and made clerk like actions on them, albeit not recently because I was promoted at work just over 2 weeks ago and have been exhausted trying to adjust to the new hours, and when I saw the comment to stop pinging crats (though I also agree it should continue) I made the wrong assumption that it was either frivolous and/or had already been dealt with. I will have to try and see if I can get myself pinged when a new RfA comes out so I can watch it better. That said, despite the community not coming to a consensus on this previously, I do think like theleekycauldron that the crats being a "more sensitive discussion closer" is both not ideal, and flies in the face of using b'crats to close RfCs or deletion discussions that are more 'controversial'. Crats were originally elected to be bureaucratic and not be frontline decision makers. But lacking community consensus any other way, we are the unfortunate fallback because we are assigned to making the determination about userrights. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Providing people are OK with crats both clerking RFAs and also closing them, I'm OK with doing some clerking when I'm around and know I will be around for several hours to respond to the aftermath of such an intervention. That said I think we should be very selective as to what clerking we do. But to respond to the specific suggestion, when we do need a redaction, we likely need it urgently. So until one of our AI admins passes RFB, we are not going to be able to provide the requisite 24/7 coverage with just a couple of named crats. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 request for comments on clerking reached a consensus that bureaucrats were empowered to perform clerking duties (with one support statement noting that the same bureaucrat shouldn't close the RfA). isaacl (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only concern with this is if we have more than 1 crat clerking, what does that do if a case goes to crat chat? Are they now all forced to recuse over clerking? I don't know that question has been answered. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this comes across as an obvious question, I know that several crats have shared this same opinion and concern over recusing, I just can't figure out what the opinion is based on. For regular admin actions, administrators are not considered involved simply on the basis of having made an action in an administrative capacity against an editor. If an admin was clerking comments in an RfA, so long as they did not show bias in doing so they would not ordinarily be construed as involved. Is there a specific part of the policies covering crats where you're construing involvement in a much wider way than we would elsewhere in the project? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not deriving it from policy by any means, it comes from the toxicity involved with RfA and how quickly people are to claim bias of any kind based on a clerking action. Given the result of the RfC is that the crat clerking should not close, that suggests that providing an opinion on top of clerking could be a controversial subject in the toxic area RfA is. Crats are also elected to be bureaucratic as I mentioned elsewhere. The definition of our role is not to move unless it's seemingly uncontroversial. Combine those two factors and that's where we are, but not because of any definition of INVOLVED or policy reason. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then how do we solve this seemingly unsolvable problem of on the one hand crats feeling unable to clerk RfAs because it could be seen as a controversial action, and admins feeling unable to clerk RfAs because they've not been empowered to do so and that it's the role of the crats? Because both groups are ultimately excluded from clerking, it's not getting done, which no doubt has an impact on the overall toxicity of RfA and the high levels of stress it causes to perspective candidates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one off type actions are an issue, especially considering I just took that action recently, but the active clerking of RfAs by multiple crats is where this poses a problem. To be clear, I have no objection to clerking as I have done in the past, but there are zero community norms as to if a crat *should* continue to work and provide an opinion on consensus. As far as I understand it's just purely untested water. I get that 'crats are elected to know their own bias, but it hasn't stopped the toxic crowd from forming at RfA and attacking whatever they can. I can't speak to the speed of the crats though in this situation, but I have addressed my speed below.

I'm also of the same mind that 'crats dictating what it takes to make policy, or to suggest someone go start an RfC - or other venues, is not our role. In fact, unless you have a well formulated action plan and RfC, I would not recommend it, again because of toxicity. Our job is to review consensus, not to decide critical conduct policy that the community can't. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my concern has been reaffirmed within minutes of me saying so [1]. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that as I was drafting my reply below, and have asked the editor who did that to self-revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that your role is, as you say, to review consensus and not decide conduct policy. My question is as much an open one to the room, as it is one that maybe just isn't answerable. But insofar as the scope of your role, and what actions you feel as though you can and cannot take within that scope, I think it would be remiss of the wider community not to ask for your input. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair and I guess the subtext to my answer there is ideally some enforceable change (RfC or large community consensus, confirmation by a large number of people of this being the status quo, and I cringe to say this next one - an Arbcom decision). The reason I'm trying to step around spaces is I also don't want people to take actions i'm suggesting and get ~~murdered~~ reduced to rubble in the RfA toxicity in doing so. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the RFC found consensus that clerks should not close. The closer simply noted that some people brought it up. That, I'd read as "needs further discussion, maybe an RFC".

A few voters suggested that it's not a good idea to allow one person to both "clerk" (whatever that means) an RfA and close it ... Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the question of whether or not a bureaucrat performing clerking actions makes them involved in the RfA, since there are nineteen bureaucrats, it should be possible to have a small subset take on clerking duties, leaving the majority of bureaucrats unencumbered to evaluate the result of the RfA discussion. I appreciate, of course, that the availability of bureaucrats can reduce that number. This could be an impetus for the community to nominate more bureaucrats, or to further affirm that bureaucrats are indeed trusted (as per their corresponding RfB discussions) to set aside any personal biases, or clerking actions taken, when determining the outcome of an RfA. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the RFA's talk page, bureaucrat User:AmandaNP advised that appealing 'crat actions needs to happen on this noticeboard so here goes. I oppose striking then redacting Homeostasis07's rationale, I oppose removing the vote entirely, and I oppose the redaction from the RFA's talk page, too. (That last one feels so, so pointless.) The only way they're casting aspersions and breaking policy is if they always meant to contribute those two messages and absolutely nothing more to the RFA. That, to my mind, is an entirely unfair thing to think given their history: They've been here forever, they have a ton of edits, the sole entry on their block log was some trifling BS from a decade ago, etc., etc., etc. The one example they gave, the thing on the Marilyn Manson article, was weak and I was one of several editors who debunked it. But does that matter? We know, per the words "compiling now", that Homeostasis07 planned to show a lot of evidence. I actually don't even agree with Daniel Case and others that the end of the RFA is itself a hard time limit. If Homeostasis07 is able to furnish evidence of longtime rulebreaking but not before the RFA ends, will Sdkb avoid sanctions? Of course not. City of Silver 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions in Sdkb RFA

While we are discussing crat clerking, can I draw attention to the current RfA's sole oppose. This needs some sort of action surely. The section is pretty self-explanatory: User:Homeostasis07 has alleged that the candidate indulged in inappropriate off-site behavior, for which they are compiling diffs now. That was nearly five days ago, but they have not edited the RfA or any other since. No one supports the claim; they have been consistently criticised, and WP:ASPERSIONS mentioned several times. Handgrenades, as I said, seem to have been wielded. While the allegation itself is unsavoury, what's worse is they have literally been allowed to make one of the severest allegations one can make on-site, with no diffs, no evidence, and not an iota of justification. Arbcom's input on whether they have received such evidence would be helpful.* If they confirm they have, then that fulfils the requirement of diffs (the community need not be able to see them). If they haven't, then Arbcom's 2015 resolution applies: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe, and per WP:WIAPA?, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

It is true that in the current RfA, the allegation has not dented the candidate's support. In fact, its foolishness may well even have contributed to it :) but two things are more important. Firstly, that we allow such comments to stand unchallenged when they fly so blatantly in the face of policy is a poor look, to say the least. Secondly, if it is allowed to stand in the long term, it might be raised in the future—months? Years?—and highlighted as indicating no smoke without fire ("And look, there must've have something to it, because no-one ever did anything!"). We should not allow a blemish on the candidate's character to stand like this. Cheers! Apologies for the length.

* Yes, there's a template I could use here to page every member of the committee to this discussion, but in the context of other templates and other discussions, I'll refrain :) ——Serial 15:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 has indicated they are sending evidence to the Arbitration Committee; if that is not received then I see no reason why the problematic content would not be struck. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you replying here Primefac. Not necessarily to you personally, but how long would one be expected to have before submitting evidence? Regarding collection of evidence, POLEMIC is no more precise than in a timely manner, but the difference here is that in a RfA, a 168-hour clock is ticking. I suggest that Arbcom block Homeostasis07 either until he submits evidence or returns to editing and publically withdraws his allegations, even if the RfA has passed. Such a block would at least be preventative rather than punitive. ——Serial 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure blocking opposers in RFAs is a good idea. Honestly I'm not even in favor of third party striking in most cases. Let people say what they want, in my opinion, and if the rationale is poor, the rest of us are smart enough to see this, and it reflects poorly on the opposer, not the candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an oppose !vote should warrant a block. Realistically, in a close, we'd disregard votes that are either disingenuous or misleading. The above does seem to be a part of a pattern of behaviour, which could be actioned by an administrator. The only bit that would be crat related would be to explain what is suitable in an RfA discussion, striking unsuitable !votes and moving/ending discussions not related to the RfA. We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote, so we can't just strike this !vote (they could easily have made no comment with the oppose). We could, however, clerk potentially worrying comments at the discussion. I'm open to hear what things we should be doing when the comments/behaviour happens on an RfX page rather than any other page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote. No, we have a policy devoted to it instead. RfA isn't subject to ignoring policy, nor does IAR relate to behavior. This is not just a normal crappy opposition based on a silly, subjective opinion, this is an accusation of one of the worst things it is possible for any editor—let alone admin—could possibly do. In fact, if the same allegation was made about an admin, they would (probably) be desysopped, it's that serious. Yet it's OK to say it about a candidate? I tell you. If anyone asks in future, "Why are so few candidates standing for RfA these days / Why is RfA so toxic?", Why not just point them to this conversation... ——Serial 18:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hit the nail on the head! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the clock is an issue with a single oppose. If a correction, redaction, or other adjustment is considered appropriate, it can be done even after the closing, so anyone seeing the discussion in future will know the corresponding context. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Firefly noted on behalf of ArbCom today that such evidence has not been provided, if there's anything you'd like to do beyond what Floq has done. Maybe a warning would be in order, if this RfA ends and the allegation remains unsubstantiated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that while we discussed this issue, Firefly's message was not technically on behalf of the Committee as a collective. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Ah, thanks, good catch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the only standing neutral !vote so far, because while I have a high view of Sdkb and would otherwise support, I believe that Homeostasis should have the full time limit, same as the rest of us do, to modify their !vote and/or respond to comments.

Even if Firefly's message had been on behalf of ArbCom, it does not, for me, follow that Homeo's !vote should be stricken.

We do not know why they have not responded or edited since their comments in the RfA. We have no way of knowing whether they have even seen Firefly's message. We have many long-term users in good standing who take long, unexplained breaks between flurries of edits. Sometimes they offer explanation, but it is not our place to ask them why, much less draw adverse inferences about their motives behind a particular edit from those absences.

If Homeo had been regularly editing in the interim and ignored Firefly's request entirely for, say, a day or so, I'd consider the unilateral decision to strike the !vote more justifiable. And I will also say that AGF means that I do not hold it against Amanda for striking the !vote ... indisputably it has caused drama we don't need to have (well, wait a minute ... by definition, as I often say in edit summaries, drama is something we don't need to have), but I believe she was acting in what she reasonably believed to be the community's best interests (and, really, with the !vote tally the way it is now, and so many people !voting support in response to Homeo's oppose and apparent subsequent inaction in the wake of a serious allegation, no one could possibly consider this to be anything close to an attempt to manipulate the outcome). It was an action that could be reversed as easily as it was taken, as indeed it was. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The clerking done on that !vote was in line with what I was planning. Primefac (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Any other page on the project, and this evidence-free accusation would have been removed and the user warned to provide evidence *before* making accusations. But RFA is special? In the absence of crat clerking, Ad Orientem has moved the thread to the talk page, and I've taken the liberty of also moving the evidence-free accusations to the talk page. User:Aardvark Floquenbeam said it was OK.... Actually, he said it could just be deleted, but I chickened out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I for one look forward to our new 'vark clerk overlord... ——Serial 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mention of evidence being sent in the near future to ARBCOM has meant that the community has taken a "wait and see" approach to the matter rather than this chaos being a result of RFA. It's in some sort of limbo where the evidence exists and doesn't exist at the same time. I wonder if admins that aren't bureaucrats feel weird about the prospect of taking action regarding the claims made since RFAs fall under the bureaucrats' purview and the bureaucrats feel weird since they aren't part of arbcom. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the crats want to have this beaten to death even more, so... I think Amanda handled the RFA talk page exactly right, and in hindsight, I wish I'd done that in my non-crat clerking yesterday. I think, however, since there is still a minor justification that remains unredacted, that the actual vote on the main RFA page should be restored, with the first paragraph showing and the second one redacted (just like Amanda did on the talk page). I also agree with Primefac's restoration of Lightburst's pointy vote. I won't be bold, tho. Crats need to be the final decision makers in cases like this. Regardless of this quibble, thanks to both of them for wading in.

If crats are going to clerk more frequently (something I support and welcome), I'd personally like to see an approach to redact any content that needs redacting, but don't send the actual vote down the memory hole unless it's made by someone not allowed to vote. The closing crat would, of course, be free to ignore pointy or content-free votes when it comes time to evaluate consensus. It's the policy-violating content that needed removal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the community is going to be resistant to removing the actual vote counter, I would suggest that such debate is a red herring for actually warning users who engage in what the 'crats judge to be misconduct. If Homeostasis's comment was worth removing, why wasn't it worth a warning for a conduct violation? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me? Where did I say a warning wasn’t appropriate? I certainly think a warning was appropriate. But there was also a non-redacted reason given for opposing, and I don’t understand why the vote itself is still removed (except crat fatigue at all of us kibitzers, which I can kind of understand……) Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I am replying to you, but I'm not contradicting you at all – I'm just providing some food for lateral thought. (Homeostasis wasn't warned, was my point. Neither was Lightburst.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It probably says something about me that my first instinct is that a reply is a disagreement … Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: To be completely honest, you don't need a crat to issue a conduct warning. I don't think us clerking RfA should turn into a tier 2 enforcement level for the community. Admins, and even users can issue warnings to people, and we don't need to be involved with that in issuing any formality. I do think though that my comment on the talkpage was a warning within itself about the inappropriate behavior, but YMMV on the degree of my comments and how strong the warning needed to be. If that's the case I'm not stopping nor am I encouraging it further. That said, IRT Lightburst (this time and this time only), I was following WP:DISENGAGE, especially as issuing a warning to a user disagreeing with my action is very much an involved action. The talkpage expressed enough to leave it where it was and not blow this up to even more drama.

@Floquenbeam: The redaction of the first part on the actual RFA I can see the reasoning behind it, and would agree with said reasoning, but I'll make a point later on in this comment. I would disagree with the actual vote being left in force, regardless of the vote count some have eluded to. The vote was pulled because the users rationale violated core policies, and only leaving part of the actual vote is compromising the vote itself. If any part of a vote is going to disappear, the whole vote should until the user can reaffirm within policy. I also provided the opportunity for the user to restore it when it remained within policy, and I also left a note about it - so not exactly down the memory hole. And honestly, the community is asking for unprecedented action more and more by 'crats - even if it's supported by policy. So if there is going to be bureaucracy about bureaucracy, it might as well be bureaucratically specified in policy or RfC - as this post action thought is not really assisting in the idea that crats should clerk. Though I do understand the point of post-morteming the first occurrence of this, I would suggest that it would be better at a point of broader community input - not where the crats are supposed to respond by default. tl;dr not trying to be an asshole, but we aren't thinking about the implications and pitting crats into fixing the extreme side of toxic RfA culture that no one has been able to fix for years. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of general sanctions at the village pump

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Community sanctions: rethinking civility enforcement at RfA that may be of interest :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]