Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:08, 11 July 2007

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, 50

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

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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.

It is 18:07:32 on January 22, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

BAG Joining

I'm told a crat normally closes BAG joining requests after 7 days, and my request at WT:BAG#Joining has been there for over 10 days. Could someone please close it? Thanks! (personally, I don't see the need for a crat to close, however it is the norm so I am requesting anyway) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why a bureaucrat needs to close a BAG request, and it seems this point has been raised before, not too long ago: Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6#BAG approval. Meh. Daniel 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is something I don't think any 'crat watches unless a request is made. I imagine if this is a "tradition" it is so there is no internal argument over the results, as there are no buttons to be pushed. Which 'crat usually closes? -- Cecropia 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter they just want a third party user with a high level of trust (Bcrat) to close so that people cant scream injustice. 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone just close it? It's way over its ending time (28th june) and people have suddenly started voting again (which I think is against policy, but I don't know). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note about late voters (of which I am one) - comments are valid until the nomination is actually closed. This is in line with the stance taken at WP:AFD and WP:RFA, and every other !voting process I can think of. Martinp23 09:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But could a crat please close it? It is way late and I want to know how I did. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAG does not have a hard-limit to the time these things can run, sometimes they are fast, and other times not. Many times they are unanimous and we close them internally. On this particiular request 'crat judgement as to the state of the consensus is being asked for though. Thank you, — xaosflux 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It said 7 days, so that's what I assumed. At the moment this request is 18 days over that time, so could a crat close it? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were talking about me. But actually, in the past this happened only once: at a time when there was a larger election, with multiple candidates, to add a larger body of BAG members. I then offered to close that election in the capacity of Bureaucrat ad hoc. As Xaosflux mentioned, there are no hard rules governing the election of new BAG members, and 95% of the time they are handled locally, usually by current BAG members. Since this time we are being asked to act on this particular candidate's request to join, I'll look into it and close it. It will just be a little while, so that I can read everything that has been posted and decide. Redux 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now closed the request, as requested. Redux 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A trivial question only 'crats can answer

I was wondering, with the fixing of bugzilla:6711, did the interface that bureaucrats use to grant users the 'sysop' and/or 'bot' rights change? Are there still separate special pages for the two, or have they now been combined? Or is it the case that the old interfaces still work, but Special:Userrights is now accessible by bureaucrats when it wasn't previously, and is also capable of the same changes? --ais523 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any change in the permissions pages and Special:Userrights is still only for stewards, as of now. -- Cecropia 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --ais523 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A side note concerning the tool Special:Userrights: it is exclusive to Stewards, yes, but the Board of Trustees has decided, although not in the form of an official resolution, that there shall be no local Stewards. That is, the only Stewards that are supposed to exist are the ones on the Meta-Wiki. Currently, the only exception to this rule is Jimbo, who holds the status of a local Steward on this Misplaced Pages (en.wiki).
We have suggested to the developers that Special:Userrights be removed from the interface, since it is not supposed to be used locally and it is redundant with the Steward tool on Meta, but it seems that there are technical obstacles to doing this that have caused the proposal to be put on hold for the time being. Redux 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Changing username

Loads of fun! ;-) Backlog from June 28. ~ Wikihermit 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Last 'crat participation was here, 3 days ago. I've been waiting about that long. Giggy _UP 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump again. Thanks for getting me done :D Giggy _UP 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

Six candidacies for 'cratship! I've never seen that before. Sr13 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's a record. Plus, we've had one withdrawn. Seven in one week. --Durin 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps we're turning over a new leaf? Sean William @ 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe. Of course, it might be a leaf that fell two years ago and is rather old and moldy :) --Durin 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is great! Qst 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Seven 'crat candidacies at one time...wow. Sr13 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Input

You bureaucrats may wish to have a look at this and discuss it. Regards, Qst 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Unless an admin closes it first, can a 'crat close this RfA per WP:SNOW? Cool Blue 15:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just closed it and left my usual note on the user's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

vishwin60's RFA

Please note that I've vowed that my RFA be withdrawed at this time due to the reasons specified there. Would a crat please close it? Thanks, (→vishwin60 - review) 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed this for you - a bureaucrat doesn't need to do it provided the candidate is withdrawing and it can be quite a long wait for a bureaucrat to drop by. WjBscribe 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User renaming

Recent changes items and deleted edits are now updated too. Voice-of-All 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RFB discretionary range

It's been a while since we've done bureaucrat promotions, so I'm a bit rusty. If memory serves, it's basically 10% higher than a normal adminship. Everyone agrees that 75%-80% is in the range for bureaucrat's discretion for an RFA, so presumably that means 85%-90% is in the bureaucrat's discretion for an RFB. Correct? Raul654 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, not really. Try and ignore the numbers. Do you think there is sufficient consensus to promote to bureaucrat? It's not a vote count, and should not be treated as one. Majorly (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fah - RFA and RFB is a vote (not a !vote, a Vote). Anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever true consensus on an amount, but 85-90% is probably the right area IMO. Wizardman 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An area somewhere inbetween 85% and 90% seems a realistic boundary. --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Seems very reasonable and realistic. Nick 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please - "85-90% is probably the right area" for what? A bureacrat's discretionary range for RFB? Raul654 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unless you look at the discussion. Majorly (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Granted you should look at the discussion too, but doing both parts are common sense. Wizardman 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's how I see it as far as the reasoning goes - half the opposition to Andrevan is that he's not particularly active at RFA. Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. My interest in RFA waxes and wanes. That there are periods when I'm not particularly active there doesn't mean I'm any less competent to do the promotion when I am paying attention there. Raul654 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (even though I opposed Andre for it :P) Majorly (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you should personalize it that much, Raul. Is this a community decision or the bureaucrats' decision. -- Cecropia 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's personalizing it to make judgments about the quality of the reasons to oppose. Of course those judgements are going to be informed by my experiences here - the same is true of any user in a position to make judgement calls. That's the very reason we pick the most experienced users to be admins and bureaucrats. Raul654 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. " -- Cecropia 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should be in a bureaucrat chat instead of here with us non-crats.--Chaser - T 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a free-for-all. -- Cecropia 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the wishful thinking of everyone else, RfA/B is a vote, as it is currently operating. Just look at what happened to any canditate hinting that they would apply more discretion. The problem with RfBs is that one !vote can completely change things. For a 90% support rate, one oppose nullifies 9 supports. So I would be discretionary in my discretion on an RfB. :) Prodego 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Husond's RfB. Majorly (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the second party. As operating those requesting Bueracratship must run a fine line, between those who want RfA to be a pure vote, and consider anything else heresy, and those who want the ability to have common sense override the mass of the people. Obviously I belong in the second camp, after all, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. However, as it is operating, go either way, and... Prodego 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That 1 Oppose to 9 Supports ratio is really wrong, in my opinion, there's no way one editors opinions should outweigh nine editors opinions, but that's what effectively happens here. Nick 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We've had some slippage in the standards over the last year. Someone under 75% on RfA was almost never promoted, now that slipped to 70% (with the range expanded up to 80%). In practice, I don't think anyone under 90% has been promoted to bureaucrat. I think you need to look at RfB as a thing in itself, not in relation to RfA expectations. My personal take on Andrevan is that the support is not there in the sense that it was for Deskana, who I would have promoted if you hadn't. I don't object to Andre if you decided to push the button, but I don't see compelling consensus. As to Ral, I have opposed. The core question was whether the Signpost could affect RfA and vv. I think it already has, with the flood of more than 30 supports against one oppose after the new edition. By contrast, in the two days before, I think he received 6 supports and 2 opposes. -- Cecropia 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since July 2004, the lowest pass was 89.94% Support and the highest fail was 85.3% Support. There have been no other test cases between 85-90% in the last three years. Dragons flight 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stellar - nothing like chasing the middle... Raul654 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, per the above discussion, I've decided to promote Andrevan. Raul654 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because...? -- Cecropia 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because as Dragonsflight said, it's in the untested middle ground, Deskana seems to support the idea it's in the discretionary range, you said you woudln't object to promotion, and I think half the objectors are objecting on weak grounds (and one of them agrees with me). Raul654 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, affirmed. I just wanted a little more for the actual decision. -- Cecropia 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RFB

Ral's RFB is over in roughly 4 hours, at 3:00 AM my time. I plan to be soundly asleep by then, but (since I'm reasonably sure there will be no big swings between in the next 4 hours) it will no doubt re-hash the same issues discussed above. That being the case, can we discuss and agree on a course of action now (presumably to put that one into deep freeze)? Raul654 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want bureaucrats or are non bureaucrats allowed to give their opinion? Majorly (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to hearing input from everyone. Raul654 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ral has 87%, just as much as Andre whom you promoted. If decided that Ral's should fail, there's got to be an extremely compelling explanation from the closing bureaucrat for doing so.

In short, while RfA/RfB is not about numbers per se, consistency and appearness of fairness do matter. Any decisions which may imply bias or unfairness may not bode well for people's view of bureaucrats or Misplaced Pages in general. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315's is about the same as Andrevan's, and another support just came in. Unless Ral315 gets pile on oppose in the next four hours, I see no reason to not to grant him bureaucrat status. Acalamari 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a more difficult case. I find the opposes slightly more compelling here, than on Andrevan's. However, I do think the general consensus again is to promote. Majorly (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss teh specifics of Ral's RFB while it's still open. That being said, however, I would like to note (A) in response to Oleg, that nominations that end in the discretionary range do not necessarily have to be consistent. A nomination with a lower support percentage (which ends in the discretionary range) may be promoted while a nomination with a higher support percentage may be failed, based on bureacrat's discretion. I would also like to note (B) that Cecropia has suggested simple extending Ral's RFB, which I consider an even better idea than freezing the nom. Raul654 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But then again, one should think extremely carefully as to why this RfB deserves to be treated differently than the other RfBs. We've had too many ill-thought or ill-justified promotions which caused damage long-term I believe. Whatever the decision should be, it should be taken with great care and be well-explained (and no, the chat at Danny's RfA is not the gold standard). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By voted they're pretty much the same, but if we go by discussion then, like what Majorly said, the opposes are different and could be more compelling. As for extending the nom, I dunno if that would work. Certainly one would have made their choice by now, if not they may be going in the "we need/don't need more bcrats" camp, which are votes we don't need. Wizardman 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It would *ahem* be inappropriate for me to say much here :) but I'll just say that whether the nom is closed, frozen or extended, successful or unsuccessful, I'll respect the decision. Ral315 » 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really feel bad about opposing you Ral, but I think my concerns are legitimate. I would support you in virtyually anything else. -- Cecropia 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to reinforce a point Raul made, if a discretionary range is 85%-90% (for example) it stands to reason that one person might be promoted at 85% while another fails at 89.9999%, otherwise it is not a discretionary range. -- Cecropia 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Argh wtf? Why is that suddenly an oppose has to be "compelling" while a support can be crap like "no concerns?" I'm really disturbed by Raul's disregard of opposes for Andre because he doesn't like the reason. (For the record, I opposed because he's not active enough *at all* - for my taste, not *just* on RFA.) Really seriously? Why is that supports are never questioned, but opposes are? pschemp | talk 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - "Why is that supports are never questioned, but opposes are?". Answer - Raul's 10th law Raul654 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's easier to write an oppose than a support, I don't agree with that at all, it takes people two seconds to write "no concerns" and some serious thinking time to put together opposes...still that has nothing to do with treating the two things by completely different standards. It's morally inexcusable to be so flippant about opposes. pschemp | talk 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with easier or not. It has to do with the fundamental reasons why people support or oppose someone (as I explained in the law). Asking someone why they support someone is equivalent to asking them to prove a negative - they (generally) support due to a lack of behavior, whereas an oppose is due to an affirmative behavior. So of course it's easier to scrutinize an objection. It's rather difficult to find anything to fault about a support, which is pretty much equivalent to saying "I haven't seen anything that gives me doubt about this user". Raul654 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's difficult to find fault with supports does not mean opposes should be treated with contempt. pschemp | talk 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Given how many years it's been since we've promoted a bureaucrat, I think we can safely say that the opposes are being given fair weight. Raul654 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the case for RfAs and RfBs is that a candidate is assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise. Please correct me if I am wrong. —Kurykh 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NO, its to gauge whether the community trusts the user or not. pschemp | talk 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking from the individual !voter's standpoint. You're looking at it from the big-picture view of the entire discussion. —Kurykh 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/R

This RfA for User:R is scheduled to close shortly. I am one of the co-nominators and was the nominator in the most recent prior RfA for the candidate (then known as TeckWiz) in April. In the current RfA, on a numerical basis, support for the candidate (formerly known as User:TeckWiz) is at 71-72% as I type this. The vast majority of the !votes on both sides have presented good-faith, colorable arguments; I think that a small handful of opposes have presented weaker arguments that the closing bureaucrat may wish to afford a bit less weight.

In addition to colloquy on the RfA itself, there has also been an interesting and very useful interchange on the RfA talkpage about a primary concern that has been raised against this candidate (i.e., whether an editor's focus on "maintenance" or "janitorial" tasks rather than article-writing renders him or her unsuited to be an administrator). For whatever reason, this candidate has become something of a lightning rod on this issue, although other candidates with reasonably similar records have passed RfA from time to time without incident.

An editor who recently commented in the RfA supported with the observation, "Multiple RfAs and respected editors on both sides of the discussion with reasonable views. I would like to see the 'crats decide this with published reasoned arguments." Under the circumstances, I thought I would call attention to this suggestion as the closing bureaucrat(s) review this RfA to determine whether consensus for R's promotion has been achieved. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, closing bureaucrat, don't determine if there is consensus for R's promotion. That is not what RfA is. RfA is to determine if the candidate can be trusted to use admin tools properly. RfA has become too political, and this nomination is a prime example of that trend. Instead determine if there is consensus that R can be trusted. Prodego 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that this RFA is very clearly at >70% now. Other RFAs with this level of consensus have been very clearly cut unsuccessful. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually is at ~70.8% support as of this point, which does (to some point) fall in the b'crat discretion range, but I really don't have high hopes for this particular RfA. —Kurykh 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its now ready to be closed. I wonder what will happen. I think it may cause a little bit of a drama if promoted. Its a good 5% off what is normal. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship