Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 16 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 22:59:02 on January 22, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

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)

Deskana made it, even under the old rules. If the discretionary range for an RFB has changed, that's fine. It isn't fine however, to disregard half of the opposes because you personally don't like them. If more than one person expresses that sentiment, it certainly is not an outlier. pschemp | talk 04:21, 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)

In keeping with one of Misplaced Pages's most important policies, Assume good faith. Andre (talk) 07:41, 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)

In the original concept of RfA it was assumed that what we now think of as the admin tools were just a restricted area that you didn't want everyone to have until we got to know them, and that they wouldn't use the tools badly. So yes, it was definitely expected that someone meeting minimum qualifications would become an admin unless there was positive evidence that the tools should continue to be upheld. I would compare it to the extra conveniences you get when you edit under an account rather than an IP. All you do is commit to the project by making an account, and BINGO! you can edit semi-protected articles. Things have changed because a lot more is expected of admins now and I also think that, if Jimbo really wanted to make sure that adminship was "no big deal" than the privilege should not have had a technical sounding name like "admin" or "sysop." It might have been better if we were called something like "IP editors," "restricted editors" and "unrestricted editors." In RfB OTOH it became apparent very quickly that since b'crats were making judgment decisions, no matter how much honestly and in good faith, some proportion of the participants would complain, ask questions, accuse one or another 'crat of something. So it fast became a requirement that 'crats be people who would be able to engage the community in such a way as to build confidence in the process. BY doing that, it became much easier for partisans of this or that prospective admin to accept that a decision they didn't like would have been made fairly and non-prejudicially. This is prehaps the core reason that RfBs have traditionally been much more stringent than RfAs and that prospective 'crats demonstrate why they should be 'crats rather than simply expect that they should get the bit unless people can find enough wrong with them. -- Cecropia 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Andrevan

It has long been understood that in determining community consensus bureaucrats can dismiss the opinions of people offering absurd arguments (say, "I don't trust Polish people") but I would never have thought that people opposing an RFB candidate on the grounds that he was not active in RFA would be blithely dismissed as offering a "pretty weak reason". I'm hard pressed to find a fairer and better reason to oppose an RFB but since Mark has himself been criticized for RFA inactivity he feels this just isn't a good reason. This is not a bureaucrat determining community consensus, it's a bureaucrat evaluating the candidate on his merits. Haukur 11:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating the candidate - I'm not the one making the claim that Andrevan is not active enough at RFA. I'm evaluating the criticisms of the bureaucrat candidate (that is, the claim that he's not active enough at RFA). I can say, as a bureaucrat myself who has been accused of this very thing, that it's just not all that big a deal if Andrevan (<- or substitute anyone else's name here) is an irregular participant in RFA. That is what we expect the bureaucrats to do when exercising their discretion - to weigh the pros and cons accordingly. That is why we choose bureaucrats who have been here a long time - because we expect them to use their judgment rather than being bean counters. Raul654 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a serious issue with the promotion of Andrevan. I was surprised though. I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective. Instead, reasons for support and oppose need to be evaluated by the balancing contrary views; if two people said "oppose lacks experience" but twenty people said "experience not a factor", then I can see reason to discount the opposes. 7 people either directly or indirectly referenced inexperienced/inactivity as a reason for opposition. Using a liberal paint brush, 9 voiced support for Andrevan despite RfA inexperience. That's hardly consensus that the inexperience is a non-factor. I can see reasons for discounting opposition based on factual errors (using extreme example, "oppose - was blocked for incivility" and the nominee was never blocked. I can see reasons for discounting opposition when the community voices consensus that a given opposition reason is not a factor. A bureaucrat deciding from their own perspective that a given rationale for opposition is wrong? Flat out, undeniably wrong. Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus. Period. They are not empowered to discount support/opposition based on their own criteria, only on the criteria of the community. They are free to publicly voice displeasure with a given rationale for support or opposition. They are not free to close nominations based on that displeasure. Raul was out of line. --Durin 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective" - then what exactly is a bureaucrat supposed to do when a nom falls into the discretionary range? It sounds to me like you favor discretion, as long as the bureaucrats exercise it in exactly the way you would. Raul654 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear I wasn't the only person disturbed by this. If you are lucky, he'll quote Raul's 10th law at you for justification, as he did to me above, without actually addressing the concern. pschemp | talk 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that, though I opposed Andrevan's candidacy, I'm not particularly unhappy that he was promoted. I wish him the best in his new job and nothing I say here is meant as criticism of him, only of Raul's actions as a bureaucrat. Continuing on the topic of opposition reasoning, while Raul found Durin's carefully reasoned and researched view to be a "pretty weak reason" he apparently found nothing weak about my somewhat vague philosophical disagreement with the candidate.Personally I think Durin offered a much stronger argument than I did. Haukur 13:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset about the Raul's action nearly as much as his reasoning behind it. As I said before, it is one thing to say, the rules have now changed, and 85% is acceptable, and another to discount oppose votes on whim, especially when more than one person feels that way. An RFB is here to gauge community trust after all. pschemp | talk 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to make it clear that my stance above in this section has nothing to do with whether the bright line for promotion is 85% or 90%. It strictly has to do with opposition being discounted based on personal views of the closing bureaucrat rather than consensus (or lack thereof) views of the community. --Durin 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would also like to voice alarm at this statement by Raul. Thus, we find another personal view of Raul's; since we haven't promoted anyone in a while, give all opposes less weight. This is ignoring the community in whole in support of promoting a bureaucrat, regardless of what the community says. This is flat out wrong. Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats says bureaucrats are "bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" It does not offer bureaucrats the discretion to discount opposition based on how long it's been since the last promotion or based on personal perceptions of the weakness of an argument, but based on consensus. You are expected to evaluate consensus, not apply your own metrics. --Durin 15:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I read Raul's comment as saying "the fact that it has been so long since a successful RfB has passed it is evident that the opposes were given importance by the bureaucrats." You don't read it that way? -- Cecropia 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a possible interpretation, yes. I retract my statement barring clarification from Raul. My concerns regarding disregarding opposition based on personal metrics stands. --Durin 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I read that like Durin did, except that I felt "fair weight" was a way of Raul saying that he weighted the opposes according to his personal opinion (the opinion being previously stated that he disregarded half of them) in response to the question of why opposes were so easily discounted. Certainly if he means something else he should clarify that. pschemp | talk 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my above comment. Many, many bureaucrat nominations failed prior to these two succeeding, and we basically went years without any new bureaucrats. Clearly the oppose votes are not being ignored, your own insinuations to the contrary not withstanding. Raul654 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• My statement isn't an insinuation. Forgive me if you thought I was attempting to be subtle. To make it less subtle, I state that based on your prior comments you gave considerably less weight to opposes related to Andrevan's lack of experience with RfA based on your own metrics of how valid that argument is. Is this accurate? If it is, why did you do this when there was no consensus that this was an invalid reason to oppose? --Durin 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was referring to this insinuation by Pschemp. Raul654 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you please answer my question? --Durin 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the lack of experience but rather the recent inactivity, I think, Durin. I have plenty of /experience/, that isn't the issue. Andre (talk) 16:40, 13 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 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)

(de-indent) This one has been trending downward, slightly, over the last day. A short extension to determine where that trend ends up may be helpful to determining consensus, otherwise I agree with AD. -- nae'blis 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if it's extended, I won't be able to comment at all. I'll be away til Friday night. I guess it's not a major problem. Just saying. R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The only two RfA's that passed around this % both were over WP:100, plus they're still being debated every so often. I supported, btu better safe then sorry on this one I'd say. Wizardman 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's <70% now. There should be no reason to promote this candidate, as this decision is not within the general discretion range and there are no other unusual circumstances. Daniel 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I just found this May 28, 2007 post by R: "Any RFA which has less than 80%, but it isn't clear or not (ie. 71%) should have a discussion." -- Jreferee 06:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my closing rationale, I don't see any irregularity with this nomination. There is no consensus to promote. Andre (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the published reasoned arguments. Now I am not just happy that you became a bureaucrat but really happy. I think if more RfA nominees near the low end numerically receive such published consideration - irrespective of the outcome - we might be able to move past the idea that Danny received special treatment. -- Jreferee 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this closure. --Deskana (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Should RfB promotion reasoning be posted in the RfB?

Within the bureaucrat consensus determining range (such as 85-90%), I believe that Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats requires an explained reasoning by bureaucrats on the face of the RfB. However, it appears that the bureaucrat's reasoning for the promotion are not tied directly to Andrevan's RfB, for example. In judging consensus, bureaucrats are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request. In addition to the RfB nominee requesting promotion to bureaucrat, the participation by editors in an RfB process is a request that bureaucrats judge the consensus of that RfB. Rather than merely being judges of consensus such as by posting a conclusion, bureaucrats are expected by the RfB participants to be capable judges of consensus. It is this expectation that is the request in each RfB for a formal statement from a bureaucrat of the reasoning used in reaching a decision the RfB. While it is fine that the discussion and reasoning regarding RfB promotion appear in a bureaucrat chat, on this page, and/or on a bureaucrat's talk page, it seems to me that Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats requires that the ultimate reasons for promotion (such as a summary of those reasons) be tied directly to the request made for those reasons. Since the request for those reasons comes from the face of each RfB, I believe that explained reasoning by bureaucrats should be posted on the face of the RfB. -- Jreferee 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with RfAs in the traditional "discretion zone". Majorly (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two concerns with this. First is that there is a high likelihood that this would become a fighting-ground for criticizing the promotion, something that could cause acrimony. Second, that unless it is messaged properly, it might turn into a 'vote' on the appropriateness of the b'crat decision. Considering the high bar set for RfB candidates already in terms of promotion target ranges, I would expect it to come with a commensurate level of trust in their actions except for the most controversial, and there exists remediation for those in the form of RfCs and Arbcom inquiries. Is a Bureaucrat someone who is expected to implement the decision of the community? Or are they part of a 'promotion board' that vettes the appropriateness of what the community has decided? If the first, then we must WP:AGJ (Assume Good Judgment, something that perhaps should be an existent policy) in all but the most outrageous. If it is the latter, then the Danny RfA Republic approach seems to be the model for the future, and that is both somewhat controversial and should probably be formalized by community policy development. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To put my two cents into this, in my earlier 'crat days, I made voluntary explanations of just about any slightly discretionary RfA decision a standard practice when I pushed the button or removed. After a time, I found this to be a mistake, because even the best unsolicited explanation seemed to be a magnet for argument among a certain subset of RfA participants. I came to agree with some of the other regular 'crats that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This implied to me that, if the bureaucrat is generally trusted, most are inclined to accept the decision unless some feel it's really wrong (or at least questionable). I still stand ready (as all good little 'crat should) to explain any decision in response to a civil questioner, but I now feel that there are enough focii of dispute in this process without chewing over every single issue. -- Cecropia

Relevant thread from WT:RFA archives.--Chaser - T 04:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm noticing is that bureaucrat's discussions about RfBs/(some RfAs) are becoming a magnet for argument and that the bureaucrat's themselves are being disparage because the free flow nature of discussions make them an easy target for others to imply that the bureaucrat has not given the matter much thought. This is very bad in my view because a significant aspect of being a bureaucrat is that the validity of a bureaucrat's opinion relies on a lot on the perception of trust/respect for that bureaucrat. Bureaucrat are judges and if officials who preside over a court published their in chambers discussions instead of their reasoning, you would see the same disparagement for court judges. Judges typically circulate an opinion amongst themselves for revision before publication as their explained reasoning for their decision. One or more editors with significant Misplaced Pages experience will usually find bureaucrat decisions controversial. With their experience, they will know how to make every effort to challenge the decision. The question is whether the bureaucrats should hold out as the target for their criticism 1) the explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB, 2) the bureaucrat's discussion about that reasoning, or 3) the bureaucrat(s) themselves. It would be nice if there were a way that no target was available to shoot at, but that is not reality given the importance of each decision the bureaucrats make. However, it is within the bureaucrats hands to decide a course of action to take to minimize the disparagement of any bureaucrat and I think that explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB (when needed) would be the way to go. -- Jreferee 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration at WP:USURP

Hello there. There has been a bit of discussion over here about a usurpation request (by Betacommand) that appears to be within the guidelines for non-Latin usernames, but which has run into resistance because of the difficulty the requested username (Δ) could pose to users of browsers which might not render the requested username properly. Several users on that page (including myself) believe there could be an option, as recommended by WP:U, to allow the usurp request, with the understanding that the usurper will include a link to a Latin username redirect, as well, in his signature. No bureaucrat has commented on the suggestion yet, but I believe (and hope) reconsideration may be productive at this point. Thank you.   user:justen    talk   18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this message was posted Andre agreed with another editor the rename shouldn't be done and Deskana essentially closed the request.--Chaser - T 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Userrights

Can any bureaucrat with a spare minute check whether they have access to Special:Userrights? Yes, I know, it is the steward interface, but there was a recent change to that page's behavior, as described on Bug 6711, and I was wondering whether access had been allowed, or whether changes need to be done to the site configuration. Titoxd 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No access. It says it's for stewards only. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. The issue here is that the new Userrights supposedly has a newer, more granular interface, which allows bureaucrats to access it, making Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot, among others, unnecessary. All it takes for that to be enabled is a rough consensus that bureaucrats would like to use it. Titoxd 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it that it doesn't allow bureaucrats to do stewardish things like removing permissions? If it doesn't give bureaucrats extra permissions, then I support the change. To be honest, I think it'd be okay even if it gives bureaucrats extra permissions, since I strongly doubt they will abuse it. --Deskana (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There does need to be an addition to LocalSettings.php to allow Bureaucrats access. Specifically:

$wgGroupPermissions = true;
$wgAddGroups = array( 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat' ); 
$wgRemoveGroups = array( 'bot'); 

Also, the Makesysop extension is what creates the 'Steward' group, the Makesysop part of it must be disabled, leaving only the Steward group. The Makebot extension must be disabled. Prodego 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the bureaucrats have to decide to stop using Makesysop and Makebot and use Userrights instead - they can't have all three? WjBscribe 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because otherwise, the extensions conflict with each other. Titoxd 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you probably could use all three, though I don't see why you would want to. Prodego 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If we go this route, we will likely disable Makebot and Makesysop as they will be unnecessary. There's nothing technically problematic with using all three, however. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, it allows bureaucrats to remove certain groups of access specified in the site configuration. It also allows admins to add and remove groups of access, if so desired; again, those can be added when desired/needed, but the other two extensions need to be disabled first. Titoxd 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So if there is no change in permissions, I absolutely support the change if the interface is better. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the interface Deskana? Prodego 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, never been a steward on a wiki. --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You should either: (a) install a local wiki (these instructions (-the stick) can painlessly have a wiki running for you, (b) let me get AmiDaniel to make you a crat on his testwiki, which I can do for you as soon as he is available. Prodego 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could get AmiDaniel to make me a crat on his testwiki, please. --Deskana (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana: Create an account at https://amidaniel.com/testwiki and send me an email from Special:Emailuser/AmiDaniel (on this wiki) with your account name there, then I'll gladly +crat you. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the change as well. As far as removing permissions, I think we'd need more than just consensus here for that. Andre (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep; the same settings can be retained, which allow bureaucrats to remove bot flags only. Titoxd 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One note, using Special:Userrights allows a Bureaucrat to be created who lacks the sysop right. Shouldn't matter, but just so you know. Prodego 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So you still need to check the box. Just make sure it is the right box. ;) Titoxd 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered that and don't see a problem. If anything, it's a slight improvement, because it allows us to promote a bureaucrat on the infinitely-close-to-zero chance an RfB passes for someone that isn't a sysop. --Deskana (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about User:RobH. :P Andre (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, obviously crat'ed by a Steward. Prodego 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He has two edits, both to his userpages, and has no logged actions. I don't think he's that important... no offense Rob! --Deskana (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the 1 logged action and 7 edits of his meta account? :) Prodego 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

His one logged action being making himself a crat on en.wiki on July 12, 2007 - presumably to test this interface change? WjBscribe 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but AFAIK, he works more in the hardware side. The local log is interesting too. Titoxd 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, Stewards could always do that. Prodego 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's the one who we call when we get the white screen of death, so I hope he didn't hear you. :P Titoxd 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Our screen of death is white? Viridae 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's that nice "The servers have an error. Make a donation!!!" one. --Deskana (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh that? Isn't[REDACTED] great, talking about screens of deaths made me rediscover Sad Mac, something I haven't seen since I used a mac classic at school eons ago. Viridae 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on the proposal. I'm OK with things as they are now, and I'll be OK with things if we switch to userrights instead. I support giving bureaucrats the ability to de-op people within the project on which they are a bureaucrat. Raul654 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen, after all mw:Extension:Desysop has been available, and never been implemented here. Who knows, however. Prodego 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping will not be enabled--at least not without a great, great deal of discussion. The reason for this is deeply rooted in Misplaced Pages's history (see, for example, the case of Ed Poor). AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify things -- the mechanism that has been implemented for allowing per-right addition and removals via Special:Userrights is very new, untested, and likely quite problematic. At present time, the discussion of the developers is tending toward the removal of this functionality and its reimplementation as an extension, which may or may not be installed on Wikimedia wikis. In any case, it will likely be quite some time before any such changes are made on Misplaced Pages, and before implementing any such changes, we will certainly have an in-depth discussion with the Bureaucrats here and on other projects. At present time, I would suggest just keeping it in the back of your mind that these changes made take place at some point, but not to worry about it right now. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the current setup is OK. On my localhost testwiki I set up steward access for myself, and then sysop access on my other 2 wikis on localhost - and found that doing it the "steward desysops on remote wiki" way works best. The current set-up seems OK for now. As for enabling desysopping, I agree with AmiDaniel's point. --SunStar Net 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:VoABot archiving at WP:CHU

Is there any reason why VoABot shouldn't archive done requests sooner, instead of waiting 24 hours? They're done, after all, and the changes are obvious to the users. Also, WjBscribe mentioned that there seems to be something wrong with the archive function, as it doesn't seem to be moving the removed requests to the archive page. Andre (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar's RFA

I think some 'crats may want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81. New England 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have simply archived the discussion. Both you and Oldwindybear seemed to be escalating the non-issue to an issue beyond all reasonable proportions. --Deskana (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship