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, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Hog Farm	47	0	4	100	Open	02:47, 22 December 2024	6 days, 13 hours	no	report

It is 13:09:33 on December 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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. ϢereSpielChequers 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]

My time limit was purely in regards to my !vote, which I changed to support at practically the last minute because I felt that the lack of proof, or evidence that proof had been submitted, made the allegation unsubstantiated for purposes of the RfA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, whether or not we want to actively nominate users to clerk RfAs or not, we do need to address this going forward. Now that we don't have any active RfAs in progress, it's probably a good as time as ever. I'm very happy to do that role, but it's not really a one (or two) person job. That being said, I'm happy to be personally pinged to look at issues. I think asking a small subset of users to check any RfA page at all times might be a bit unrealistic. Let me know if you think we should be dedicating users for this, or if crats as a whole should clerk/guide the RfA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crats, would it be helpful to get an RfC consensus on whether clerking should disqualify someone from closing/crat-chatting? I think it fairly clearly isn't disqualifying (along the lines of the "purely in an administrative role" exception to WP:INVOLVED), but if this is something that's discouraging people from clerking, then we should definitely get a consensus on it one way or the other, and I'd be happy to start the discussion. But I don't want to spend the community's time getting an answer unless it's something that crats would actually find useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not necessarily think this is "an issue"; I clerked Floq 2, Tamzin, SFR, and MB rather heavily (enough to be in the top 20 by edit count) and yet no one said anything or expressed concern about my participating in the ensuing 'crat chat. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need an RfC to denote this, but even an implied community consensus that making actions, such as striking !votes, cleaning up arguments and in cases like we are talking about removing PA and baseless accusations aren't enough to make someone WP:INVOLVED with the RfA and not need to recuse.

My worry isn't for the vast majority of cases where the clerking is obvious, it is more for when there might be accusations of impartiality. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that bureaucrats - before they participate in a bureaucrat discussion/chat - consider whether their actions and related discussions during that RfX would affect their ability to evaluate consensus responsibly (and as you note, perception does comes into the equation here). I agree that clerking - where purely bureaucratic activity - shouldn't by default prevent participation in a bureaucrat chat. And in the case where guidelines emerge that routine clerking should restrict participation: if substantially all of the active/available bureaucrats performed clerking in an RfX that goes to a bureaucrat chat (I borrow this argument from Newyorkbrad who may differ here), they may still need to participate in that particular discussion per the "rule of necessity". I do encourage more users to apply for bureaucratship, especially if there are not enough available to perform necessary clerking (for example, the rostering system suggested above could be difficult to maintain with only 4-5 active bureaucrats - depending on volume). Bureaucrats as a group are the ones most likely to not be participants in RfAs (and especially RfBs) as a matter of course (where the remaining users with the required experience to perform the clerking activities more typically are), so the task (as a necessity =) generally falls to them where they a recent request to perform a better-defined clerking function. –xeno^talk 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the task [...] generally falls to them where they a recent request to perform a better-defined clerking function
— User:Xeno 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that mean? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review. You are invited to discuss, contribute to, and propose ways to improve the requests for adminship process. Thank you :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. –xeno^talk 19:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I'd like to have my administrator tools removed for the time being. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your work, Isabelle. Should you request your tools back, there will be a 24-hour review period. Acalamari 02:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. Kbdank71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Feb 2023

2. Kosack (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Jan 2023

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

(none)

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLSuda (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I would like to request administration access be removed from my account at this time. TLSuda (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]