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 5 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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 05:02:46 on July 9, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Bureaucrat activity requirements (Q4 2015)

I have advised Bcorr, Brion VIBBER, Cimon Avaro, Cprompt, Ilyanep, Infrogmation, Jwrosenzweig, Raul654, and Secretlondon (by talk page [1] and email) that they have not met the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements and that their bureaucrat permission may be removed if they do not return to bureaucrat activity within the next month. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity for further information. –xeno^talk 21:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed under "Bureaucrat activity requirements" the statement, "If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity...". Does this mean that an inactive bureaucrat can not just respond to this activity status notice by editing or doing admin tasks but must conduct bureaucrat activity if they want to keep their bureaucrat permission? I guess, at a bare minimum, that could involve posting on this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to participate in bureaucrat activity, however this is widely construed and involves even merely "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks". –xeno^talk 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeno (et al), I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I probably won't be returning to Bureaucrat activity within that timespan. I haven't really been actively participating in the project for a number of years (just a few edits here and there) and don't really feel that I'm caught up enough on the latest community standards/guidelines/norms to really participate in any bureaucrat activities. Plus, I'm sure that the existing active bureaucrats have the responsibilities as well-covered as they were when I was around. Best wishes to all of you! :) – Ilyanep (Talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. While I still participate in Wikimedia (especially Commons), most of what Ilyanep said above goes for me as well. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the update and your past service. –xeno^talk 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo Ilyanep and Infrogmation's comments -- I still support Wikipedia, I edit occasionally (and plan Wikipedia-related events at my university), but I feel too distant from the current community discussions to be active as a bureaucrat (not that I ever set any records in that regard -- the community has always had an active core that manages most of the business). I am grateful to the people who asked me to hold the role, more than a decade ago; I hope that my few actions then as bureaucrat served the larger purposes of Wikipedia; and I am happy to defer to those active today with best wishes and much Wikilove. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jwrosenzweig, Infrogmation, and Ilyanep for checking in and your past and ongoing efforts- do feel free to request removal at m:SRP#Removal of access, if you like.
I sent out the second notifications [2] and emails to Bcorr, Brion VIBBER, Cimon Avaro, Cprompt, Raul654, and Secretlondon.
The request for permissions change will be made on 31 Dec 2015 for any of these editors who do not return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 15:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Xeno. I've been hesitant to weigh in because on the one hand, I'd like to be useful as a bureaucrat, but I have not effectively kept up with the continuing evolution in policies and procedures. I keep thinking that I will have the time to go through them and start contributing to some of the administrative work, but "meat life" (as we used to say) has kept me very busy the last few years.... - BCorr|Брайен 16:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable, Bcorr. I appreciate you letting us know. –xeno^talk 03:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the removal of the permissions at meta. –xeno^talk 03:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: You appear to be missed Cprompt Here.Or is there any other reason ?.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a mistake. Added, and the 9 requests have been processed, with thanks to Ruy Pugliesi and the users for their past service. –xeno^talk 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning Clerking requests for adminship

Template:Formerly

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hey crats, I started a proposal related to your current duties: WP:VPR#Allow admins to rename users? Max Semenik (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few months since renames were part of our duties. We just add/remove +sysop and +bot these days... WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Usernames are global now and so must be renamed globally. Not all crats are global renamers, and I think you'll find it difficult get consensus to give global rename to all admins. Either way, the discussion should be at meta. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there; in brief: admins who wish to rename can apply for the permission, I don't think it being handed out on a large scale is wise. –xeno^talk 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Xeno. For what it is worth, I rarely see the queue above a half-dozen, and it is empty the plurality of the times I check. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure: 2015 administrator election reform, Phase II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since Softlavender insists on having the discussion at WP:AN#Close review request, please go over there for any further discussion. My attempts at keeping the discussion in one place are proving futile against his/her stubbornness. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Since this is relevant to Bureaucrats, I'm thinking that a Bureaucrat should be involved in closing it. You'll note in my comments there that I'm not pleased with the way the questions about the so-called "discretionary range" were framed. I think this merits a team close, perhaps one Bureaucrat joined by one or two Administrators. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advise waiting until Dec. 30 to close to make sure it's been open for a full 30 days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; no problem, that's just hours away, and this discussion may turn may be helpful for the closing administrator(s). Wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question about the discretionary range is to be closed according to community consensus, not one person's dislike of the proposal. Biblioworm 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My point is that the way the proposal was framed will make it difficult to determine consensus – more thought and "reading between the lines" to determine what !voters are really supporting (or what they think they are supporting). This can't be closed by a simple !vote count, which is why I'd like to see a discussion among experienced admins and not a perfunctory simple declaration by an admin-wanna-be... Frankly, I'm still unclear on exactly how you expect to actually implement this if it passes. I presented my best guess on what I think consensus might be. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin-wanna-be? Is that supposed to imply something?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that; I apologize for whatever it implied. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. I didn't take offense. I was simply curious. Happy holidays. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current discretionary range is in practice quite firmly set in stone, and that discretionary range exists only because the 'crats believe the community wants it to exist. The 'crats do not pass below 70% or fail above 75% because they don't believe the community wants them to. The 'crats do consider the opinion of the community in such matters; I saw a 'crat chat on an RfB from a few years ago in which they were discussing the community's opinion on the 90% bar. If this proposal passes, this will show that the community has new expectations of bureaucrats, and since it formally passed the community proposal process we should probably write it down, at least as a rough guideline. In the spirit of community consensus, the 'crats should honor that decision, just like other community members are supposed to when RfCs successfully propose new practice. The complete SNOW failure of proposal C4 demonstrates clearly that the community now believes that the bureaucrats' discretion should be limited, and therefore it is not honest to keep pretending that the real discretionary range is still 0–100% (people still claim that, but come on, get serious: we all know that isn't true and it never has been, so we aren't actually losing anything at all by just saying in the guidelines that it isn't). Biblioworm 23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, my impression has always been that discretionary ranges are mostly stringently adhered to practice but not enforceable policy. As in, while you won't see a major deviation outside of truly exceptional cases, there is no formal ban on doing so.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the suggestion here is despite rather clear community consensus that we should somehow expand the discretionary range, the closers are to close the proposal as failed just because some people think it's not enforceable (although I did just give a thorough explanation just above)? That would be quite crooked indeed. As I said, I think it would be wise to at least record this as a guideline for bureaucrats. Biblioworm 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me the notions of "discretionary" and "set in stone" are incompatible, and the way the terms are being used is confusing, and may be implying different things to different people.

Let's take this from a different angle. Read Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC#Alternative C1, or implementation details, if you haven't already, and tell us whether that would be an acceptable implementation of your proposal C1, and if not, how would you change it? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so change my 66 to 65, no big deal... shall we go ahead and make these changes? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the team of closers, perhaps Dank would like to be the admin member? Biblioworm 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to say nice things about me at any time :) OTOH, this might give people the impression that I'm likely to deliver the result you want, so I'd prefer that you not ask me to close, and I think most closers probably feel the same way. I wasn't thinking of closing this one, and I've listed it (twice) at WP:AN. But if no one else closes it or indicates interest, I'll do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying to Wbm1058: I had a similar reaction, along the lines of wondering what the crats would make of that. If a crat wants to close or co-close, fine. If they don't, I would certainly ask their opinions about that before closing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the RfC is now closed and C1 is successful. Thanks to Nihonjoe for closing the RfC. Biblioworm 00:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of this RfC

I question the binding validity of this RfC.

Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. Even if the so-called RfC is to be re-assessed and re-closed by someone else, it should not be binding, per items #1 and #2.

Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton:

It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.

I find all of the above to be compelling reasons why this RfC is not, and cannot be considered, binding or valid. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has been closed by a bureaucrat. Someone was certain to claim that the RfC was invalid, but everyone had their chance to participate, as it was widely advertised on noticeboards and the watchlist. There are no excuses. I will stand by the results and not give in to the demands of those who oppose it. Biblioworm 00:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't run RfA, and don't make RfA policies. I'm not sure why you imply above that you do. I am questioning the snap-judgment closing, and the idea that this massive 21-question RfC was ever to be, or could be, considered automatically binding and made into policy. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you disagree with my closes (I closed each of the open discussions individually). Given that you opposed in all three instances where you participated there, I'm not surprised you dislike the closing. You're welcome to discuss further reform after allowing the usual at-least-30-days to pass. Anyone can start an RfC. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please provide information about this "non-admin" who closed the RfC. I'm an admin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender might be referring to the original close of the RfC by Cyberpower678, which was reversed. As far as how binding this RfC is because Softlavender thinks it was too short (that was the complaint two weeks ago when Cyberpower678 reversed their close) or because it doesn't adhere to their interpretation of what an RfC is, I say WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR. Multiple one-question RfCs all lasting 30 days would be unreasonable. clpo13_(talk) 01:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, also: I closed all the other discussions opened by Softlavender and pointed people here. We don't need 5 different discussions going. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Softlavender. The RfA process has been so disfunctional in the recent past, and there has been so much in the way of reform discussion that many may have fallen by the wayside, despairing that RfA would ever be reformed. However, this RfC was well structured and managed, there were many thoughtful discussion points, and it resulted in some clear outcomes that I am sure will benefit RfA and en WP in general. The results should stand and be implemented immediately. I would like to assume good faith here, but sadly, I don't think this thread is itself an act of good faith and acceptance of the consensus that was achieved. All the best. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid close. As for point #3, Wikipedia:Bypass your cache may be useful, as the non-admin close has already been reversed. Comparing the RfC to the controversial one-issue RM is questionable, as the RfC focused on many issues that were separate and less complex than the one complex issue that the RM presented. It isn't more complex than the RM, it just focuses on more issues than the RM. Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, folks, I really think we should just close this thing and move on with the results. The RfC was closed by a bureaucrats, ran for 30 days, was as widely advertised about as widely as it is possible to advertise, and the proposals were neutrally worded. Very frankly, I see this simply as a last-ditch attempt of a determined reform opponent to stop the implementation of results that achieved consensus fairly and legitimately. Biblioworm 01:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For bureaucrats

Just to make the formal announcement, it has been concluded per community consensus that the discretionary range on RfAs should be expanded from the current de facto 70–75% to 65–75%. Bureaucrats should ideally keep this in mind when closing future RfAs. Thank you. Biblioworm 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Andrevan@ 05:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soap desysoped

Per Arbcom decision, please remove Soap's admin permissions. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]