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 5 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	97	2	5	98	Open	02:47, 22 December 2024	5 days, 13 hours	no	report

It is 13:19:54 on December 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Firstly, I understand that the "RfA is about consensus" thing is settled (I updated the text on RfA page when the RfC ended, so I definitely agree with the sentiment). I simply intend to ask the bureaucrats' opinion is if every RfA between 65-75 will be guaranteed a chat (I believe this is a no) or will one crat decide if a crat chat is required (I believe this is what happens) or will multiple crats decide if a crat chat is needed (I believe this should happen)? In my opinion, the last option seems most ideal but it does not seem to happen and crats often disagree on whether a crat chat should be done or not even if they are ultimately fine with the outcome (which is a bad version of the ends justifying the means). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bureaucrat, but if my understanding is correct it's really up to the bureaucrat who first handles the RfA to make a decision. Back in the day often you saw "discretionary closes" with a closing statement while today a crat chat is more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The instructions for bureaucrats is for us to assess consensus. If you read some WP:RfBs, particularly the old ones, you'll find there have been plenty of RfAs that individual crats have assessed as having consensus one way or another that contradict a simple reading of the numbers. The community elects Crats very carefully and by doing so says that they place their trust in their judgement. The group is probably quite conservative (with a small c) by nature because the system that chooses us weeds out mavericks pretty well, but nonetheless, some Crats are more likely to opt for a Cratchat than others. But I see this minor variance as a strength, particularly when it does come to group decision-making. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Apologies that I was not clearer with my question, I meant to ask that since different crats have different views on whether a crat chat is required, does it not make sense to open a crat chat by consensus than by effectively biasing the decision-making altogether by having a first-come first-serve basis on who gets to decide if there is a crat chat or not? Crats will always assess based on consensus, but if a singular crat decides that a crat chat is not needed or needed, that becomes a de-facto decision without actually assessing the need for crat chat. I also believe in cases where the editor is above the ~64% threshold, a discussion to determine if a crat chat is needed should be compulsory, since we specifically allowed for it, that crats should assess the consensus with the same, if the consensus is that there is no need for a crat chat, that's all fine and good, but if the one or more crats feel that they should take more time and invite participation from other crats in the process, it should be necessary to do so. Out of the few cases that I'm referring to here, we can take GoldenRing and Greenman's RfA as examples, in case of GR, one crat could have unilaterally chosen not to go to crat chat and they would not be given access to the toolkit whereas in case of Greenman's RfA if it had not been closed unilaterally and went to crat chat, there is a significant chance it would have resulted in access to the toolkit. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: I don't think you can speak for other crats and say they would have passed the Greenman RfA, and therefore I don't yield to that claim. There is absolutely no requirement for a crat chat as we assess consensus, not a vote count. Forcing a crat chat at a certain percentage pulls a 'crats ability to assess the actual situation. The current discretionary range is 65-75. Greenman's RfA rolled a 61%. So you want to force a crat chat now down to 60%? That was completely opposed by the community in the last RfC. The lower we keep making the range, the more slippery the slope. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: I'm sorry but I think you missed my point by a mile or so (no harm done!) I do not think that the range needs to be lowered, or that crats need a fixed range or that crats need to assess on numbers (very against it actually). I'm talking about requiring a consensus between crats, or alteast that crats should err on the side of caution and decide on taking things to crat chat when in the discretionary range or somewhere controversial, at the very least. This was absolutely not about your close of the Greenman RfA (it was not a point of complaint anyway, just stats), but since you brought it up, I'm sure there were some crats who would have found a consensus to promote and to say that you don't yield to that claim is mere and absolute speculation since there is no effective way to determine if you are correct (I said significant chance, not absolute probability). I'm simply saying why make unilateral calls or justify your closes when there are 14 crats and maybe two or three can swing by within the close of a contentious RfA at any given day. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering past precedent (see below), there seems to be no real danger of crats closing such RFAs alone these days anyway, so do we really have to write it down somewhere? Regards SoWhy 15:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crats face flak for any contentious RfA even if there is no crat chat, but if there is one, there is a shared responsibility as well. For example, after Jbhunley's cratchat, there was a bit of chaos all around, but after Amanda's close, it was borderline trainwreck all around, eventually with them taking a leave from Wikipedia, even though their close was technically not an issue at all. When it comes to contentious RfAs, it's just worse to have one crat take the full weight of judgement, even if they are fully capable of it, consensus reigns over unilateral calls (and as I'm sure Jbhunley's close is probably less of a concern to people than Amanda's close of the Greenman RfA, even though, per policy, both are equivalent in nature of their correctness). --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on a few points that I didn't understand. Also, I'll clarify I agree some have already expressed an opinion on Greenman and definitely some could have voted for giving the tools. That's the nature of crats. I was objecting to the thought that it would automatically provide a consensus and they would have got the tools. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Having bureaucrats discuss whether a crat chat is required undermines the point that crats are entrusted members of the community not to go playing around. If we can't trust an individual crat to handle an RfA closure, then what job do we really do other than provide a supervote of sorts? It also just adds even more bureaucracy and is a solution in search of a problem. I didn't leave because of the Greenman RfA, nor one particular incident, nor anything to do with my 'crat duties. If we can't handle a bit of heat for a decision we make, we aren't meant to be 'crats - or admins for that point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to assume, but the timing did make it seem so. Glad to have you back either way. Coming to the crux of what we were talking about, I believe the added bureaucracy should be required to moderate the effective biasing of having a first-come first-serve approach to closing contentious RfAs, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speaking solely from a longtime experience of watching RFAs, part of the more recent trend towards crat chats is probably because of the aforementioned conservative approach coupled with a long trend away from WP:NOBIGDEAL. The community has much higher standards for both admins and crats today than say 12-15 years ago and so crats, particularly "younger" ones are more likely to seek "safety in numbers" instead of taking flak for making a controversial decision alone.

Going by the info on Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion, there were 27 crat chats so far. Of those 27, 21 where wrt to RFAs and 6 were for RFBs. Of the 21 RFA chats, 6 happened in the last five years and 16 in the last ten years. On the other hand, the total number of RFAs declined steadily since 2009-2010.

To put it another way: From 2016 to 2020, there were 130 RFAs, so approx. 5% of all RFAs were decided by crat chat. On the other hand, between 2007 (year of the first crat chat) and 2010, we had 2100(!) RFAs, which means only approx. 0.23% were decided that way and between 2011 and today, approx. 3% of RFAs were decided by crat chat. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say there is a guarantee, and obviously every RfA is different. If I was closing borderline RfA, I'd be more likely to go to a 'crat chat if there were multiple contentious factors debated in the discussion. For example if there was discussion about recent blocks of the candidate, and their recent CSD's, and their civility. In complex cases like that it can help to get additional opinions, just as is done when closing certain RfC's. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is anything in the procedures that could compel a bureaucrat to take any given RfA to a bureaucrat discussion, so you are correct in saying "one crat decide[s] if a crat chat is required". I'm not sure if there are any examples of bureaucrats (as bureaucrats) suggesting something go to a discussion prior to closure, though I know I've seen participants talking about it. –xeno^talk 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general observation, it seems to me like contentious RfAs are more likely to end up at a chat these days than was the case, for example, a decade ago. That said, I don't think it's a guarantee. When I closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum, my first thought was a chat, seeing how it was overdue and that it was at 76%, but then having thoroughly read the discussion, it didn't strike me as a borderline case, so I just went ahead and closed it. (For what it's worth: I've received zero complaints about that close.) Over the years, there's a bit of a pattern with the more difficult RfAs: in contrast to the obvious ~100% ones where a crat closes it right on the minute it's due, the difficult RfAs linger, even if we have a crat or two, who are actively involved in crat areas, editing elsewhere at that point. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what the numbers (see also above) suggest. If we are using 2010 as an example, the highest % RFA that failed was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 at 75%, while the lowest % RFA that succeeded was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare at 71%. Both were closed by a single crat with a (lengthy) explanation but no crat chat. As a comparison, both RFAs within the discretionary range from 2019, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2, had a crat chat (same goes for 2018, where only Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley landed in the range). Regards SoWhy 14:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SoWhy:RexxS is listed twice in your comment. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolotta: Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes my Ctrl-C does not work and I end up with the old link in the clipboard. Fixed now. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To my knowledge the relatively recent resysop RfC is the first time CRATCHAT became a formally endorsed process (and in that particular case a mandated one) rather than an informal one Crats could choose to employ (or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Those mini-discussions about resysop following inactivity aren’t really the same as dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat discussions. Also note that the discussions are only required when there is doubt as to the suitability. A single bureaucrat can still action a re-sysop request as far as I can tell. –xeno^talk 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the same or not statement 3 from the link above does suggest a case where a CRATCHAT is called for according to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s all fine to call a discussion about a resysop request a “cratchat”, it still doesn’t make it a bureaucrat discussion in the traditional sense (and I wouldn’t put them in the same table), per my comments below statement 3. The statement says they’re only formally needed when in doubt. I don’t think statement 3 had much effect anyway: bureaucrats traditionally hold discussions open if there are lingering questions or additional input is needed from colleagues. –xeno^talk 01:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been always been the call or discretion of the first crat to decide whether there should be crat chat or not and whether to close it himself/herself even if it is in the Discretionary range and only once in recent times has a closure of a crat been reverted and reclosed here as the crat had voted in the RFA and this was controversial in 2004 and a crat quit over this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Athaenara (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 requested removal of my admin tools in mid-November 2019 (ref Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 42#Wish to retire my mop). After years of dealing almost daily with spam, I had reached burnout for the first time. Now, three months later, I can see that crying "Enough!" and throwing it all up in the air was not the only available option.

I'm here to ask to pick up the tools again, if that would be appropriate, whereby I could at least respond more helpfully to editors who ask for review of previously deleted content, or intervention against vandals, even as I deliberately assign myself more distance from spammers (and the teahouse invitations on their talk pages!). – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the standard {{rfplinks}} and applied the usual section heading, deciding that this is no place to improvise freely. – Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editnotice says {{Userrights}} actually. Also, both are used (sometimes none!), so no standard as such, albeit you yourself used {{Userrights}} in your desysop request (just for trivia). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: taking this as a representative sample for section heading and rfplinks template. – Athaenara ✉ 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, just to ask the stupid question, but I do not see you as having ever been a crat; why are you asking for a re-cratting? Primefac (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I'm not, sorry, just tripping over myself a bit. – Athaenara ✉ 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I figured that might be the case. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

erm... I think I'm missing something. I cant see where did Athaenara ask for re-cratting. By the way, welcome back Athaenara! —usernamekiran (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, welcome back. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]