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 .

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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 17:32:06 on December 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Discussion about possible probationary sysops

A discussion about possible probationary sysops is occurring at RfA Talk. One of the proposals includes having 'crats appoint probationary sysops. I personally like the idea, but it has been properly noted that we shouldn't ~~pend~~spend too much time on the proposals if it is wouldn't be considered by 'crats. I think the idea has some merit, needs substantial tweaking, but wanted to make you aware of the discussion.--SPhilbrick T 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is found for the new process, I don't think bureaucrats will stand in the way of change. –xeno^talk 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Xeno on this one. If the proposal gained consensus for implementation, we'd probably have some bureaucrats decline to participate, but I don't think any real pushback would happen. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of you - but the notification is helpful, as bureaucrats can be expected to have strong opinions on the way RfA works, even if our opinions shouldn't necessarily carry more weight than those of any other users. --Dweller (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Required reading

If I could make these required reading for crats, I would: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats and Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats; and yes, also posting at WT:RFA — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion Rlevse. Kingturtle (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. me thinks you mean WT:RFA.[reply]

I just looked at Wikipedia:Admin coaching and my jaw is still on the floor. It seems to me that those meeting the "Typical experience level for starting Admin Coaching" should (absent some evidence of misconduct) be passing RfA, not scraping the requirement for coaching. The "Perceptions at RfA" section of that page is truly tragic. Apparently, an editor should now have been active on the project for 12 months before they run at RfA (I had less than that when I passed RfB!) and have made to 8 - 12,000 edits (double if a vandal fighter). I truly hope those running the coaching programme are overestimating the standards now required. WJBscribe (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I became an admin after being here for about 7 months. RFB took a little longer, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 months for me too. 22 months for crat, though. :) (X! · talk) · @784 · 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last month we had a candidate pass with over 90%, and the opposes were mainly about grammar, attitude to the word wannabe and in particular that over 75% of his edits were in mainspace. Nobody expressed concern that he "only" had 6,000 edits. RFA isn't easy, but I fear some people's perception's of it are far worse than it is. though less than a year or less than 4,000 edits and sadly I don't fancy your chances. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some changes to that page, but I feel that I probably did not go far enough. Those numbers don't sound accurate at all, and if they are, they shouldn't be. NW (Talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WJB what are you talking about? The page that you are linking to does not make any statement about 12 months (except for people "who is habitually or grossly uncivil or has been blocked.") The note on tenure indicates 5 months with 6-7 months being the typical minimum tenure on WP to pass an RfA. It also says 3000 edits, "Successful candidates at RfA usually have over 4,000 manual edits or equivalent (automated edits are typically valued less at RFA as many more can be done in an hour)." But in reality, it doesn't really matter. I just checked the history of the page, and the last two edits were when Enigma marked it inactive and Biblio marked it active a year and a half ago. Coaching is essentially dead. Wikipedia doesn't value attempts to help others learn the ropes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, you might have missed the changes that I (and then WSC) made to the page; see the diff right above your post. NW (Talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{comment}I had written a comment, then realized what happened, and tried to edit my original comment, but that created a mess, so I'm replacing it here.{end comment}Actually, following your link I found a second page that WJB must have been looking at. Looks like the main page hasn't been edited since March 08, but that the /guideline page was updated unilaterally by User:Fastilysock last November.

Fastily's edits were undone a few times, but he reverted them claiming the original numbers were outdated. In reality, they were kept deliberately low as to be high enough to be meaningful, but low enough that individual coaches had freedom to select candidates with varying amounts of experience. For example, the original number called for 3 months of editing and 1750 edits before becoming a coach. The expectation being that people would get to the minimum levels desired to run while in coaching. I've restored the original values because those were the numbers that were agreed upon back with Mbiz and I were trying to run Admin Coaching. Those numbers do not represent one persons opinion, but were decided based on consensus---but again I think the page should be retired. I don't think the few active coaches use those pages at all.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, I suggested what was needed was adminship-lite or "provisional adminship". There was no traction at the time, but now I wonder about reviving it. See User:Doc glasgow/provisional adminship.--Scott Mac 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:RFA#How_about_a_probationary_period_for_admins? and at least one subsequent thread. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, that proposal would mean effectively 2 RFAs. Can't see that helping.--Scott Mac 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what's really needed is a healthy injection of old timers contributing as participants in RfAs. Since passing RfB, I hardly ever !vote any more, but I rarely am around at the right time to close an RfA anyway, so maybe I should start doing so again. --Dweller (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vote. :( 174.52.141.138 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you banned? Blocked? --Dweller (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP address :) -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can, you'd just need to log into your account to do it... WJBscribe (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retired. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the other crats feel about us, collectively, making a plea for greater participation at RfA, especially by old timers who might have stopped participating there as much as they once did? We don't need to canvass support, just participation. --Dweller (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(not a crat and ec'd and my response below matches your request) Dweller is right, very right. I was looking over some of my old nominations recently and not only did it strike me that I don't see a lot of names anymore (sadly) but it makes it clear how standards have gone up even from such a small sample. Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) with just over 5,000 edits. Nancy (talk · contribs) with well under 5,000. WilliamH (talk · contribs) with less than 6,000. Oh, and I passed with 4,500 as a, to quote "kick ass vandal fighter" and with such a foolishly large number of nominators (no disrespect to them, but it was a tad embarrasing) that ever since it's being RFA etiquette not to have more than a couple. And that was like around 1100 days ago. Which ain't a long time.

I'm not sure about the problem of RFA participation. I think we've a better solution, and it has been done. If standards have gone up (they have) and we have less active admins (we have) and this may cause a problem (it may - not proven) lower the percentage for passing. 70% + automatic. 60-70% crat discretion. Pedro : Chat 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]