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 17:47:48 on December 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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]

That's oversimplifying the concept. I suggested a first pass using pure (uncommented) votes, and WereSpielChequers recommended appointment by a subset of 'crats. In each case the first pass would have been far lighter and less humiliating than the existing RfA, because there would be no scope for additional questions or comments in votes. All the heavy RfA stuff was to be deferred until the candidate had used the tools for a significant period, so that we could consider their actual use of the tools, rather than speculate on what they might do. This approach didn't get much support, perhaps because I didn't present the idea very well (it was intended to be a starting point for discussion rather than a finished proposal). But it wasn't effectively two "RfAs" as we currently use that term. - Pointillist (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this three years ago. Although, I basically would propose that the "first pass" isn't a community discussion at all. Crats would just give it to any established user who asked, unless someone could give a damn good reason not to. However, during the probationary period, any crat could "desysop" just as easily. (Anyone refused probationary admin, or who feels they've been unjustly deprived if it, can still appeal to the community by filing a regular RFA). My proposal made it genuinely "no big deal", but gave the community the last word at "conformation", when at least the community had something solid to assess. It is a bit like a provisional driving licence, very easy to get, and it really prepares you for the later test. --Scott Mac 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you describe it, your original proposal looks very like WereSpielChequers's approach in the recent discussion. My suggestion for the first pass (pure uncommented votes) may have been more democratic but possibly started the debate off on the wrong foot, I'm afraid. Anyway, if you and WereSpielChequers would like to re-launch a proposal on these lines, I would happily support it. However, I do think that a candidate entering any provisional process should publicly answer a small number of standard questions at the outset, including some statements about his/her greatest contributions to en.wp in both the article and non-article spaces. - Pointillist (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I'd oppose any questions. For who's benefit are the questions? The only purpose would be that the candidate is being examined by the community before being given provisional adminship. That would mean a candidate had to go through a scrutiny process TWICE, which is highly likely to delete, and will certainly increase the RFA circus potential. The only way this works for me is if a crat grants provisional, much the same way we give out rollback (although perhaps looking for a bit more experience). If you've had an account for x weeks and you've got about y edits, you can ask for a provisional adminship - basically you'll get it unless someone points to a solid reason why not. (Valid reasons would be things like "perpetual edit warring", "previously desysopped", "deliberate disruption or bad-faith editing" or "wait, that's a Greg Kohs sock").--Scott Mac 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questions would be just part of the process for applying, like the personal statement on a university application form. The benefit of the answers is that the candidates would be formally introducing themselves in a standard, transparent way. I'm not thinking about all the speculative "how would you" questions in a traditional RfA, just basic stuff the 'crats (or whoever) would wish to know before deciding, something short like this:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past twelve months?

4. In addition to this account, have you ever edited from IPs or other accounts?

There wouldn't be any public debate about the candidate's answers before granting the tools: the 'crats (or whoever) would do their due diligence behind the scenes, and then simply vote. Scrutiny would go public after the probationary period, when everything would be up for discussion in the usual way – but by then hopefully we'd be talking mostly in terms of actual admin contributions and conduct. It wouldn't be appropriate to grant the admin tools without some formality, if only because of possible legal implications. - Pointillist (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant. Godwin's concern is with allowing Joe public to read deleted edits, not with the amount of "formality" to become an admin. Frankly, the bar to cross under a probationary system would be having an account for x months, behaving and making a few hundred sane edits, not filling in some questions just to create needless "formality". There would be absolutely no point in the questions you propose at the the first stage, and all it would do is create discussion about whether the questions had been "answer satisfactorily", more box-ticking, and an effective preliminary RFA. Anyone wanting adminship for nefarious reasons will, in any case, give perfect answers.--Scott Mac 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought I hadn't explained what I meant. Happy to "agree to differ" - Pointillist (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get a bit more training material available to admins and others. But in the absence of that I would be comfortable with a crat appointing a provisional admin on the basis of having checked their AIV reports, CSD tags etc just as a rollbacker is appointed after demonstrating that they can tell the difference between vandalism and other editing. Alternatively I think you could make the provisional adminship dependent on only "approved" parts of the bit being used, so for example a provisional admin shouldn't appoint AutoPatrollers or block users until they've nominated a few successfully and someone from the relevant board drops a note on their talkpage encouraging them to use that part of the mop. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a new rights group "provisional admin". It would be identical to admin, perhaps minus a few bells, but importantly, crats would be able to grant and remove the right. We make it easy to remove - automatically removed for any bad-faith use, and for any less than competent use after one warning. Indeed, we could have the principle that it is suspended on the reasoned request of any three admins (it can always be reinstated, after discussion, if the complaint turns out to be unreasonable). --Scott Mac 12:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's technically possible to create such a userrgroup (whether consensus can be found for it is another story). –xeno^talk 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah: technical solutions to social problems. I can see two relatively easy ways to achieve this right now:

"Provisional admins" are temporarily sysopped, but are prohibited from using some tools (e.g. they're not allowed to block users). If they use the prohibited tools, they're out. If they refrain from using the using the prohibited tools, continue along the process towards full adminship.
(I hates this one) Provisional admins don't get the mop at all, but instead make admin calls, which are then procedurally carried out by crats or admins (e.g. if User:ProvAdmin wants User:VandalsAreUs blocked they post at WP:Provisional Admin Requests and a handy crat or admin blocks the vandal. I don't like this because it creates work for other people.

Either way, this can be done, without technical wizardry or tool unbundling. TFOWR 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to warn new editors ahead of time that numerous automated edits early on may come back to haunt them if they are interested in becoming an admin. Such an advisory could be placed in text related to sign ups for the various editing tools. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crat !voters

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]

You're doing a pretty mediocre job at being retired :) Pedro : Chat 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's just my dynamic IP at home. It'll change again soon enough. I'm also 67.136.117.132, so, yeah, I'm doing a poor job being retired. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, start editing with an account again. You clearly have a lot to offer, judging by your IP edits. --Dweller (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Okay. I've been thinking of a couple new projects I'd like to do here, and I definitely miss having a watchlist. But there are still a few things I'd like to do before coming out of retirement. I think I'll make September 1st the date of my "triumphant return." 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a line when you do, and I'll roll out a red carpet. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 12 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]

The common practice of RfAs is for bureaucrats to refrain from !voting, thereby eliminating any potential conflict of interest for any particular bureaucrat closing the request. And that common practice is completely warranted. But if it was common practice for bureaucrats to participate fully in RfAs, talking freely and !voting, then there would be an additional 20 or so people involved in the RfA process. This would make close calls more complicated, yes, but it'd get more voices in there. Just something to consider, Kingturtle (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that more oldtimers such as crats !voting at RFA would be a big positive. To ensure some crats remain neutral and free to close RfAs you could always restrict yourself to voting where you have experience of the candidate, or each simply pick a range of hours when you are unlikely to edit, and only !vote in RfAs that are expected to close at a time when you are unlikely to be online for several hours, as you know you won't get to close them. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just waved popups over all of ya, and only Kingturtle has been here longer than I. 2004-10-31. @48000 edits. 0 RfAs, here. Just some history and enemies. This is about teh toxic wiki, or whatever you care to call it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point(s). Could you clarify what you mean? --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm underlining the fact that to most out there, the mop is a very big deal indeed, that RfA is a gauntlet that must be run simply to have access to some useful tools. <opinion>I would be useful with more tools, although I'm rather useful as-is.</opinion> I've a mop at s:User:Jack Merridew and it's no big deal. It's not a toxic place. But I've never sought a bit here and it's because some will never forget my past, which was before most editors even found this site. I confront poor notions quite regularly and I do so out of concern for the best interests of the project, but this would all be brought up if I posted an RfA. It would be a three ring circus, with a 'crat-chat at the end. I like the idea of senior editors such at the 'crat participating in RfAs. It would be nice of more senior folk of all strips did, Arbs, mere admins, the experienced, the wise. As it is, the RfAs are mostly dominated by the rabble with their torches and pitchforks. Of course there are some mellow RfA, but this whole process has led to a fair number of cases where people adopt a 'good-admin-candidate' persona as a route to getting through the ordeal. This amounts to role-play, which is not what we want. It has, in part, led to an admin corp that is too mild when it comes to solving problems; the problems go unsolved and we have an accumulation of toxicity. This is a path to project failure. 800 active admins? What was the metric? 60 edits a month? That's not 'active', 60 actions a day, is active. We probably don't have 200 by that standard. This results in burn-out, in problems festering for years until things explode into megabyte AC/workshops. We should have another route to adminship, special appointments. If 80% of opining 'crats thought it appropriate that someone be given the tools, just do it per IAR. We're supposed to trust your judgment. NB: the 48k, above, includes better than 10K on non-en:wp projects. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-I don't support this initiative. Not only is it a solution in search of a problem, it could potentially become a problem. Imagine an RfA that is shaping up to be a close call. Three or four 'crats weigh in, and they all happen to be on the same side. 'crats aren't supposed to be simply counting, they are supposed to be weighing arguments. You don't think an argument from a fellow 'crat may sound more solid than from some average editor? Let's even assume this isn't true - and the closing 'crat can completely separate the arguments from the author. You don't think someone is going to say "Hmmm? Interesting that the decision went the same way as the 'crat positions." Suppose it is a really contentious RfA, and it requires a 'crat chat. Now you need to recuse all those who contributed, presumably those with more than average interest in the process, and round up a number of uninvolved 'crats, each of whom has to be completely blind to the fact that several of their group weighed in on one side. Recipe for disaster. There's much to debate about the RfA process, but looking for more 'crat participation isn't high on my list of issues.--SPhilbrick T 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would continue to avoid opining on or deciding any RfA where I had !voted. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Crats to make plea for greater participation in RfA

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]

I meant to answer that the other night. I don't think it is a good idea for bureaucrats to be singled out as recruiters or solicitors. Some people may be rubbed the wrong way, and I think it sends the wrong message-that bureaucrats are special or think they are special. This effort needs to come from a group of interested users of all ranks, shapes and sizes. Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thrust Dweller but I'm not sure that RFA participation is an issue. I also agree very much with Kingturtle's thoughts above. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Bureaucrats aren't special, but they have a special interest in RfA. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But admins and others aren't special, and they have a special interest in RfA too. Kingturtle (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm just looking to encourage people to take a special interest in RfA, because I think too few old timers are still involved. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, what do you think the current community of active participants could learn from the old timers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to develop an old-timers/newcomers delineation . I am afraid it would morph into a seniority dynamic. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, which reminds us all "We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect." Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we don't want to get into a seniority dynamic. Dweller's comment implies to me that he thinks something (perspectives, attitudes?) has changed. Are the attitudes found in the current to the community of active participants different to the attitudes of old (old = a few years ago!)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to me that Dweller is simply trying to bring back some perspective that us old timers have. The question becomes what the difference will be, if any. Certainly if 20 bureaucrats show up to participate, it'll be enough to change the numbers on the RFA, but it's highly unlikely that will happen. What is more probable is that if a few 'crats participate, there might be a few "per crat XYZ" because bureaucrats' opinion is generally respected. Is the objective of bringing in bureaucrats to participate to make RFA easier to pass? If that's the objective, I don't think this would be the correct way to go about it. If the objective is to get participation by some individuals who would likely do a thorough inspection of the candidate, then this wouldn't be a bad way. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}13:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Least sexy task

I know it is by far the least sexy thing crats do, but we are the ones who close requests for people to join WP:BAG. We haven't had a new BAG member in about four months now and there is something of a backlog developing at WP:BRFA, so if there are some technical minded people or at least people who can review technical requests, new BAG membership requests would be most appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was the sexiest. Kingturtle (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]