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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 12:51:02 on November 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Plain support votes at RfX

I've been thinking about these lately and looking at what our documentation says about them.

In WP:RFA, which is not labelled as a policy page, the text reads "In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way"." This is followed by a footnote that reads:

Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.

This seems relatively clear to me. A simple signature in the support column is "per nom" and should be weighted as such. Although I must say that the "yep" comment" is slightly at odds, as I'd have to read "yep" in support as "yep" to the nomination.

The essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters includes the following rubric:

"You are not obliged to leave a comment with your support vote, but most users do, and if you don't, in the case of a close call the closing Bureaucrat might discount your vote."

This seems at odds with the RfA page rubric.

Questions:

Does the RfA page text generally read right?
Should we delete the "yep"?
Should we amend the essay text to match?
~~Should WP:RfA be a policy page?~~ Xaos got this, below.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for RfA - this is certainly a "process page", not a "policy page". Policy elements should be adjusted at Wikipedia:Administrators as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point.

Done on Q4 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my view, from my own RfB q/a, the community has made it clear that RfA is still not a "vote" and so I would also consider straight "[Support|Oppose]. ~~~~" entries with less weight towards the consensus building process. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly at odds with what we say at RfA. Would you consider a simple signature in support to be weighted less than "per nom", followed by signature? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that being said "less" is non null. I weigh every single statement, keeping in mind the "not a vote" principal (and same for opposition comments). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I keep in mind with generalizations (such as in the guides) is that any "per X" statement is dependent. A "per nom" argument itself won't be any stronger than the "nom" (we see this in XfD all the time) - and we shouldn't presume that every RfA nomination will be strong. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the attraction of clarifying/codifying unwritten rules, in terms of promoting clarity and certainty (although it also risks building bureaucracy given the sprawl of ever lengthier policy pages). On the other hand, the risk is that we soon find that there is little consensus on these issues. I don't think we (the Wikipedia community) or indeed we (the bureaucrats) are all on the same page as how much weight a "bare support" should get. My understanding is along the following lines:

There is a pretty broad consensus that bare oppose comments ought to be given less/limited weight. Rationales explaining the reason for opposition (even if just identifying another opposing comments with which one concurs) are strongly encouraged, the onus being on those opposing to make their case.
There is a (less widespread) consensus that this rule does not apply as strictly to support comments, which are to be taken as support for the nomination or simply confirmation that candidate is found competent overall.
However, there is also a consensus that support comments are more persuasive if accompanied by a rationale and especially rebuttal of arguments deployed in opposition.

I accept that the above views are far from universally held... I suppose you could distill that as a matter of emphasis:

An oppose comment is weakened by the absence of a sensible rationale.
A support comment is strengthened by the presence of a sensible rationale, but not weakened by its absence.

It should be remembered that, given the level of support the community expects nominations to have to succeed, all other things being equal, the RfA system gives more weight to oppose comments than support comments in any event. WJBscribe (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a generational aspect here, that the more grizzled an old hand you are, the more likely you are to find a bare support as a weighty "per nom". Your last comment is definitely humungously true. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the footnote is a quotation ([1]). The qualifier "historically" is significant - I obviously likewise perceived this to have a generational element/that consensus may be changing... WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WJBscribe's comments on bare supports. I would like to add one point. In an RfA (or RfB), the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that a candidate is unsuitable; the null hypothesis is that a candidate is qualified. It follows that a completely bare oppose would have little to no weight, whereas a bare support, while not adding to the arguments in the case of numbers in the discretionary zone, at least pushes the numerical result to the supermajority required. Maxim_(talk) 14:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this way too and though I think Xao's position is subtly different, I strongly suspect it is overall, the 'Crats' consensus'. But we're supposed to reflect 'community consensus'. I think the community definitely would once have strongly agreed with us. I'm just not sure now. Kudpung's essay, that I cited above isn't the only reason for this. I'm sure I've picked up comments from the peanut gallery, for example during Crat Chats that at least a vocal sizable minority don't agree. I'd welcome comments from non-crats here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Maxim's view on "the burden of proof is on the opposition" I think that an "yup" support should be seen as a community "yes". The weight of a "yup" support might not be as much as a "I feel X would be a good Admin/Crat because ......" support, but should weigh more than an empty oppose !vote. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of making the process efficient, I personally disagree that by default the nominee should be considered to be qualified and have the community's trust. I think the nominator should be presenting a well-reasoned case for granting administrative privileges, with supporters filling in any gaps. This will save duplication of effort in everyone trying to establish the candidate's positives. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the onus tends to be on the opposers to show why someone shouldn't have the bit twiddled is because of the long-standing and generally widely-held belief that adminship is "no big deal". Yes, there are some who think otherwise, but that's the way it is. I agree with WJBscribe's distilled version above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the historical context; it's unclear to me though that this remains a majority belief. But in either case, I feel the nominator/supporters have the responsibility of saving the community time and making the case for the candidate's qualifications. They are free to make it a low-key case, in accordance with the "no big deal" principle. I think it is a reasonable expectation, given the large time investment being requested of all the commenters in total. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nominators always have to make a good case. No one here has said otherwise. If I saw a nomination along the lines of "He's a great guy. Give him the bit", I'd certainly be a little wary of it. What's being discussed here is the actual voting (or !voting, if you prefer). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about the null hypothesis didn't have any conditions about the nomination statement, so given the semi-formal language, I wanted to state my disagreement in the absence of greater context. (I'm on record as saying we should stop saying !vote; it's an affectation and an in-joke for programmers who know that "!" represents negation. It's pretty unclear to non-programmers, and most of the time, it's used in the sense "well this isn't supposed to be a vote but it really is a straw poll vote", in which case, just say "vote" without the exclamation point.) isaacl (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only as a lowly admin, WJBscribe's version is *exactly* as I perceive consensus regarding RfA. Weighting is not at all the same as XfD, which is neutral. Each oppose already (more or less) counts as two support votes, assuming you need at least 2/3rds of the community to support, so expecting a sane rationale is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-substantive comment) Since you're welcoming non-bureaucrat comments here, I'll just pop in to say that my views align wholly with WJBScribe's above. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who was most active ten years ago and pops in from time to time, my perspective is that the original assumption that adminship is no big deal put the burden of proof on the opposition. Over time, the "no big deal" culture has slowly and continuously eroded. In addition, the cost of doing candidate research has fallen as people have created more tools to sift through edits—it is less costly to find opposition. Given the constant worry about the stagnant number of administrators, I think it is important to maintain the "null hypothesis" that the editor will make a good administrator and that the burden of proof is on the opposition. Malinaccier (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce the context, I had added the note in question to the Rfa header page quoting WJBScribe verbatim from the Godsy crat chat. Lourdes 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're asked to treat the RfAs as a discussion - not a vote - so if one doesn't actually add any substantial discussion, I find "bare support" to be less persuasive when weighing the comments provided in support and opposition to the candidate. See my comments on this at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat#Xeno and the associated talk page. –xeno^talk 17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the original golden rules of adminship is that it's "not a big deal," it's a mop, or a set of tools, and not an exalted position of overlordship. In keeping with that, WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and other core policies and principles, a support with no rationale, a "yep" or "per nom" will always have a lower burden than an oppose does. I strongly suggest that there not be any actionable outcome of this discussion aside from the clarification. If consensus were to somehow have changed about the basis for support in an RFX, we should make much clearer what the new consensus were to be about and how it squares with other consensuses, policies, processes, and guidelines. I don't see that happening here right now. I agree with Malinaccier above Andrevan@ 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not a bureaucrat I don't have any special opinion on the matter, and if I were a bureaucrat, any opinion that I do have now might be different anyway. If anyone wishes to change my essay to more accurately reflect what bureaucrats actually do, they are welcome to do so. I just have one request: the essay is aimed at a particular user and is written in graded language - please try to maintain the style. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the essay needs to be changed. It is good to encourage people to post rationales for their votes, and the page is marked as an essay, with the usual disclaimer about minority viewpoints. The fact remains that if someone has, for example, 100 supports per nom, and a handful of well-articulated opposes, that person has always still passed. A nomination is an argument, and one may +1 the nomination or the other supporters, but may change their mind if the opposes are convincing. This is why RFAs run for a little while and may even sometimes be extended. I don't think bureaucrats have applied that rubric differently that I've seen -- it is hard enough to get good admins, and we don't give every user a veto. Andrevan@ 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andrevan. I came across this recent 'crat chat by coincidence while researching for RfB So Why - something else but closely related. The Golden Ring one was an unusual 'crat chat based on an unusual set of circumstances. If I read it rightly, I believe this particular chat demonstrates that additional weight is accorded to commented support votes, but I'll keep a open mind on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humor me

Crat's aren't as busy as when they did name changes, but we still need Crats. I'm mainly interested in hearing from existing Crats when I ask: do you feel we need some "fresh blood" or simply another Crat or two for whatever reasons? We've had a couple of RfBs as of late, and from my perspective, it doesn't seem clear to the community what the need is, if any. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New perspectives are always welcome, as far as I'm concerned, even with there being little bureaucrat work to do nowadays. We have 22 current bureaucrats and over 30 former ones, so I think it's wise to try to create at least one new bureaucrat per year, if possible, to replace those before them if necessary. On the the recent two RfBs, "too many bureaucrats" appears to have been a trivial concern to those in opposition. Acalamari 13:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. This is what I wrote in SoWhy's RfB: "Whether or not there's a need for another Crat, whoever they might be, used to be a common theme at RfB, back in the days when RfBs were more common, but it's worth addressing. I'd say there's a case for adding to our numbers. Yes, tasks for Crats these days are fairly light, and our numbers have stayed reasonably stable down the years, but some of our Crats are less active these days and there have been times (Dec 16 re Godsy's Crat Chat and a March 2017 discussion about the Bureaucrat mailing list) when we've had to resort to pings and talkpage notifications to get a good number of Crats opining. Furthermore, I think a small addition of fresh blood is a good thing from time to time, especially when I look at the energy and thoughtful contributions I've seen from some of our newer Crats at BN." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down primarily to patience of the community. For example in closing RfA's, despite the banner on this page, if a closing actually went 11 hours over I feel we would be getting cries of "do something!". "Throwing more resources" at that problem can be effective. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to put forward 'crats, but the community doesn't want them. If they don't want SoWhy, I can't imagine they'll want the other possible 'crats I have in mind. :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was very disappointing. Any qualified candidate would have to be wary about running the RfB gauntlet after witnessing that. 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several try to talk me into walking the RfB gauntlet in the past, but I don't think I would pass. Not sure who would. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I always knew it will be a gamble, although I hadn't expected this strong an opposition. But I don't think this should frighten others from running and I hope other qualified candidates will step forward. Regards So Why 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to have more people available, and new thoughts in the mix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]