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

WP:BN
WP:BNB

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	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
DreamRimmer	0	0	0	0	Open	10:02, 4 June 2024	6 days, 15 hours	no	report

It is 18:31:59 on May 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Crats recusing from Crat chat

I'm recusing from closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and of course if there is a Crat chat, I'll recuse from participating in that, too.

But it brings up an interesting point for me. When there is a Crat chat, I don't think it's inappropriate for Crats to comment on the talk page of the chat, like any other editor. Just wondered if others had similar views? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support bureaucrats recusing from closing RfAs they have commented on - with some common sense exceptions, e.g. closing a unanimous RfA they have supported that no one else seems to be around to close etc... On the same basis, recusing from the cratchat is also wise. But I think it's fine to comment on the talkpage qua editor. I'm pretty sure that's happened before fairly regularly. WJBscribe (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a crat supporting Northamerica1000's RfA then closing it as successful, and all hell broke loose. So absolutely - if you voted, recuse. Hopefully there are enough crats left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All hell broke loose because the 'crat took a personal swipe at me in their support and then unapologetically closed the RfA as successful while it was well within discretionary range. Now, that 'crat and I have settled the matter since then, but let's not equivocate it with this RFA, there were differences.--v/r - T P 12:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recuse from bureaucrat chats in which I participated in the relevant RfA. Commenting on the talk page seems fine provided that a bureaucrat isn't trying to sway fellow bureaucrats from afar but I have confidence that my fellow bureaucrats and I are more than principled enough to not do that. Acalamari 11:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an academic exericise in numbers- out of idle curiosity- what, on the matter of recusancy, would actually happen if out of all the (what, ~20?) crats, something 15 did vote in an rfa which went to a chat? — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 13:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the remaining five can chat amongst themselves

Seriously though, I think it's unspoken consensus among crats not to !vote in such RfAs when already a number of crats !voted to ensured sufficient participants for a crat chat. Regards So Why 13:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense SoWhy; I like the idea, though, of fifteen crats all!voting support, and the remaining five closing as no consensus :) — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why we don't just make more 'crat. I know one guy I'd happily support. Someone who has been very thoughtful in many RfAs and especially thoughtful on the RfA process. So why hasn't he run yet?--v/r - T P 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Give me a K- give me a- ! ;) — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could nominate them. There's only been one RFB in the last three years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probably because since the SUL finalization crats are not really needed for much anymore except bot flags and closing RfAs and RfBs, of which there are fewer as well. But if you have someone in mind, why not just ask them if they're interested in running? Personally I never understood why we don't just make all admins with a certain tenure crats; anyone who has been an admin for say five years should usually be trustworthy enough not to create an army of admin-vandal-bots after five years and one day. Regards So Why 13:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking whom I'm thinking, I discussed it a few months ago here. I think he's concerned about his track record in civility, and on that respect, I know how he feels. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the folks I was considering but I'd happily support them too. Finding good candidates doesn't seem hard. So Why is it so difficult to find willing candidates?--v/r - T P 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just like RfA - anyone who could be a good admin either already is, or doesn't want to be one. If you can get Cullen328 to run (predicted RfA score : 215/0/3) I'll buy you a beer. For 'crats, I was mulling over MusikAnimal, but he's just been involved in the cookie block feud over on ANI so that may come back to bite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the cookie block thing was a mess but I didn't author the patch or sign off on it, just reported that it was released, so I think no one is holding me to it? :) As for 'crat, this makes the fourth time someone has asked me! I could use it for assigning bot flags but you probably wouldn't find me closing any RfAs, unless it's a clear promotion. Carefully reviewing really long discussions is not something I aspire to do or have much experience in, hence I question how well a RfB would actually go — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark has a k in it --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because since the SUL finalization crats are not really needed for much anymore except bot flags and closing RfAs and RfBs, of which there are fewer as well., SoWhy, these things are true, but the number of Crats who are really active is declining and there are occasions when it's really quite hard to drum them up, for example, for a timely CratChat. I think fresh blood is a good thing in any case, but in this case in particular. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way to get more 'crats: rename it to super-admin. The fez isn't nearly enough of an incentive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding trying to sway bureaucrats from afar: I presume most people commenting on a talk page are trying to have an influence on the discussion. I think the key factors are if the commenting bureaucrat is trying to leverage the bureaucrat role to affect the discussion (an extreme case being, "I don't know how I can work with anyone who supports this editor becoming an administrator"), and if the comments are more factual versus analytical. For example, I don't believe anyone would object to a bureaucrat pointing out a misconception about what an editor actually said, but it starts to become a slippery slope if the bureaucrat states an assumption of why the editor said that, even if it's a widely held assumption within the participants of the RfA. If you believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to avoid participating in an analysis of the discussion, then it's probably best to avoid doing it on the talk page, too. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats are elected because of their ability to step back and judge an RfA from a neutral standpoint. IMO that doesn't change when they've actually voted in a request. As such, I don't mind bureaucrats closing RfAs or participating in 'crat chats for requests that they have voted on, though in the case of the former it's probably best for them to recuse for the sake of appearance. When it comes to a 'crat chat, I see no reason why recusals should be necessary. It's not like voting/not voting creates a magical difference between having a personal opinion and not. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficient crats participating, it avoids any appearance issues for sure - now if we exhaust the supply of active crats I think it may be ok to go meta -and have one of the recusing crats close the crat chat - especially if it is contrary to their original rfa position (queue secret false flag conspiracy theories...) — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most legal systems, judges recuse themselves or are disqualified if an appearance of bias exists. They don't have to be biased to not participate, it's sufficient that reasons exists that might lead a reasonably minded party to assume that this judge will rule a certain way. The same applies to crats when they judge an RfX. Even if they are completely able to shut out their bias, a significant portion of the community will wonder whether their decision was influenced by their bias. There is no need for that. Or, in other words: The reasoning for WP:INVOLVED applies to crats judging RfX as well even if they are users who are considered particularly well-versed in the act of neutrally judging consensus. Crats recuse themselves not to prevent impropriety but (also) to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Regards So Why 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the same doesn't apply, because 'crats aren't judges. I am personally more concerned with the rationale for closing a request one way or the other than with who ends up doing the closing. You're correct, of course, that preventing the appearance of impropriety is a reason for 'crats to recuse, in particular from closing requests outright. I'm just trying to present the view that it shouldn't be taken too far or too seriously. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajr, what exactly makes 'crats above having bias or allowing it to affect their decisions? Do sysops, Arbs, and regular users lack this quality?--v/r - T P 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't above having bias, but they are selected to be able to step back from their bias more than other roles are. My very small point here is that I'm more concerned with the rationale for closing any discussion than with who in particular closes it. Looking at this particular 'crat chat, I'm not concerned with how it was conducted either, so perhaps I'm just worried over nothing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem mainly occurs when the vote is close, as it was in this case, because it's hard to prove that one's already expressed opinion didn't affect the proposed outcome. Sometimes, it has to happen, but it's not preferable. --Rs chen 7754 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: regarding new 'crats, while blooding some new bureaucrat talent might be helpful, in the current atmosphere an RfB could be more an exercise in bleeding candidates into hypovolemia, tachypnea, and ultimately exsanguination. EdChem (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Afterthought: I wonder if Bishzilla's pocket is equipped with ICU facilities... EdChem (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

Bureaucrats are invited to comment in the above discussion. I will send round the usual talk page message. WJBscribe (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the chat was that the RfA was successful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser removal

Hey 'crats; I'm just confirming that I was notified by ArbCom about impending removal of the CU rights per inactivity. Please feel free to go ahead and remove them. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: That has to be requested at m:SRP since only stewards can do that. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Dane

If you wish to discuss concerns about this RfA, please take it to that talk page. We really don't need discussions happening in three different places. We are now aware of the concerns, so the discussion here is done. Also, please keep it WP:CIVIL (which applies whether or not you read it). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could I please draw the attention of 'crafts to this comment about offline pressure being applied to !voters who are changing their position? I have asked for further details that may or may not be forthcoming, but this under-the-counter pressure is no way to progress an RfA, and brings the whole system under question. It raises the question of whether the candidate is that bad that they need muscle men putting outside pressure to press for the "right" result? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my part of the story up at the RfA page. If the appropriate authority (ex. Bureaucrats) requests chat logs about the conversation, I can present those. — Gestrid (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the 'crats, I will repeat what I said at the RfA, I do not think that Gestrid has done anything wrong, but others seems to be going to considerable lengths (or perhaps that should be depths) to force this through, and pressure and events like this drag down the integrity of the process. – The Bounder (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree with The Bounder here, and I applaud Gestrid for having the bollocks to speak up and call out vote rigging where he/she sees it. Cassianto^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To repost what I wrote there: You're both blowing this out of proportion. I just looked back over my chat logs. There was general discussion of this RfA; at no point did anyone ask or imply that anyone else should change their vote. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know what was being implied. Why would someone ask another person, who at that point was indecisive, to revisit another editor's comment before reposting again? And while we're here, what does my block log have to do with this RfA? Is it fair that my block log forms part of someone's rationale for supporting this candidate? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will repeat what I wrote there: publish the full text, identifying who was who. If people want to be open about their discussions, they should be honest enough to say what needs to be said on wiki, not in the smoky backrooms of an IRC channel. If you want people to trust admins, and the admin election process, then stop backroom shinnanagans by people who are supposed to know better. – The Bounder (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One could equally question the fact that one of the editors complaining here about canvassing was pinged to the RfA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't, as explained elsewhere. You really must keep up as you're making yourself look really rather stupid. Cassianto^Talk 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily respond to you once you read and understand WP:CIVIL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I'd sooner stick my head in a blender. Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you would rather stick your head in a blender than not violate a Wikipedia policy? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who was present during the 'situation' on IRC, I can confirm that the user in question never asked Gestrid to change their opinion. They stated their own beliefs of the situation, to which Gestrid responded by saying that they will review the circumstances. However, from the wording, I get a strong impression that Gestrid had desired to make a more thorough review of the situation before reading the other's comments. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of admin flag

Done, sadly, per private correspondence. Further discussion at the user's talk page or the active ANI thread, please. Noting that in the view of the Crat who removed the bit, this is in uncontroversial circumstances and the user may have his mop back on request. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove my admin rights effective immediately. I am disengaging from this project. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that for you, reluctantly, but would just like to check you really want to. We need good administrators and I've always thought of you as one of our best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well what has brought this on, but can I urge you to sleep on it? You're one of the better admins, and resigning won't really help the project. There have been far too many resignations of people I respect and trust over the last six months, and at some point we really need to sit down and sort this out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm allowed to write here but in the spirit of WP:IAR etc- Laser brain please PLEASE don't do this- it's not worth it- and you leaving is hardly going to help the rest of us. Come on mate. Don't let the buggers get you down, as the feller said. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 You have been extremely helpful to me (and to many, many others) at FAC, and to lose your balance and judgement would be a loss to us all. I hope a couple of beers and a good night's sleep will help you change your mind. - The Bounder (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.