Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 09:59:09 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Nomination for deletion of Template:@Bureaucrats

Template:@Bureaucrats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm in the minority here and the rest of the 'crats like this? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect you are; you also recently opposed the {{@BAG}} template for what appears to be similar reasons (despite no real opposition at its creation). Primefac (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@BAG was discussed at the appropriate noticeboard, then created, and I chose to opt-out. I will certainly opt out of this one as well if it is kept, but think this is more egregious - not just that it is 300% larger in distribution, but its frequency of use is increasing as well. Could you imagine dropping a @sysop or @rollbacker request somewhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbolic statements are unnecessary; there is zero reason to ping every sysop or rollbacker and you know it. Remove yourself if you don't like it, but don't try to use some weird slippery slope argument to try to invalidate its existence. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Xaosflux's point is not that {{@sysop}} is the next stop on a slippery slope, but just that somewhere between {{@BAG}} and {{@sysop}}, there's got to be a boundary. Seems like X thinks this is on one side of that, and you think it's on the other, but establishing that there's actually a boundary somewhere is a useful thing to say. Plus, there's a maximum 50 pings anyway, right? -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the boundary is ultimately a group size of 50. Izno (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I dunno, I think {{@editors}} might come in handy if I had something Really Important to tell everyone. 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

for the first time in my editing career, may i say: may we hit that technical restriction one day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We'll never have 50 crats. I'm sure of it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I had not thought of it that way; that's a fair point. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA clerking

Perhaps, what we need is for crats to volunteer to oversee particular RFAs. A note at the top or on the talk page saying, "Bureacrats Primefac and Lee Vilenski are overseeing this RFA." If no bureacrat volunteers, we can do the RFA like the small projects do. Community does their process and waits for someone with necessary permissions to show up on their leisure to click their buttons. If someone does volunteer, editors get to ping that bureacrat or put their requests to bureacrats on a section on the talk page but they don't get to ping all the bureacrats. That should take care of most cases. When all else fails, there's always this board to post to.

Almost all the bureacrats seem to want to just do cratchats and rights changes, while editors increasingly seem to want at least one bureacrat undertaking an active clerkship in an RFA, a task for which only Primefac has ever demonstrated willingness. I think a conversation is long overdue as to what purposes the community wants the bureacrats for and whether bureacrats who volunteered for the role with the understanding of more limited expections are willing to adapt to that. If not, the community will have to learn to live with it or make new crats. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't mind watching RfAs, but it would be nice if someone else were there for the times when I'm away (this last weekend, the whole "religion question" thing, etc). Maybe it's a case of empowering admins to take these sorts of clerking actions (if a 'crat isn't about), and have a 'crat sign off on them afterward? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Usedtobecool that if we find there aren't enough crats willing to do the work asked of them at RfA the community needs to fix it somehow. I will also say that we've made a number of crats since the community asked for more crat intervention at RfA and I'm a little surprised that Primefac is the only one who does that work (but appreciative that he does). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to actively clerk an RfA, I'm pretty happy to leave notes and the like and moving extended conversation to the talk page and the like. I think the issue we've got is to not have crats get involved with the conversation. There's also no real rule as to what can be asked/said at an RfA. If we want to empower clerking (or crats in general) to interevene with personal attacks, misleading arguments or leading questions, then we need to make that known.

  The big worry for me is, as a crat is to wade in with clerking and then not being perceived as neutral on a close or later cratchat. I would always recuse in such a situation, but it wouldn't stop a long conversation.

  That being said, I do watch the RfA and I actually appreciate the pings, as it's not a full-time job checking for things to clerk. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more – it feels like there's a lot more we could do in terms of policy and personnel to make civility enforcement at RfA more robust. We need a fresher blood – the median current bureaucrat was elected in 2010. We also need a better system for RfA civility enforcement than "the 'crats need to figure it out", and we need a way for participants to be able to have a say in the outcome with minimal disruption so that those who intentionally cause disruption can be held to account for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I echo my comments below for reference, but beyond that, I have clerked a few RfAs and made clerk like actions on them, albeit not recently because I was promoted at work just over 2 weeks ago and have been exhausted trying to adjust to the new hours, and when I saw the comment to stop pinging crats (though I also agree it should continue) I made the wrong assumption that it was either frivolous and/or had already been dealt with. I will have to try and see if I can get myself pinged when a new RfA comes out so I can watch it better. That said, despite the community not coming to a consensus on this previously, I do think like theleekycauldron that the crats being a "more sensitive discussion closer" is both not ideal, and flies in the face of using b'crats to close RfCs or deletion discussions that are more 'controversial'. Crats were originally elected to be bureaucratic and not be frontline decision makers. But lacking community consensus any other way, we are the unfortunate fallback because we are assigned to making the determination about userrights. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Providing people are OK with crats both clerking RFAs and also closing them, I'm OK with doing some clerking when I'm around and know I will be around for several hours to respond to the aftermath of such an intervention. That said I think we should be very selective as to what clerking we do. But to respond to the specific suggestion, when we do need a redaction, we likely need it urgently. So until one of our AI admins passes RFB, we are not going to be able to provide the requisite 24/7 coverage with just a couple of named crats. ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The 2015 request for comments on clerking reached a consensus that bureaucrats were empowered to perform clerking duties (with one support statement noting that the same bureaucrat shouldn't close the RfA). isaacl (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only concern with this is if we have more than 1 crat clerking, what does that do if a case goes to crat chat? Are they now all forced to recuse over clerking? I don't know that question has been answered. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Forgive me if this comes across as an obvious question, I know that several crats have shared this same opinion and concern over recusing, I just can't figure out what the opinion is based on. For regular admin actions, administrators are not considered involved simply on the basis of having made an action in an administrative capacity against an editor. If an admin was clerking comments in an RfA, so long as they did not show bias in doing so they would not ordinarily be construed as involved. Is there a specific part of the policies covering crats where you're construing involvement in a much wider way than we would elsewhere in the project? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not deriving it from policy by any means, it comes from the toxicity involved with RfA and how quickly people are to claim bias of any kind based on a clerking action. Given the result of the RfC is that the crat clerking should not close, that suggests that providing an opinion on top of clerking could be a controversial subject in the toxic area RfA is. Crats are also elected to be bureaucratic as I mentioned elsewhere. The definition of our role is not to move unless it's seemingly uncontroversial. Combine those two factors and that's where we are, but not because of any definition of INVOLVED or policy reason. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  So then how do we solve this seemingly unsolvable problem of on the one hand crats feeling unable to clerk RfAs because it could be seen as a controversial action, and admins feeling unable to clerk RfAs because they've not been empowered to do so and that it's the role of the crats? Because both groups are ultimately excluded from clerking, it's not getting done, which no doubt has an impact on the overall toxicity of RfA and the high levels of stress it causes to perspective candidates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think one off type actions are an issue, especially considering I just took that action recently, but the active clerking of RfAs by multiple crats is where this poses a problem. To be clear, I have no objection to clerking as I have done in the past, but there are zero community norms as to if a crat *should* continue to work and provide an opinion on consensus. As far as I understand it's just purely untested water. I get that 'crats are elected to know their own bias, but it hasn't stopped the toxic crowd from forming at RfA and attacking whatever they can. I can't speak to the speed of the crats though in this situation, but I have addressed my speed below.

  I'm also of the same mind that 'crats dictating what it takes to make policy, or to suggest someone go start an RfC - or other venues, is not our role. In fact, unless you have a well formulated action plan and RfC, I would not recommend it, again because of toxicity. Our job is to review consensus, not to decide critical conduct policy that the community can't. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  And my concern has been reaffirmed within minutes of me saying so [1]. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I saw that as I was drafting my reply below, and have asked the editor who did that to self-revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, I get that your role is, as you say, to review consensus and not decide conduct policy. My question is as much an open one to the room, as it is one that maybe just isn't answerable. But insofar as the scope of your role, and what actions you feel as though you can and cannot take within that scope, I think it would be remiss of the wider community not to ask for your input. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair and I guess the subtext to my answer there is ideally some enforceable change (RfC or large community consensus, confirmation by a large number of people of this being the status quo, and I cringe to say this next one - an Arbcom decision). The reason I'm trying to step around spaces is I also don't want people to take actions i'm suggesting and get murdered reduced to rubble in the RfA toxicity in doing so. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the RFC found consensus that clerks should not close. The closer simply noted that some people brought it up. That, I'd read as "needs further discussion, maybe an RFC".

  A few voters suggested that it's not a good idea to allow one person to both "clerk" (whatever that means) an RfA and close it ... Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the question of whether or not a bureaucrat performing clerking actions makes them involved in the RfA, since there are nineteen bureaucrats, it should be possible to have a small subset take on clerking duties, leaving the majority of bureaucrats unencumbered to evaluate the result of the RfA discussion. I appreciate, of course, that the availability of bureaucrats can reduce that number. This could be an impetus for the community to nominate more bureaucrats, or to further affirm that bureaucrats are indeed trusted (as per their corresponding RfB discussions) to set aside any personal biases, or clerking actions taken, when determining the outcome of an RfA. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

At the RFA's talk page, bureaucrat User:AmandaNP advised that appealing 'crat actions needs to happen on this noticeboard so here goes. I oppose striking then redacting Homeostasis07's rationale, I oppose removing the vote entirely, and I oppose the redaction from the RFA's talk page, too. (That last one feels so, so pointless.) The only way they're casting aspersions and breaking policy is if they always meant to contribute those two messages and absolutely nothing more to the RFA. That, to my mind, is an entirely unfair thing to think given their history: They've been here forever, they have a ton of edits, the sole entry on their block log was some trifling BS from a decade ago, etc., etc., etc. The one example they gave, the thing on the Marilyn Manson article, was weak and I was one of several editors who debunked it. But does that matter? We know, per the words "compiling now", that Homeostasis07 planned to show a lot of evidence. I actually don't even agree with Daniel Case and others that the end of the RFA is itself a hard time limit. If Homeostasis07 is able to furnish evidence of longtime rulebreaking but not before the RFA ends, will Sdkb avoid sanctions? Of course not. City of Silver 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My time limit was purely in regards to my !vote, which I changed to support at practically the last minute because I felt that the lack of proof, or evidence that proof had been submitted, made the allegation unsubstantiated for purposes of the RfA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I may, whether or not we want to actively nominate users to clerk RfAs or not, we do need to address this going forward. Now that we don't have any active RfAs in progress, it's probably a good as time as ever. I'm very happy to do that role, but it's not really a one (or two) person job. That being said, I'm happy to be personally pinged to look at issues. I think asking a small subset of users to check any RfA page at all times might be a bit unrealistic. Let me know if you think we should be dedicating users for this, or if crats as a whole should clerk/guide the RfA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Crats, would it be helpful to get an RfC consensus on whether clerking should disqualify someone from closing/crat-chatting? I think it fairly clearly isn't disqualifying (along the lines of the "purely in an administrative role" exception to WP:INVOLVED), but if this is something that's discouraging people from clerking, then we should definitely get a consensus on it one way or the other, and I'd be happy to start the discussion. But I don't want to spend the community's time getting an answer unless it's something that crats would actually find useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not necessarily think this is "an issue"; I clerked Floq 2, Tamzin, SFR, and MB rather heavily (enough to be in the top 20 by edit count) and yet no one said anything or expressed concern about my participating in the ensuing 'crat chat. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RfC to denote this, but even an implied community consensus that making actions, such as striking !votes, cleaning up arguments and in cases like we are talking about removing PA and baseless accusations aren't enough to make someone WP:INVOLVED with the RfA and not need to recuse.

My worry isn't for the vast majority of cases where the clerking is obvious, it is more for when there might be accusations of impartiality. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Aspersions in Sdkb RFA

While we are discussing crat clerking, can I draw attention to the current RfA's sole oppose. This needs some sort of action surely. The section is pretty self-explanatory: User:Homeostasis07 has alleged that the candidate indulged in inappropriate off-site behavior, for which they are compiling diffs now. That was nearly five days ago, but they have not edited the RfA or any other since. No one supports the claim; they have been consistently criticised, and WP:ASPERSIONS mentioned several times. Handgrenades, as I said, seem to have been wielded. While the allegation itself is unsavoury, what's worse is they have literally been allowed to make one of the severest allegations one can make on-site, with no diffs, no evidence, and not an iota of justification. Arbcom's input on whether they have received such evidence would be helpful.* If they confirm they have, then that fulfils the requirement of diffs (the community need not be able to see them). If they haven't, then Arbcom's 2015 resolution applies: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe, and per WP:WIAPA?, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

It is true that in the current RfA, the allegation has not dented the candidate's support. In fact, its foolishness may well even have contributed to it  :) but two things are more important. Firstly, that we allow such comments to stand unchallenged when they fly so blatantly in the face of policy is a poor look, to say the least. Secondly, if it is allowed to stand in the long term, it might be raised in the future—months? Years?—and highlighted as indicating no smoke without fire ("And look, there must've have something to it, because no-one ever did anything!"). We should not allow a blemish on the candidate's character to stand like this. Cheers! Apologies for the length.

* Yes, there's a template I could use here to page every member of the committee to this discussion, but in the context of other templates and other discussions, I'll refrain  :) ——Serial 15:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 has indicated they are sending evidence to the Arbitration Committee; if that is not received then I see no reason why the problematic content would not be struck. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate you replying here Primefac. Not necessarily to you personally, but how long would one be expected to have before submitting evidence? Regarding collection of evidence, POLEMIC is no more precise than in a timely manner, but the difference here is that in a RfA, a 168-hour clock is ticking. I suggest that Arbcom block Homeostasis07 either until he submits evidence or returns to editing and publically withdraws his allegations, even if the RfA has passed. Such a block would at least be preventative rather than punitive. ——Serial 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking opposers in RFAs is a good idea. Honestly I'm not even in favor of third party striking in most cases. Let people say what they want, in my opinion, and if the rationale is poor, the rest of us are smart enough to see this, and it reflects poorly on the opposer, not the candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an oppose !vote should warrant a block. Realistically, in a close, we'd disregard votes that are either disingenuous or misleading. The above does seem to be a part of a pattern of behaviour, which could be actioned by an administrator. The only bit that would be crat related would be to explain what is suitable in an RfA discussion, striking unsuitable !votes and moving/ending discussions not related to the RfA. We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote, so we can't just strike this !vote (they could easily have made no comment with the oppose). We could, however, clerk potentially worrying comments at the discussion. I'm open to hear what things we should be doing when the comments/behaviour happens on an RfX page rather than any other page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote. No, we have a policy devoted to it instead. RfA isn't subject to ignoring policy, nor does IAR relate to behavior. This is not just a normal crappy opposition based on a silly, subjective opinion, this is an accusation of one of the worst things it is possible for any editor—let alone admin—could possibly do. In fact, if the same allegation was made about an admin, they would (probably) be desysopped, it's that serious. Yet it's OK to say it about a candidate? I tell you. If anyone asks in future, "Why are so few candidates standing for RfA these days / Why is RfA so toxic?", Why not just point them to this conversation... ——Serial 18:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

hit the nail on the head! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the clock is an issue with a single oppose. If a correction, redaction, or other adjustment is considered appropriate, it can be done even after the closing, so anyone seeing the discussion in future will know the corresponding context. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: Firefly noted on behalf of ArbCom today that such evidence has not been provided, if there's anything you'd like to do beyond what Floq has done. Maybe a warning would be in order, if this RfA ends and the allegation remains unsubstantiated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that while we discussed this issue, Firefly's message was not technically on behalf of the Committee as a collective. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Ah, thanks, good catch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As the only standing neutral !vote so far, because while I have a high view of Sdkb and would otherwise support, I believe that Homeostasis should have the full time limit, same as the rest of us do, to modify their !vote and/or respond to comments.

Even if Firefly's message had been on behalf of ArbCom, it does not, for me, follow that Homeo's !vote should be stricken.

We do not know why they have not responded or edited since their comments in the RfA. We have no way of knowing whether they have even seen Firefly's message. We have many long-term users in good standing who take long, unexplained breaks between flurries of edits. Sometimes they offer explanation, but it is not our place to ask them why, much less draw adverse inferences about their motives behind a particular edit from those absences.

If Homeo had been regularly editing in the interim and ignored Firefly's request entirely for, say, a day or so, I'd consider the unilateral decision to strike the !vote more justifiable. And I will also say that AGF means that I do not hold it against Amanda for striking the !vote ... indisputably it has caused drama we don't need to have (well, wait a minute ... by definition, as I often say in edit summaries, drama is something we don't need to have), but I believe she was acting in what she reasonably believed to be the community's best interests (and, really, with the !vote tally the way it is now, and so many people !voting support in response to Homeo's oppose and apparent subsequent inaction in the wake of a serious allegation, no one could possibly consider this to be anything close to an attempt to manipulate the outcome). It was an action that could be reversed as easily as it was taken, as indeed it was. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The clerking done on that !vote was in line with what I was planning. Primefac (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Weird. Any other page on the project, and this evidence-free accusation would have been removed and the user warned to provide evidence *before* making accusations. But RFA is special? In the absence of crat clerking, Ad Orientem has moved the thread to the talk page, and I've taken the liberty of also moving the evidence-free accusations to the talk page. User:Aardvark Floquenbeam said it was OK.... Actually, he said it could just be deleted, but I chickened out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I for one look forward to our new 'vark clerk overlord... ——Serial 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the mention of evidence being sent in the near future to ARBCOM has meant that the community has taken a "wait and see" approach to the matter rather than this chaos being a result of RFA. It's in some sort of limbo where the evidence exists and doesn't exist at the same time. I wonder if admins that aren't bureaucrats feel weird about the prospect of taking action regarding the claims made since RFAs fall under the bureaucrats' purview and the bureaucrats feel weird since they aren't part of arbcom. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the crats want to have this beaten to death even more, so... I think Amanda handled the RFA talk page exactly right, and in hindsight, I wish I'd done that in my non-crat clerking yesterday. I think, however, since there is still a minor justification that remains unredacted, that the actual vote on the main RFA page should be restored, with the first paragraph showing and the second one redacted (just like Amanda did on the talk page). I also agree with Primefac's restoration of Lightburst's pointy vote. I won't be bold, tho. Crats need to be the final decision makers in cases like this. Regardless of this quibble, thanks to both of them for wading in.

If crats are going to clerk more frequently (something I support and welcome), I'd personally like to see an approach to redact any content that needs redacting, but don't send the actual vote down the memory hole unless it's made by someone not allowed to vote. The closing crat would, of course, be free to ignore pointy or content-free votes when it comes time to evaluate consensus. It's the policy-violating content that needed removal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If the community is going to be resistant to removing the actual vote counter, I would suggest that such debate is a red herring for actually warning users who engage in what the 'crats judge to be misconduct. If Homeostasis's comment was worth removing, why wasn't it worth a warning for a conduct violation? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Where did I say a warning wasn’t appropriate? I certainly think a warning was appropriate. But there was also a non-redacted reason given for opposing, and I don’t understand why the vote itself is still removed (except crat fatigue at all of us kibitzers, which I can kind of understand……) Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I am replying to you, but I'm not contradicting you at all – I'm just providing some food for lateral thought. (Homeostasis wasn't warned, was my point. Neither was Lightburst.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. It probably says something about me that my first instinct is that a reply is a disagreement … Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: To be completely honest, you don't need a crat to issue a conduct warning. I don't think us clerking RfA should turn into a tier 2 enforcement level for the community. Admins, and even users can issue warnings to people, and we don't need to be involved with that in issuing any formality. I do think though that my comment on the talkpage was a warning within itself about the inappropriate behavior, but YMMV on the degree of my comments and how strong the warning needed to be. If that's the case I'm not stopping nor am I encouraging it further. That said, IRT Lightburst (this time and this time only), I was following WP:DISENGAGE, especially as issuing a warning to a user disagreeing with my action is very much an involved action. The talkpage expressed enough to leave it where it was and not blow this up to even more drama.

@Floquenbeam: The redaction of the first part on the actual RFA I can see the reasoning behind it, and would agree with said reasoning, but I'll make a point later on in this comment. I would disagree with the actual vote being left in force, regardless of the vote count some have eluded to. The vote was pulled because the users rationale violated core policies, and only leaving part of the actual vote is compromising the vote itself. If any part of a vote is going to disappear, the whole vote should until the user can reaffirm within policy. I also provided the opportunity for the user to restore it when it remained within policy, and I also left a note about it - so not exactly down the memory hole. And honestly, the community is asking for unprecedented action more and more by 'crats - even if it's supported by policy. So if there is going to be bureaucracy about bureaucracy, it might as well be bureaucratically specified in policy or RfC - as this post action thought is not really assisting in the idea that crats should clerk. Though I do understand the point of post-morteming the first occurrence of this, I would suggest that it would be better at a point of broader community input - not where the crats are supposed to respond by default. tl;dr not trying to be an asshole, but we aren't thinking about the implications and pitting crats into fixing the extreme side of toxic RfA culture that no one has been able to fix for years. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: I am not sure you can quote an actual policy or guideline that says you have the right strike a vote because some part of the rationale was against policy. You said they need to "reaffirm within policy"? It seems like you are making that up. You could have (Personal attack removed) the offending part of the rat. You were acting as an election monitor, but they exist to make sure folks are not disenfranchised.

I am also gobsmacked by Leeky who I work with in other areas of the project. Leeky seems to be constantly angling for a reason to ban, sanction or warn. Maybe because a single oppose voter in their RFA had their vote struck and I reinstated it? I voted with the majority in Leeky's RFA and in Sdkb's but I did the work of an election monitor by trying to allow a voter who voted opposite of me, to vote. Since Leeky was one of the nominators in this sdkb RFA they could have insisted on leaving the oppose vote (sans rationale). Instead we have a second oppose voter with a complaint about disenfranchising. It takes all of us with our disparate beliefs and interests to make this project great. And it takes a fair election to make everyone feel like they have a voice in handing out a lifetime appointment. I have another plane to catch soon but I hope that you all have a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So I say on the RfA page that i'm trying to be accountable, but I don't want to engage in back and forth, so you bring it here to try and push me to be more accountable after me meeting the requirement. Brilliant.

Nothing says specifically that I have the right to strike the vote, it's not an absolute statement that I'm relying on - and I have concerns about that I expressed above if you could please read that. It also highlights that I'm relying on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC for the authority to "clerk" which is never defined as to what we can and can't do, and I've yet again already expressed concern about this. There is no where on this wiki where clerking is written out to be an exact limit. SPI, ArbCom, CCI clerks, whatever BAG's idea of clerking is, nowhere. But you are dissecting and twisting my post, as the within policy refers to the casting aspersions which relies on a separate ArbCom ruling on the subject rooted in WP:NPA. I have already said that I don't agree with other actions that were taken, making concessions and trying to maintain a productive discussion. But if you are just going to tear apart my statements, not look for context, nor compromise where we are working on the same ideals, then we can't really have a discussion and is why I said I'm not trying to engage (or badger you) as an opposer. The rest of your comment I do not wish to address because it's either not my conduct or the hyperbole is too high in comparing roles that are different. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: Sorry, I did not see that you had offered a comment there - you should ping as I do not follow all of these discussions. Oddly enough I am a supporter of the candidate. But I am curious as to what "compromise" is possible? A vote is either struck or it is not struck. I thought a great compromise was to remove or even revdel the policy offense and leave the vote. Part of the rationale was most certainly not an aspersion. It was the voter's personal reason for opposing. Lightburst (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Again this is pulling my words apart. Compromise (as I said "where we are working on the same ideals") refers to the discussion and the points we are talking about, not my actual action. Like saying "I agree with you there is no where that clerks are limited on wiki, but" and then spell your concern out with the relevant line. I have already addressed what you said in previous comment on this page and in the diff I linked in the very last comment here, so I will provide diffs. BN & the RfA talk -- Amanda (she/her) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It is easy to read your comments as dismissive and insulting. Maybe that is not your intent but calling my comments hyperbole, or accusing me of pulling apart comments, and your accusatory small print when you never pinged me to other discussion... Maybe you did not mean to insult so I will overlook. You actually said, "compromise where we are working on the same ideals". But your comment was apparently unrelated to my complaint about your removal of a vote. You may have been referencing some other pie in the sky ideal? I was staying on message. I was talking about disenfranchising a voter. Thanks for the messages, i will look for areas of agreement in your words. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, I've already gotten sucked into this more than I intended, but did want to address your "[I'm] not trying to be an asshole" line: I certainly don't think that. We disagree, is all, and to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply anything else. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. (Now, I'm bowing out of the conversation lest someone tell me I need to calm down...) Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Apologies, that was meant that part as a general statement to everyone involved, not anything directed at you - I should have been more clear. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Amanda, is there a history of conflict between Homeostasis07 and Sdkb, or a pattern of improper behaviour by Homeostasis07? If not, then there is no policy based reason to remove their comments or their vote. The policy response to such comments as made by Homeostasis07, if they are a single instance, is to ignore them - and that indeed is what people not familiar with policy should be encouraged to do, as that reduces the drama, and avoids the Streisand Effect. Indeed, RfA would be a quieter, calmer, less dramatic, and more pleasant arena if people followed policy and ignored comments they don't like. We are near the end of this RfA now, and restoring the vote would create more drama, but I do think that as 'Crats it is our responsibility to ensure that policy is followed. I would not wish this incident to pass without comment in case it sets a precedent. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ultimately whether to strike the vote or not is a crat decision. But SilkTork, I must disagree with your assertion that the correct policy response to the comment is to do nothing and indeed voiced, when asked as an arb, that it was an aspersion and as such supported this message being sent to Homeostasis07. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  And this is exactly why I see the vast majority of crats as completely out of touch, sit on their hands, legacy admins. It might behoove yinz to have to go through an RfB every 5 years so you don't forget what it is like to get dragged in public for a week. "Have you tried ignoring people" is an absolutely pathetic response. Amanda has guts, which is better than I can say about everyone else. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  We have: WP:ASPERSIONS, where the wording is "continually accuse", "routinely accuse", "repeated", etc. And we have Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks, where the advice in an isolated incident is "to simply ignore it". If this was an isolated incident, then it could be ignored. If it isn't an isolated incident, then the matter needs to be dealt with, not by covering it up, but by addressing the user who is being disruptive. I support the message sent as being more appropriate than removing the comment.

As regards being out of touch. Yes, I have been considering for some time standing down as a Crat as I certainly don't have the same levels of energy and motivation I used to have. I have approached it a number of times this year, and almost did so a couple of days ago when the discussion arose around clerking RfAs, and I realised I wasn't really up to that task any more. And I will resign shortly. I do dispute, though, that responding heavily to inappropriate comments is a positive thing. That's a road rage mentality that rarely ends well. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You omit the part of aspersions where it says particularly severe; I think Reaper Eternal does a good job below of laying out why such a comment at RfA qualifies as particularly severe. ASPERSIONS also says Significant concerns about the behavior of other users should be first resolved directly with the users concerned. If this is not possible, they should be addressed with evidence through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures. with the crats being an appropriate dispute resolution procedure in this case, while "Responding to personal attacks" is about how the person, not the community, should respond to such an attack. So that guidance would be about how Skdb should respond this situation not how uninvolved administrators/bureaucrats/arbitrators can handle situation. I am glad that we agree that a message to Homeostasis07 is appropriate as that's what I chose to support. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"[T]here is no policy based reason to remove their comments." I'd argue that no personal attacks is a policy, and I have one of the most lenient views on civility. Nobody has asked for Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned—people just wanted the unsubstantiated allegations removed, as our no personal attacks policy clearly states in the lead section. Since this was an RFA, most of us expected the bureaucrats to be in charge of enforcing policy and keeping order; I know I at least didn't remove the comment solely to avoid appearance of impropriety. I also didn't want the RFA to devolve into a free for all with people deleting each others comments and votes.
I'd argue that unsupported allegations of misbehavior are some of the worst kinds of personal attacks since they tarnish the reputation of the accused in the eyes of onlookers rather than merely being insulting. If I said "Fuck you!" to someone, everybody would just think I'm a jerk. On the other hand, if I suggested that said person engaged in stealth canvassing, some people would be suspicious of him, resulting in a far more insidious character assassination. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, if I suggested that said person engaged in stealth canvassing, some people would be suspicious of him, resulting in a far more insidious character assassination. Interesting that there were no "oppose per homeostasis" opposes. I think everyone was smart enough to ignore the aspersion. Which is great. It suggests that a lighter touch could have worked here. Also interesting that removing the oppose generated two protest opposes. If the goal is the least disruption possible to the RFA candidate, it would seem that leaving the oppose is the objective choice here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments above. You are proving every day that you were a good choice to be a sysop. I am hopeful that we can find a way to allow voters to vote in private. I imagine if a person hopes to be an admin someday they may not vote their conscience. I think they may skip opposing for fear they will be opposed at their own future RFA. I just saw that there was an ANI report about my own participation in the sdkb RFA. I could have been sanctioned before I could even get to a computer. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I hate creep, but perhaps a body of rotating electoral commissioner composed of otherwise uninvolved and willing admins? We sometimes need BOLD clerking help at RfA; the community may choose to empower somebody with agency to act. Shouldn't be our worthy Primefac all the time. My idea is an open body of admins who act neutrally (perhaps even as assistants to the nomination process and proper page format) and in practice do as little as absolutely necessary. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  The arb election process is far more exhaustive and lengthy than any RfA. Last November we had three admin commissioners and one admin alternate. Not closing but observing. Mostly reading the discussion. Refereeing. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if this is an argument in support of your proposal, but nonetheless: the shifting theoretical role of the arbitration committee elections commission is an example of scope creep. The commission was originally created as a way to deal with issues for which there was insufficient time for the community to discuss and resolve on its own. From there, people started assuming the commission oversaw co-ordination of the election (most of the work continues to be done by the same people who did it before, whether or not they are commissioners, though there are usually new volunteers each year seeking to assist). Then after some disagreements on the questions, the task of moderating questions was added, followed by moderating guides later. That being said, the commissioners have had few problems in these areas to deal with. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of general sanctions at the village pump

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Community sanctions: rethinking civility enforcement at RfA that may be of interest :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Resignation (Tamzin)

• Tamzin (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

The loss of a dear friend, a far greater editor than I'll ever be, has put in perspective what I'd been mulling over for a while. I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

The best of luck to the rest of you. One parting thought: You'll fix RfA about a year after you've fixed AN/I. Anyways, I'll still be around in mainspace, doing what this site is actually for: building an encyclopedia.

I express my gratitude, as always, to the bureaucrat team. Please also remove my EFM flag. I would appreciate regaining page mover and template editor, as they occasionally come in handy in content work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)