Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where Bureaucrats can coordinate their activities. Although it is aimed mostly at Bureaucrats, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

See also: Administrators' noticeboard

Please record any actions which require review below.

Bureaucrats, RFA's and related discussion

There's a lengthy conversation going on here concerning RFA's and the number of additional bureaucrats we may or may not need. I think it might be useful if some more bureaucrats joined the discussion. I know some have, but more voices can't hurt. Especially as it concerns how active the group and it's members are. Rx StrangeLove 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith/sockpuppet edits

There are 2 oppose votes that are likely bad faith/sockpuppet on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili. I was tempted to remove them, but I didn't want to step on any toes. These are the only votes by these users. Would I have been overstepping my authority to remove them? --rogerd 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please do not remove or strike them out. Just put a comment below the vote that the user is a possible sockpuppet. The closing b'crat will investigate the claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this strongly; removing or striking votes is a) a bureaucrat task, and b) potentially inflammatory. It is, however, extremely helpful to put a note below the vote pointing out any legit issues with votes, as the bureaucrats can't possibly hope to know all the various inter-user situations. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

General Eisenhower

I have prematurely delisted user:General Eisenhower's nomination (2/22) (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/General Eisenhower). I may not have the time this week to respond to any queries. Please ensure that it is not relisted. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan235

Removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonathan235 due to low experience levels, among other criteria (incorrect placement of RFA, etc.). — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot status changes

Bureaucrats can now grant or revoke the bot status of other user accounts using the MakeBot extension which was taken live this morning. See the meta page for a little more information on using it. This was done after a long wait and requests from both bureaucrats and stewards. I am informed that somewhere along the line, this was endorsed by Jimbo Wales, too.

The technical announcement was made on the technical village pump. I'm replicating it here because it affects bureaucrats. Rob Church (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling all BCrats

I am asking for 'crat's opinion on the matter of HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Please see related discussion on the RfA talk page. The matter at hand is about BCrats recusing themselves from RfAs and the 'crats' rights to alter RfAs. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I support the removal of the RFA nom. It's far to controversial and is generating a lot of bad blood. A relist after 45-60 days would be more suited to gain a better consensus. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that works though someone should ask his opinion first, if he specifically wants to go with it through to the end then then he should be allowed to. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well not necessarily. We can't just allow candidates to choose how they want to run their request by restricting whom can "vote" and how. Linuxbeak probably should have just let the whole thing run, then at the end discounted the socks, etc. And explained his actions! (A little communication goes a long way) Restarting the RfA with these restrictions seems very odd. But HRE has been very quiet on the whole thing (from what I can tell). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with allowing sock puppets to overwhelm an RfA that can't be remedied by just discounting the sock puppets at closing time—the effect that the sock puppets have on other voters. With a few sock puppets, this is hopefully negligible. When it gets to 10 to 15 sock puppets supporting/opposing for similar reasons, I think legitimate voters, especially those on the fence, may be swayed. Also, I know that I will sometimes not bother to investigate an RfA for an editor I'm not familiar with if the outcome of the vote already seems to be a foregone conclusion. So I think something needed to be done, although I'm not too comfortable with how it was handled. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging

I've made a proposal to the bot approvals group (see Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging) that they provide a convenient and centralized place to note that an account needs to be flagged/deflagged (since that is now our responsibility). I've proposed the use of Wikipedia:Requested bot flags, which I've drafted for the purpose. Comments from others (as I've been presumptious to speak for all of us) are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging, since I started the discussion there. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

GeorgeMoney

Could a bureaucrat please do something about this user's unlisted RFA? I am not sure what should be done, perhaps just blank the page? Thanks for the help, Prodego ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly recent, so why not list it? It looks fishy, but RfA voters should catch that fine, and treat it accordingly... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But the votes already on the RFA have to be removed, and that only a bcrat should do, right? Prodego ^talk 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the weird thing is, he has not officially accepted the nomination, yet he has edited it... should it be considered accepted? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd let it sit based on procedural grounds. It's not been accepted. There are nominations that have sat for a while before being accepted. Perhaps the user does not want it posted yet for some reason. Let it be, and contact the nominee for clarification on their intent. --Durin 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Until he accepts it, this is basically a user subpage. Once accepted, the old votes need to be cleared. My concern is with long-time users who keep adding these types of RfAs to WP:RFA. Leave it to the nominee or nominator to add their RfA, we don't need to be doing it for them (unless they ask). My RfA sat for 3 weeks before I accepted, I would not have appreciated it if someone found it and decided to add it to WP:RFA without asking first. NoSeptember ^talk 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the pre-cast votes, and left a note about voting before the acceptance. Since he's indicated he won't accept until June 16 (well over a month away), it's likely to become another CSCWEM2, and we don't need that. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{rfaf}} and {{rfap}} (at least for now)? Or maybe make new templates for non-accepted noms? — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or recommend making a new page and moving it over this one. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxman's RFB

By the way, that one needs to be closed now, as it's been past due over 6 hours now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Amgine's RfA more time to come to consensus

Ok, rather unusual situation here. Amgine clearly has the support, respect and trust of some very respected Wikipedians and Wikimedian's. From the perspective of a person very displeased with Amgine's two blocks in the Wikinews issue, I must say that overall (not in every case) the support in this RfA is much stronger and generally more well reasoned than the opposition. If I could ignore the numbers, I'd call this one as a consensus to promote. But bureaucrates are generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone. Unless there is a bureacrat consensus to promote despite the strict numerical standards not being met (or a Wikimedia board member giving the nod), I'd say we have to close as no consensus and wait for the next time to promote. So I'd ask for some additional time to discuss this one and see if bcrats can come to a consensus or for a board member to weigh in. - Taxman ^Talk 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If one of you surviving 'crats promotes with these numbers, you better be prepared for two things:

1. Justification on what makes this nomination so special (with detailed reasoning); and
2. Prepare to explain to the community why their favorite candidate is not getting promoted with, say, 71%, or 73%, or 77%.

-- Cecropia 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I voted, and expressed a rather strong support, so I obviously can't weigh in on whether to promote or not, but as to the procedure for making the decision, I think it must be treated as any other RfA. A single, uninvolved, and unbiased bureaucrat should review the nomination and make a decision on promotion; there is no need to define a special procedure. With that said, I would encourage the decision to be made by one of the bureaucrats who has both been a bureaucrat for an extended period of time and has been consistently active on RFA; this decision will most certainly require both a great deal of experience in making these decisions, and a good feel for the pulse of the community.

As to Taxman's suggestion that a board member weigh in, I doubt that will happen, certainly not in the capacity of binding the Board. However, as we all know, Jimbo retains the ability to make such decisions, and as the reasons for Amgine becoming a sysop have included his duties on behalf of the Foundation (both OTRS and official committee business), I don't think it would be out of line at all for Jimbo to sanction promotion on his own authority, much like the promotion of User:BradPatrick, the Foundation attorney. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, Jim, I think the first point you make would be much easier than the second, as far as taking the flak. :) I am glad you've weighed in as a respected voice. And Essjay, I'm not so sure it requires a single bcrat. A consensus among us would be the only way I see we could justify a promotion without board intervention. Lets see how it goes.- Taxman ^Talk 04:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a compromise. If Amgine needs admin access for his work on OTRS, but there's no consensus on RfA, then we should consider an alternative level of adminship (this can be implemented through trust, not technical measures). He could have adminship where he can read deleted articles etc, but he would be asked not to block users or get involved in normal admin stuff. This was what was done for the Board vote. People like Aphaia needed adminship to use the board voting software, but those people wouldn't have made it through a normal RfA, so they had adminship for that task only. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aphaia. Angela. 05:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support that, as I believe he's already stated something to that effect on the RfA. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After going through the RFA, I don't support its promotion. However if he needs the adminship for OTRS, it would be better to get it through 'trust' by a board member as Angela puts it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While I personally trust Amgine, people's concerns seem to be valid ones: not enough contributions (although I admit I haven't checked how many he has), and wheel-warring concerns. I don't think we want to get caught up in what Cecropia mentioned (having to explain to everyone else why their candidate wasn't promoted at 71%). If he needs it for OTRS, I would rather he get it through 'trust' by a board member as well. — Ilyanep (Talk) 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... you meant "...candidate was promoted at 71%"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant what he said, i.e. "Why was Amgine promoted at 71%, while the candidate I voted for/nommed wasn't promoted at the same percentage?" Snoutwood (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since many of the compromise proposals (that were made with the hopes of garnering enough support to get this RfA passed) were made after much of the early voting was already done, the solution would seem to be that Amgine's boosters should work out a plan that would pass muster next time, and propose it up front (in detail) when the RfA is submitted next time. To promote based on the current RfA would not be well received and I think would be a big mistake. Do you want to hurt the basic trust out there of bureaucrats as fair umpires of the RfA process? (and I say that as support voter #3 on this RfA). NoSeptember ^talk 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the foundation wants to give temporary or limited admin access, then let them do so. I'd support it. No one has objected to Brad Patrick being an admin that I am aware of. Legitimate special case situations are ok. Just don't make the local bureaucrats do it for them by fudging an RfA result. NoSeptember ^talk 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to bell the cat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good move. You guys have "dodged the bullet" and avoided "the Curse of Cecropia" 14:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After my compromise suggestion and the other one that followed, the support percentage needed to be higher than normal not lower to show solid support for this alternative type of admin. It needed to be in the 80% range supporting a specific alternative. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. : ( FloNight ^talk 14:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nihonjoe

I know you don't normally strike or remove "votes" or comments from RFAs, but please at least have a look at this one. Nihonjoe was receiving unaninimous support until someone came only along with a spurious requirement that he would oppose unless the user did something about a particular issue for him! The user in question has changed to neutral, but it's now spilled over into a second opposer whose objection is that Nihonjoe said he would take a look at the issue. This my friends is not the "seeking consensus" RFA process, it is politics. If these kind of comments are allowed to stand it could be a slippery slope... I'd urge removal of the thread, perhaps to the talk page. --kingboyk 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate situation, and two unhelpful votes, but that doesn't mean we get to strike them out or move them just because of that. Leave a message on those user's talk pages explaining their interaction in the RfA is not helpful and why, then they can adjust their position now and/or in the future without being battered. Nihonjoe handled it very well and I think people will see that. It also will not likely have a negative effect on the outcome so I don't think it requires drastic action. - Taxman ^Talk 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hate spamming this, but WP:DFA would definately help avoid this. If such discussion was unrelated to votes, we'd have time to yell a user down for such a comment. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

About WP:DFA... it seems as though discussion surrounding it has stopped, but I believe it's a great idea. joturner 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a real shame. We need a lot more discussion so that we can beat out a reasonable proposal to present to the community. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Ardenn appears to be angry because s/he had to remove a fair use image from his/her sig. --Rory096 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megaman Zero 3

What is happening there? Apparently the nominator withdrew, not the candidate. Per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096, that's not a reason to close it. Can a actual crat look at it and close it/relist it? --Rory096 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the discussions on User talk:Megaman Zero and at WT:RFA? As long as Zero is ok with the close, what is the problem? NoSeptember ^talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. (Still, a bcrat should close it rather than a regular user, no?) --Rory096 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually the nominator is more than just a "regular user" and would be acting in the best interests of their nominee, and timeliness of withdrawal can be an issue (to avoid a pile-on of oppose votes). The RfA could have been added back if Zero objected. NoSeptember ^talk 15:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tradition says that bureaucrats should close nominations, but where a nomination is withdrawn, any user smart enough to stick {{subst:rfaf}} {{subst:rfab}} around it and change "Vote here...ending" to "Final...ended" can close it out and save the bureaucrats the time and trouble (additionally, with it delisted from RfA, we may not see it. Sticking tags on things is not a big deal; the reason full-term nominations need a bureaucrat is to make the decision about consensus and set the rights if necessary. If there is no decision to be made, no consensus to determine, as is the case with a withdrawn nomination, it falls to anyone in the community to handle a matter of simple maintence. (Just as non-administrators can close out obvious keeps on AFD). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on RfAs

In March, Cecropia told me on my talk page that he was "bound to express no personal opinon on [my] overall RfA until a decision must be made, in the event [he were to be] the closing bureaucrat." I'm wondering if that is true and if Taxman is able to make comments in my RfA. Please don't interpret this as an attempt to get something stricken from the record, especially since the comments he has brought up have been brought up by others and because he has given both positive and negative feedback. I just want to find out what is correct. joturner 19:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia adopted a policy of refusing to discuss active RfAs himself although he did make exceptions. There isn't any broader policy, and I believe that appropriate communication is helpful for a number of reasons so I am not so conservative. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright; thanks. joturner 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe many bureaucrats discuss RfAs, but they may not close one in which they have commented on, which seems perfectly legitimate to me. I wouldn't hold a bureaucrat accountable for closing an RfA in which he commented if the outcome is clearly obvious either, but I would hope bureaucrats err on the side of caution and not close an RfA in which they have a conflict of interest, so to speak. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks to whoever fixed the gender usage. For some reason I got the impression Cecropia was a woman. I never seem to remember / guess correctly. joturner 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• It'd be nice if there was a gender neutral pronoun for use in situations like this, but there really isn't. Such a pronoun would be especially useful on the net, where gender matters about as much as the price of eggs on Pluto. --Durin 15:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sie and hir? Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Singular they is the one that is most commonly used. It annoys the grammer police but it does have the advantage that people will understand you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) .

It's grammatically correct in Commonwealth English, actually. The problem is that it's kind of funny referring to a specific and identified person as they. ("Johnleemk is gay, so they should be banned from Wikipedia" just doesn't sound right; "Let's say a person is gay; they should be banned from Wikipedia" is better.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Both sound fine to me but them I'm a very heavy internet user.Geni 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally hate the singular they, but then again, I'm a tech writer, so I should be expected to be this anal about it. If I'm really into using gender neutral language, I try to use all plural, like "Let's say people are gay; they should be banned from Wikipedia". If I were to refer to one person, that would be tough. Maybe "Deathphoenix is gay, so he or she should be banned from Wikipedia." I'm not terribly fond of "he or she", but I like it better than "they". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bot Status

Something odd has happened, my bot User:Pegasusbot no longer has the bot flag for some reason (I'm assuming some sort of glitch) and there's no mention on my talk page and nothing in the logs about it having the bot flag removed which is odd. Could this be something having to do with the changeover from steward to bureaucrat doing bot status and if this is a mistake can a bureaucrat please re-add the bot flag. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no such problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It actually ended up being a glitch in one of hte bot routines I was running. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kjkolb's RfA

My RfA is ready to be closed whenever someone gets around to it. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Block Priv's

Hi, I'm not sure if i should ask this here or at the Admin's area; so i thought i'll ask here first. I was wondering if a group could be made (hopefully with me in it), and a very low, restricted block privlidge's be given. Perhaps no more than say an hour, so it at least immobilises the Vandal, and gives Admin enough time to look into the case, and give a longer block if necessary. I understand that it's a big priv, and should be used very carefully, and perhaps have a system like WP:RFR did, where you could report abuses of power etc.

Thanks In Advance. --Deon555 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• That actually requires many changes to the MediaWiki software, unlike RFR, which only requires the creation of a separate "rollback" permissions group. I'm afraid that should be proposed at the Village pump. However, we do have WP:AIV, and it usually has a quick response. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So there's no hack or script :P --Deon555 02:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It would need to be developed, like a special version of Special:Blockip and another permisions group. It is not beyond possibility, but would likely be squashed as scope creep, but WP:VP is a good start. As Tito said WP:AIV is usually VERY FAST and many of us admins watch it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering a bit what is required on the back end:

• A new privileges group (e.g. "junior sysop"), and limited permissions behing it (such as "limitedblock")
• Determining whether the user is a junior sysop (e.g. a user::isAllowed('limitedblock') function)
• A new interface for small blocks, or a hack of Special:Blockip to allow limited-scope blocks.
• A new interface for granting the privilege (similar to Special:Makesysop or a hacked version of Special:Userrights)

On the front end, there needs to be a policy to grant that privilege, and if there was no agreement on WP:RFR, I'm not sure there can be one for this proposal for the same reasons. There also needs to be a process to grant the permission, another point of contention. While the software changes are not incredibly difficult, getting people to agree that having split permissions is a good idea might be considerably more difficult. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you mean. It sounded like a good idea at the time :P, but still don't dismiss it - i'll take it all the way to the top :P. --Deon555 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Private information

206.191.56.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has attempted to name me in these three posts: [1] and [2] and [3]. As it happens the name is not mine. But I don't think that anyone else should be getting crank emails and phone calls, either. As I recall, it is b'crats who can delete such messages. Can someone delete these two (and this one, too, please) and deal with the offender appropriately? (I've blocked him for 24h.) Bucketsofg✐ 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use your own shiny buttons, as any sysop can do by doing a delete and selective restore. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd is correct, it's not a matter for 'crats alone. Nonetheless, I have taken care of it for you. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piemanmoo

Hello. I think a BCrat should step in an end the suffering. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WillC

Hello. I think a BCrat should step in an end the suffering. Running at 4-37 and pointless debate. Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this. It is extremely unlikely that this vote will reach a consensus in favour of the candidate. DarthVader 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner's RfA

In case no bureaucrat noticed, my RfA seven-day period has ended, and thus is available for closing. joturner 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware of that. But being in the middle zone means it can take more time. Leaving comments on bcrat's talk pages to ask them to close it is certainly not needed either, we know our job. I note that there are 11 supports and 14 opposes that have come in since 0:00 UTC on the 23rd, which may indicate the direction the consensus is going or it may not. Personally I would leave it up longer to solidify the consensus, as I'm not comfortable promoting or closing as no consensus because of the comments I made in the RfA. If the consensus was clear that wouldn't be an issue. - Taxman ^Talk 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, we have an issue here. There is certainly a lot of supporting people, but there is also a large amount of opposers. Taxman, I personally suggest we extend this RFA by at least a day. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)