Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:55, 6 August 2015

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

Shortcuts

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	11
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 21:15:33 on June 9, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Inactive admins for August 2015

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Scientizzle (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
Andrew Levine (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
Xoloz (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
Noldoaran (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as Xeno pointed out here, due to the delay in notifying them they shouldn't be desysoped until the 5th. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't notice that. Makes sense. Graham87 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh. Probably due to my screwed up formatting the bot didn't send the second round of e-mails and messages... I'm on it. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. So what appears to have happened is (for people who don't know), the bot was down at the beginning of the month so I complied the August admins by hand, but apparently the bot wasn't happy with my work and it didn't send the second round out. I just did it now by hand. Sorry for the delays and confusion I've caused, but per precedence you should probably give it until the 12th. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 lashes with a wet noodle! In other news, thank you for your continued supporting of this process! -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - Users notified late, so please do not action until 12 August 2015. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/R

Has a crat perhaps missed adding Rich Farmbrough's unsuccessful RFA to the alphabetical list? I wanted to look at it, to check a certain matter. Am I missing something? It's not one of those <expletive> cases where the user is actually called Throatwobbler Mangrove, is it? Bishonen | talk 10:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, apparently not.. I found it eventually in the chronological list. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Phew, no excess polystyrene (and it's Throatwarbler Mangrove, for the cognoscenti

). -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd forgotten all about the alphabetical list of unsuccessful candidates - I thought it was now a category like the alphabetical list of successful candidates (Category:Successful requests for adminship). WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know about the successful category — I guess I never look up those. :-) Perhaps the unsuccessful list ought to be a cat too? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Avi: Sometimes one and sometimes the other, I guess. I swear I was googling for the "Throatwarbler" version, but this page came up prominently. Anyway, they're both very good account names. I think I'll just create me a new sock or two. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There is an unsuccessful RfA category as well at Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship along with the alphabetical lists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed - Desysop of Kww

As a result of this arbitration case the Committee has resolved to desysop Kww (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship. Thank you for your assistance, please action as required. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator and edit filter manager permissions (per here) have been removed. –xeno^talk 14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should be logged here as well, yes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's taken care of now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz

The time run out, but people are still voting, and, what is worse, commenting each other votes. I would appreciate at least closing the voting. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion#Comments moved here from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question,

.. and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. In general what is the current "discretionary range" with respect to judging a RfA? (within a point or two). I understand each case is judged individually, but generally speaking - within a point or two: What constitutes a "pass", a "no consensus", and a discretionary judgment call (or 'crat chat'). I won't fuss over the answer, I'm just curious about the current norms. Thank you, — Ched : ? 00:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a set answer, especially since it isn't really based on pure numbers but our collective understanding/interpretation of the actual discussions. There are successful RfAs that went to chat with 71% and there are unsuccessful RfAs that went to chat at over 73%. It also depends on which 'crats are participating, as we are all human and not robots (at least last I checked, I have my doubts about WJBScribe). -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL about Will. OK, thanks. Basically I'm inferring that the lower 70s are the "discretionary range" then. All I wanted to know. — Ched : ? 01:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ... and I wouldn't WANT "bots" doing the call. — Ched : ? 01:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the same question. While we all know the discretionary range is 0%-100%, at WP:RFA, the "rule of thumb" discretionary range is 70-80%. Thus it looks like several bureaucrats at the Liz RFA overrode the community's will by claiming 73.53% is the "high end of the discretionary range." The whole 'crat chat was a bit of a fiasco, which as an opposer I actually didn't mind -- it was entertaining -- but the discretionary range issue is a bigger and ongoing mystery that should probably be addressed. Townlake (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed. I've always understood the range to be 70% to 80%, so here is another oddity in a very odd Rfa, that I would now suggest to be tainted. Jus da fax 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's late and I'm tired, so perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying, but it is called the discretionary range precisely because either result might be delivered based on the bureaucrat's determination of consensus. It's not a by-the-numbers call. If RFA in the so-called "low end" of the discretionary range were always closed as unsuccessful, it wouldn't be considered part of the discretionary range. –xeno^talk 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Townlake (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to make it more clearly then, or give me 12 hours to recharge. No one said it was at the "high end of the discretionary range". Andrevan and MBisanz did make comments as to the location in the range, and the implications for handling, but their comments were more nuanced than saying "high end of the range" (MBisanz wrote "higher end", which is not the same). –xeno^talk 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to get some sleep. Townlake (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax - I don't see how anything was/is tainted. 3 out of 4 people supported, which seems to fall in the gray area. The crats are discussing it as a group and will make a decision as a "group" (rather than one individual making a unilateral decision). Remember - many of the crats, (at least the ones elected in the past 8-10 years) were selected with VERY high support stats from the community in RfB. Personally I would have opposed, but hadn't been active (hence my note in the neutral section). I could elaborate on my reasons - but there's no need or call for that. In the end, there's a real person hanging in the balance here with very real feelings. I think a lot of the comments made on various pages were made with a poor choice of words. (due to emotions and strong feelings on their own desired outcome). In the end - this is a volunteer website -no more, and no less. Personally (again), I'm not going to be all that upset either way. There are two sides to this, and each believes their own perspective to be proper. I was only asking about numbers, and I really think it's time to drop the stick on this debate. Let the crats do their jobs - and if something goes awry down the road, there are courses of action to follow. Best to all. — Ched : ? 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed WP:RFA to reflect what I guess is consensus now. Hopefully that puts an end to this and everyone can do more productive things. Townlake (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it's been for years, which I've said many times but have been dismissed on. There have been zero RfAs in at least the past eight years that failed with 75% or greater support. Ergo, 70-80% hasn't been true in a long time even though everybody likes to pretend it is. Wizardman 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need a favor

I have to run but I haven't finished all the janitorial stuff related to the close... can someone help out? Thanks! --Maxim_(talk) 01:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in as a non-crat, but I think I've taken care of it - let me know if I missed anything. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 01:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat closing template

I can't seem to find the template that you use to close 'crat chats, but I'd just like to point out at the bottom when you click "related discussion" it links to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana, on all of them. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there seem to be a few; I applied the most used one. Thanks for your help! -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi: Could you tell me which template you substituted? Or did you use a script? - NQ (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 :: Jusdafax - I don't see how anything was/is tainted.  3 out of 4 people supported, which seems to fall in the gray area.  The crats are discussing it as a group and will make a decision as a "group" (rather than one individual making a unilateral decision).  Remember - many of the crats, (at least the ones elected in the past 8-10 years) were selected with VERY high support stats from the community in RfB.  Personally I would have opposed, but hadn't been active (hence my note in the neutral section).  I could elaborate on my reasons - but there's no need or call for that.  In the end, there's a real person hanging in the balance here with very real feelings.  I think a lot of the comments made on various pages were made with a poor choice of words. (due to emotions and strong feelings on their own desired outcome).  In the end - this is a ''volunteer'' website -no more, and no less.  Personally (again), I'm not going to be all that upset either way.  There are two sides to this, and each believes their own perspective to be proper.  I was only asking about numbers, and I really think it's time to drop the stick on this debate.  Let the crats do their jobs - and if something goes awry down the road, there are courses of action to follow.  Best to all. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 :::I just changed [[WP:RFA]] to reflect what I guess is consensus now. Hopefully that puts an end to this and everyone can do more productive things. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 03:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
+::::That's how it's been for years, which I've said many times but have been dismissed on. There have been zero RfAs in at least the past eight years that failed with 75% or greater support. Ergo, 70-80% hasn't been true in a long time even though everybody likes to pretend it is. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 == I need a favor ==