Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dekimasu (talk | contribs) at 13:16, 26 February 2020 (→Reactivation: It had struck me that it wasn't necessarily a request. But by the current phrasing, you might get it without even wanting it...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    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 1
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 9
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    Voorts 150 13 5 92 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 20 hours no report
    It is 00:48:22 on November 8, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    More Crats please

    The recent CratChat highlighted that more Crats are useful. There aren't that many of us, and at any one point in time, some of us are likely to be on wikibreak or just not very active. If you've thought about RfB, give it a whirl. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How high is the demand for non-botop bureaucrats? I did sometimes consider whether applying my deletion discussion closing skills to RfX would improve the project and the fact that I am not very active in bot-related areas was one thing holding me back (and cited as a cautionary note by others). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: 'crats aren't expected to be bot operators; you would be expected to be well versed in the WP:BOTPOL though. — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go the opposite way; that's why I turned in my bit, there's really nothing for crats to do outside of having a borderline chat that comes around once in a while. In fact more might be worse since that'd make any consensus likely that much more muddled. Wizardman 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ^this; that's exactly why I turned in my 'crat bit, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reduce the number of 'crats to zero and let the WMF work it out. Right now we're already at the point that 'crats do nothing more than work out divisive RFAs, and as we all know, there's been literally zero admins going batshit crazy and abusing the tools and destroying Wikipedia in the past twenty years. Wow. Probably time to look at removing the position altogether, especially with WMF's "oversight". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had a dam for the past 20 years and we've never had a flood, so let's get rid of the dam? Levivich (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away, sell it to you cheap. PackMecEng (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    False analogy. The sporadic 'crat chats are hardly keeping a "flood" away, that I'm afraid is nonsense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I say we nominate a non-admin. It was kinda cool when Xeno turned in the mop but stayed a crat. I'd like to see that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If that sounds too simplistic, idk.. it kinda is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had discussed technicality about this a long time ago with xaosflux. A non-admin running an RfB. I think most of the folks wont have a problem with such a crat/RfB. But sometimes I think such RfB might tank. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a radical proposal. Collectively Wikipedians are small-c conservatives. So yes; it would tank. ——SN54129 08:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it would totally tank, but at least it'd be an interesting discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically every non-admin candidacy to ArbCom. None of them are ever close to qualifying, even if they are dedicated members of the community, the lack of the sysop bit seems to most as not having enough trust, albeit some of them would probably also get the right if they ran RfA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of Interest

    Following on the last crat chat I have started a discussion to solicit community feedback about a couple of areas. Followers of this noticeboard might be interested in participating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the note. Useight (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cabayi

    The 'crats have been notified about the questions under objection. Behavioral concerns regarding the new user should be addressed at ANI or by any admin who may wish to employ their best judgement. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 25 February 2020 (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.

    I've had bad luck with complaining about this sort of thing before. Brand new user History DMZ asked the first question at the RfA: "Based on your experience in dealing with administrators, what would you say constitutes being a "bad" administrator? (by "bad" I mean someone who should never have been approved to be an administrator)." This (Personal attack removed) should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Excuse me? I am NOT a troll. I am a concerned and engaged Wikipedian who has a right to ask questions. Please withdraw your unfounded accusation. Thank you. Furthermore, I move to issue a complaint against User:Bbb23 for hostile and disruptive behavior against me and the community. History DMZ (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @History DMZ: But you do not have the right to (try and) name and shame other editors outside of due process, which is precisely what your question implies. Please withdraw it if you do not wish to be struck for you. ——SN54129 14:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • History DMZ, I'm assuming good faith here, but look at it from the perspective of more experienced editors: you have something like 50 edits to your name and yet you've jumped into a frequently-contentious discussion area and asked a fairly loaded question (particularly the second part - please provide two examples certainly sounds like you're asking for examples of bad administrators). You've then self-described as a concerned and engaged Wikipedian, which is a little hard to swallow as someone who has edited in project space three times. If you are a genuinely interested new editor, then that's great - but your actions so far certainly do look like past trolls/sockpuppets we've seen. I would suggest that you withdraw the question and take a little more time before you jump into the deep end of Wikipedia politics. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was writing basically the same thing as Creffet, but without any pretense of good faith: Registered five days ago, fewer than 60 edits (most of which are to userpage), but finds a thread on an obscure noticeboard in ~10 minutes from its opening. Not even remotely suspicious. Not to mention the red flags littered in the reply (Creffet highlights 1 of those flags, the other is the entirety of the sentence about "the community"). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user claims on their Talk page that they knew about the RfA through their watchlist. That is entirely plausible, although it begs the question how they so quickly knew about watchlists.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo creffett entirely. It's a definite loaded question and being made 50 edits into Wikipedia is definitely suspicious, although I choose to err on the side of good faith. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tell us what your previous account was.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it all sounds quite paranoid and flawed reasoning. I repeat, I never asked for WHO/names, but WHAT makes a bad administrator. Same with the follow-up, I asked for examples for WHAT makes a bad administrator. I keep being accused of being a troll, a bot, a sockpuppet, is this how you treat Users??? Second, I've used Wikipedia for almost two decades as a scholar, does that make me any less a Wikipedian than experienced users? Third, I didn't jump into anything, I was INVITED via an announcement on my Watchlist. Can I please move freely in this FREE Encyclopedia? History DMZ (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop bullying me. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. This is an occasion where the block rationale of We don’t have to play your games and guess who you are and what you were originally blocked for is justified. They remind me of multiple different masters, and figuring out which one isn’t worth the time. The point of sock blocks is to prevent disruption, not because people are evil. If you’re acting the SAME WAY as multiple NOT SOCKS and disrupting an RfA process, you’re going to wind up blocked anyway. Might as well go ahead and do the inevitable. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, who ever call you a bot, don't know what they are talking about, you are not a bot. I've been here over 11 years and I agree your conduct is troll-ish. Both Creffpublic and TonyBallioni have hit the nail on the head. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, bullying me again with unfounded accusations doesn't make you right. I have no agenda other than to make Wikipedia a better place for readers and users. That also means we users have the right to watch over the administrators. History DMZ (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you people still have doubts that I'm some kind of fake, then I INVITE you to follow my progress as an editor. Now, can any of you geniuses assist me with the articles I'm currently editing? History DMZ (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      History DMZ: I think you would do well to spend more time becoming acquainted with the basic fundamentals of the project (building an encyclopedia) before diving into the deep end of administrative processes. –xenotalk 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Bureaucrat note: The second question (seeking specific examples of "bad" administrators) has been struck as a clerk action by Primefac. Whether the user is returning banned user, or should be blocked, is an administrative matter. –xenotalk 15:34, 25 February 2020 (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.

    Watchlist notice

    I think above serves as a good example why we should modify the watchlist notice to only alert extended-confirmed users of open RFAs. At the very least, we should explore that as an option.
    Reason 1. New users have no clue what they are getting into even if they are allowed to participate.
    Reason 2. Without regards to a specific example, in my experience sock puppets almost always claim "It was in my watchlist."
    Can this be done or has this been suggested before and I need to shut up? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reactivation

    I'm curious whether I can get the bit back by request? Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship states that administrators that have the bit removed due to inactivity should not get it automatically restored on request if it has been over five years since they last used the tools, but I gave it up voluntarily so I'm not covered by that (or by the wording of the approved proposal in the RFC). I gave the bit up on November 26, 2007. Yomanganitalk 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The resignation statement is here and was processed by Stewards since back then enwiki bureaucrats did not have desysopping privileges. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Four hundred edits in the last three months, about thirty in the prior seven years. I think I know how this will be processed, but I'm interested to hear—Yomangani, what do you think the answer should be? Dekimasuよ! 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know I wouldn't run amok, so if I was judging myself I'd obviously return the bit. Though if I wasn't me, I'd think it fairly insane. Yomanganitalk 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also basically inactive for all but three months of 2010–2017, though I never turned in my tools. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=942726667"