Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:10, 20 June 2009

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

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

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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

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

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

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

It is 03:47:00 on January 5, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Requesting some feedback

Since most people watching this page are experienced at evaluating consensus, I'd like some feedback on User:Aervanath/How to evaluate consensus, to see if there is anything I should be tweaking about my discussion-closing methods. Please comment on the talk page. Thanks in advance!--Aervanath (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside party to close WP:AN discussion

See Misplaced Pages:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd review it, but I've closed a couple hundred of those bilateral relations AfDs, so I'm not sure how uninvolved I am... –Juliancolton |  15:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it, but you may be right that others wouldn't see it that way. If you're not going to close it, go ahead and add your $.02; if you've seen that many of these AfDs then you probably have an idea on whether the standstill would or wouldn't work.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a crat area, but someone with a crat hat could use their admin hat to close it. Crat areas are RFA/RFB/Bot flags/Renames. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, crats are usually viewed as particularly skilled in judging consensus (must be all those RFAs), so imho it's probably a good idea to expand crat areas to "judging consensus when requested by multiple people". Might be worth to think about it... Regards SoWhy 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree their skills may be needed here, but other experienced admins have those too, I'm just saying it's not a crat role per se. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But other admins do not have the Crat-Seal-of-Approval™. While I agree that other admins have those skills (those should be crats anyway usually), they have not been "branded" (so to speak) as being particularly efficient at judging consensus. It's not really a great situation but we have to face that many users and admins view crats as "special" and as such, we might need to use this to our advantage. As it's probably impossible to dispel this myth, we might as well standardize this to expand crat areas a bit. Since we elect them based on their skills for judging consensus and handling difficult situations, crats could be "called" to handle situations where consensus is particularly difficult to determine and where many admins are involved and those admins might (and some probably will) think another admin closing the debate (especially against their POV) are making a mistake while they just might accept it if a crat does it. But that probably needs some extensive discussion. Regards SoWhy 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Rlevse is totally correct that this is an "admin thing" (and frankly an experienced editor thing). I for one am firmly opposed to the concept that bureaucrats are in any way "special", or can offer a "seal of approval" (I realise that part was tongue in cheek, but still), or the community might "accept it" if a 'crat closes a debate. If we want to expand areas where beureaucrat decision is more "valid" or "binding" then great - but they must pass RfB based on such criteria - and we would then need a more fundamental shake up of how we manage the end result of discussions. Any editor is free to determine consensus - some editors (i.e. admins, bureaucrats, developers) have specific tools to carry out possible actions at the end result of a discussion that seeks consensus but that does not mean they are "better" at judging consensus. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While I definitely think that we (the bureaucrats) pass our RfBs based on the fact that the community trusts our abilities to gauge consensus, we're trusted to gauge consensus for RfXs. I don't see expanding our role to be some catch-all "we're the discussion closers" position to be a good thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While I totally agree with you, Pedro & Rlvese, I think he just means that crats are definitely trusted by the community, or they wouldn't have become crats in the first place. hmwithτ 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-)I'll just add my two cents here as well. It is true that 'crats are elected partially on the community's trust of the crats' ability to judge consensus, but, as mentioned above, that is specifically within the context of RfX's. Closing other decisions has always been the purview of the entire admin corps. There may be times where discussions are so contentious that the participants would like someone they all know and trust to render a decision. That may be a 'crat, that may be a sysop, that may even be, by approval, a non-admin. If people feel that 'crats, due to the grueling process of RfB, would be acceptable candidates for "respected admins", that is fine, but that is because of who the 'crat editors are, individually, and nothing to do with the fact that they have a few extra buttons to make sysops, crats, bots, and renames. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the request as an informal request for a 'crat to help out on extra difficult closing of community discussions. The main benefit is that 'crats have a good track record in general of making these tough calls. In the past, 'crats have done these closes. So, not breaking new ground. I think it makes much more sense for 'crats to do it than arbs, CU, or OS because these other people may need to be involved in working the situation from another angle later. My 2 cents. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So does that disqualify 'crats who also may be CUs or OSs (like myself and EVula) 8-) -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice thought, but on Misplaced Pages it's highly unusual for users with a great deal of power to ever place any limits on themselves. I would think, however, that this is another reason that it would be useful to keep these roles more separate than they currently are, yes. --JayHenry (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's up to the people asking. If they trust me, or EVula, or Deskana, then that is fine, and if they prefer other people, that too is fine. -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are not the only admins capable of solid consensus reading. Misplaced Pages:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles and the like are admin issues and not Bureaucrat issues. The ability to read and understand consensus is one of the things the community looks for during RfAs, so we have plenty of admins capable of judging consensus. WP:AFD is but one of many places to find admins with consensus experience.

Also, it is not a good idea to expand Bureaucrat areas without serious community discussion. Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he just meant that crats are usually admins/editors who users trust. hmwithτ 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The situations where I've seen it happen in the past, were situations where it was very important for the close to be done by someone who both sides of the discussion would know was impartial. Instead of listing the names of different users that could close the discussion, arguing about them, by asking at the 'crat noticeboard, the situation attracts an user with good skills at reading consensus that most users will find acceptable. I don't see this as expanding the 'crats duties, but rather the Community recognizing the skill and temperament of 'crats and taking advantage of them in other areas of the 'pedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as that differentiation is clear, I do not see a problem with it. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note about this, since I missed out on most of the above discussion. I agree that the "official jurisdiction" of bureaucrats is very limited in scope, and I'm not arguing for expanding that. So why post here then? Because, in a contentious issue like that, it's a good idea for an uninvolved, experienced editor/admin to make the determination of consensus and bureaucrats must be experienced admins for their RfB to even get near the passing range. Also, there are other admins and experienced editors who frequent this noticeboard but not WP:AN, and therefore a notice here would also attract one of them. Notice I requested an "outside party" to evaluate consensus, not explicitly a bureaucrat. Hope that clarifies things. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

Something that's probably better discussed here than on the list is whether or not all Bureaucrats should be required to subscribe to it. Currently the list contains 12 or fewer bureaucrats. Any thoughts from the bureaucrats not on it? Angela. 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As one on it, I think it imperative that there exist a communication channel that can reach all the crats at times where the information is inappropriate for on-wiki (anonymization renames issues, for example). -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion that's occurred off-wiki, I concur. bibliomaniac15 04:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that it's also important for the sake of both transparency and "customer service" that we fix onwiki some guidelines for what the mailing is and is not for. I'm going to start drafting it at WP:Bureaucrats mailing list. Crats, feel free to chip in. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have subscribed although I note that private mailing lists have a poor track record at Misplaced Pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is meant less for discussion and more for notification. As was reiterated recently on the list, discussions of the closure of RfX's, in general, should only be performed on wiki. -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of items that should be discussed/disseminated on a list, as opposed to on the noticeboard or subpages:

1. CU/functionaries telling us about a CU run on a candidate for RfX showing sockpuppetry.
2. Arbcom asking us to put a RfX on hold when the time is up.
3. Anonymizing rename issues where on-wiki discussions would defeat the purpose.
4. Similar to the above, issues that come into OTRS that need to be handled discreetly that include renames.
5. Requests by individual 'crats to be the ones to close specific RfX's

-- Avi (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those require messages to be sent to an off-wiki list.

1. Why deal with this secretly - the people who should know about sockpuppetry by an RfA candidate are the participants in the RfA. If it is the participants who are socking, the checkuser should strike the duplicates.
2. This request can be made on this noticeboard.
3. I really think people should email individual bureaucrats with these requests. The more people get an email, the less secrecy results. As renames are logged actions, secrecy is hard to achieve in any event. I dealt with a lot of these requests over many hundreds of renames and never thought a secret list would help.
4. As 3 (and I can't think of anything other than renames that would legitimately come through OTRS.
5. I really hope these aren't happening. Crats not should be lining themselves up to close particular RfAs as this will suggest that they are not impartial - otherwise why want to close a particular RfA? Some of the most controversial closes were ones where it was suspected that the closing crat favoured (or had a grudge against) the candidate. Imagine how much fuel such allegations would gain if a bureaucrat requested to close it. If these requests were legitimate, why make them offwiki rather than in public? I think we all know that not all crats would necessarily close an RfA in the same way and I think it important that the closer be the next crat who comes along and someone who has specifically requested to close it.

WJBscribe (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I dislike both the idea of a private list with other than minimal traffic, and the idea of a big set of guidelines for use of the list. So let's keep traffic to a minimum by having exactly one guideline: deal with it on the wiki if at all possible. And we can continue to accept notifications and whatnot from non-crats, which was in fact meant to be the only purpose of the list in the first place. Fair? — Dan | talk 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the above cases can be dealt with on wiki; that is the point. I am very happy if the crat list is quiet months at a time; but it needs to be there when necessary AND all crats need to subscribe. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm not looking at the importance of the mailing list being that we're having lots of off-wiki discussions, but so that if we need to give a heads up notice to all the bureaucrats, we can. ("better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" is an applicable phrase) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"None of the above cases can be dealt with on wiki" - I'm sorry but that just isn't true. Most of those should either be happening on wiki or not happening at all. WJBscribe (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have had a case where a rename request came in through OTRS, and it was supposed, and WAS, handled through "HideUser", but a different OTRS volunteer unknowingly Posted a rename request and a 'crat put it through requiring us to go through and suppress the logs and revisions. Another case we had was where a 'crat asked for special consideration to be able to close a particular RfX for very good reasons, but another 'crat not on the list closed it. So, we already HAVE had cases where just the ability to INFORM crats of issues would have been helpful. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the steward list is anything to go by, people will still do things that it is requested on the list not to do because they don't read the mailing list first. Surely the best thing is not educate OTRS users to go down the "HideUser" route in those cases, which doesn't need a crat at all. I'm not convinced that there are very good reasons why a particular crat should close an RfA, but am willing to be persuaded if you want to elaborate. WJBscribe (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WJB, actually, HideUser is the preferred method when there are no GFDL-worthy edits. When there are such edits, then the Rename needs to be used. While having the final process on-wiki is appropriate, the actual discussion that was had when this person's real name was now plastered all over the logs needs a communication channel that is not open. We know for a fact that Grawp has been monitoring WP:CHU and WP:CHUU, and when it comes to people's real names, ALL efforts need to be taken to protect people's privacy. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have always argued against establishing such a list, it will not surprise anyone to know that I think compulsory membership for all bureaucrats is a bad idea. I am disappointed that this list has come into being to be honest. Perhaps the list has all sorts of useful applications that haven't occured to me, but the examples given above make me suspect otherwise. Bureaucrats were the one user group that carried out it's business in public - bureaucrat chats etc. - I think it's sad that this has been lost since December. WJBscribe (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The original and primary reason given for creating this mailing list was timeliness and availability - I don't recall the specific circumstances, but there was talk of a delay and the need to contact a bureaucrat when none were available on IRC or responding on-wiki. If its now intended to be used to request things like specific closure rights and RfX holds per ArbCom, I think the usefulness of the list might do with some re-evaluation. For the purposes of effectively contacting a list of bureaucrats at once, you don't need to make it mandatory for 'crats to sign up. Nathan 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See here. Nathan 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not to be used for specific closure discussions; that is absolutely clear. However, there are times where ArbCom or checkusers may need to let the 'crats know that an RfX needs to be held pending an investigation. Should that be public, especially if the result may be innocence? What about informing 'crats of OTRS requests for renames, which should not be publicly posted? There needs to be a way to inform 'crats about issues that should not be on-wiki. However, actual discussions about promotion or non-promotion would be forbidden on the list, and I do not know of a single bureaucrat who would disagree with that. -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it better for a bureaucrat to put the RfX on hold without explanation? As I'm not on the list (and wouldn't have been had I remained a crat), I can't comment on what it is used for, but I think its existence undermines a lot of the openess that not having a crat mailing list or IRC channel used to achieve. WJBscribe (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The explanation would be "per ArbCom", but ArbCom may want to give a bit more explanation to the 'crats than they would post publicly. This has not happened, it is a theoretical. See above for two actual cases that have already happened. -- Avi (talk)

But don't you see that the fact ArbCom want to give bureaucrats (but only bureaucrats) more info is problematic in of itself. Why should bureaucrats be in the privilege position of getting information from ArbCom when this is denied to the rest of the community. I worry that you're already thinking in a way that results in unnecessary secrecy. WJBscribe (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Arbcom indeed. What's your recall criteria Avi? I'm regretting supporting the closed cabal you represent to be honest. WJB is right. You're not. How about you resign and WJB picks the tools back up, as clearly he's considerably better at the 'crat thing than you? Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, much as I don't want to take for granted the fact that you just agreed with me for a change, have you lost the ability to disagree with people without demanding that they fall on their swords? WJBscribe (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you Will, and am exceptionally concerned by this intimation of RFx closes by request and hiding of what should not be hidden. Yes, some things need to be kept of wiki. But not much. Avi is very competent and that is why it pain me to see him go down this secrecy route. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think Will should be dragged back kicking and screaming, but that's just me. -- Avi (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Pedro, I have never created recall criteria, and was very clear about that at RfB2. I respectfully submit you are speaking out of a combination of a lacking the specific information about what prompted this mailing list issue and fear based on other peoples misconduct. Please review every one of my actions on wiki and let me know where, in the past 31K+ edits I exhibit cabalness. Outside of protecting personal information that I become in possession of due to OTRS or CU, I cannot think of anything. Can you? if you have specific issues, my e-mail box is always open. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully submit you believe there are more situations regarding wikipedia and its editors that should be kept hidden than I believe there are. Thus - I believe your opinion is wrong. It is equally likely my opinion is wrong. What concerns me is I am not the one with the tools to put opinion to action. Your are. Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood, Pedro, and I respect that. It may be that I deal with more private information than the standard wikipedian, and so I tend to have protective instincts, having seen the results of what happens when such information is leaked. I am also perfectly willing to admit that I can be too overprotective, which is why these conversations are critical . Let me start over. I see the possibility that 'crats may need to be informed about personal information, even though rare, and I think having a way to do that without posting it on a notice board is helpful. Direct e-mails from editor to individual 'crat and from OS to individual 'crat are, of course, an alternative, but they are an inefficient one. The question is, is that inefficiency worth it? Would having the 'crat list open to functionaries or the AUSC be sufficient insurance that there is no cabal? What do you suggest, Pedro? -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That everything is open, and people not sign up with their real names? Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a decision made by Jimbo et al years ago. For better or for worse, this is what we have here in wikipedia, and we have to live within it. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should consider both what this list is intended to be, and also what it is likely to become despite best intentions. If its intended to track down active bureaucrats, then little other business needs to be transacted on list (Editor A e-mails the list asking for a crat, active crat B replies, and an AB correspondence follows). That would be ideal, in my mind - bureaucrats don't handle sensitive information so much that principles other than transparency should dominate, and if traffic is strictly limited then it is less likely that its use will someday become objectionable. If the purposes of the list are loosely stated, in practice just about any use will go. I'd rather not hear about shenanigans after the fact, followed by list dissolution or a solemn pledge from future bureaucrats that they will more closely monitor eachother. Nathan 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Better still that we also consider how the list will be perceived. Speaking as a veteran of several sooper-seekritprivate Misplaced Pages/WMF lists, the public perception is that the arbcom foundation otrs civility list is the new power center where backroom deals are made (lulz). There's no way to counter such accusations once they're made. I've subscribed, because I'm trying to go along with the plan, but I think we should recognize the dangers. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Misplaced Pages talk:Bureaucrat mailing list#Instinctual responses. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why split the conversation? Why is there even a separate page for that? Add me to the ranks of those not excited about the existence of the list. I'm with Will that there is virtually nothing that can be gained from it's existence that is worth the downsides. At the minimum it should only be used for things that are of extreme privacy level issues that cannot be discussed on Wiki. I'm not swayed at all that there is ever a reason a single person needs to close a certain RfX, and I was a little dissappointed at the request. If the list use is minimized to privacy related issues and speed of contacting bureaucrats then perhaps it won't be so bad. - Taxman 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be jesting - a total disgrace

• So according to Taxman there was a request by a bureaucrat to close a specific RFx? Would anyone care to identify that bureaucrat - or indeed will they themsleves come forward - or are us lesser mortals not entitled to know which 'crat requested that they close a specific RFx? This is deeply disturbing. Let's be blunt people. Given Taxman's statement above there are a few options;

1. There was never a request by a 'crat to close a specific RFx and I am reading it very wrong.
2. An as yet unspecified 'crat asked to close a specific RFx and no other 'crat (on the list) felt it important enought to notify the community of this.
3. An as yet unspecified 'crat asked to close a specific RFx and all 'crats (on the list) felt that this was acceptable so didn't bother notifying the community.

• I hope it's number 1 Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be speaking hypothetically. Maybe ask for clarification. Not being on the crat mail list, I know nothing of what goes on it. I have to agree, there's very little, if anything, that a crat does that can't be done on wiki--it's a far different world from arbcom-land. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not swayed at all that there is ever a reason a single person needs to close a certain RfX, and I was a little dissappointed at the request" (bold mine) looks distinclty like a matter of fact and not a hypothetical situation. See point 1, above however. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Avi wrote above: "Another case we had was where a 'crat asked for special consideration to be able to close a particular RfX for very good reasons, but another 'crat not on the list closed it." Not a hypothetical, then. Nathan 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I note with interest that, with the exception of a private email from one 'crat (that contained no information in relation to the above - although I thank s/he for the email), nothing whasoever has been done here. My assumption is the community does not care that bureaucrats ask to close specifc RFx's through a private medium. That does not seem wise for reasons outline by WJB above; However if the community is happy to operate in this way that is not for me to judge. Pedro :  Chat  23:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some elements of the comunity may have no expectation that all those in positons of authority are under any obligation to act honestly and openly, and so find further comment to be futile. Just a thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When I pushed for the creation of this list, I assumed it would be used for true emergencies and actual privacy renames. If the current uses had been put forward at the time, I would have been considerably less motivated to champion it. MBisanz 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked on the mailing list to close Enigmaman's RFA. Given that the last one turned into a mess, which was started with me handling the way I mentioned inappropriate logged out edits very badly, I wanted to close the RFA to show that it wasn't just some strange vendetta that I had against Enigmaman. I wrote it on the bureaucrats list because I thought nobody else would really care. I wasn't trying to keep it a secret or anything, as evidenced by the fact I just revealed it here. It wasn't a "I need to close this" or anything. UninvitedCompany never saw the e-mail due to not being on the list, and ended up closing the RFA instead. I wasn't too bothered about that. Is this really a big deal? --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, there was a discussion that was taking place on that list where I encouraged the participants to discuss it in public instead. If I'd known people would care that I posted my request on the mailing list instead of here, I would have put it here. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"If I'd known I'd be found out I'd never have have done it" is hardly a very convincing defence. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"If I'd known people would care if they found out...", which is what he said, is convincing, to me at least. J.delanoy_adds 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"be found out"? Oh yes, my secret secret message is public, I'm ruined. Oh wait, I'm not, because the message wasn't a secret message, it was just posted on a secret mailing list when it could've been posted publically. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a big deal yes, and I find it very surprising that you don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

People discuss a potential promotion on the list, and a note that not even a secret is a big deal? I like the logic. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But then logic doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, ad hominem. Nice. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merely an observation based on the evident facts. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can post the full text of my e-mail, if people like. It's not very long, and there's nothing particularly interesting in it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't really think of a reason why asking to be allowed to close a particular RFA would be a problem when the declared purpose is not to engineer a particular outcome (which would clearly be inappropriate), but simply to make a show of good will -- a symbolic apology for an acknowledged past error, perhaps. Of course, as Deskana has been saying, such a request does not depend for its effectiveness on its being made privately, and the choice to use the list was just a matter of convenience. Presumably an equivalent effect would be acheived by saying to Enigmaman, "Congratulations on your promotion; I would have been honored to close your RFA if I'd got to it at the right moment; best of luck in your future editing" or some such. Clearly there has been no dishonesty in this quite inadvertent lack of openness, and I reject the implication in some of the cynical remarks above that everybody in a position of authority on Misplaced Pages is a morally bankrupt power-seeker.

However, what we have accomplished in this discussion, it seems to me, is a clarification of the purpose of the bureaucrats' list: (1) notifying the bureaucrats of an emergency in progress, and (2) discussing a narrow range of private issues such as RTV requests. Everything else belongs on the wiki. This has now been codified (in the expectably over-specific way, since we seem unable to avoid a certain pseudo-legalism in all our official prose) at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat mailing list, and I for one will keep a sharp eye on the list traffic to ensure that as much discussion as possible is done on the wiki. But I suspect this will be an easy job, since, as I've been pointing out the last few days, the bureaucrats as a group have never been given to undue secrecy.

By way of postscript, the hard work of Misplaced Pages discussion gets done much more smoothly when snarky accusation and ad hominem is kept to a minimum. Someone has stuck a template with links to various discussion guidelines at the top of a lot of talk pages. Let me offer a gentle pointer in the direction of those links, especially Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks -- far more often accusatorily quoted than actually read, I suspect. — Dan | talk 07:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Privacy vs. openness

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Bureaucrat mailing list#Privacy vs. openness -- Avi (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a mo

Chaps, the Crat mailing list is very "young". Until recently, it's been low on membership and very very low on traffic.

The way forward to ensure people are as happy as can be, and, importantly, that we ensure that we know we're behaving appropriately no matter what others might think, is for us to hammer out onwiki what the list is for, which we've not done yet.

We can and should do that at a subpage. I created one earlier today - let's use it? Please contribute at WP:Bureaucrat mailing list and its talk page. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since we're already discussing it here and this is where the crats are at... ;) Rdsmith4 had it right, above - easiest way to keep the list traffic to a minimum and reduce the chances of any problems is to make the guideline for its use extremely simple. My suggestion is use it only to find available bureaucrats at need when a ping on BN is not ideal. Nathan 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then say so at WP:Bureaucrat mailing list :-P -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly there just isn't anything for crats to discuss on a mailing list. I don't care if there is one, but even if one does exist, it won't be used for anything. Prodego 22:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When did the arbs ever ask a crat to put RFX on hold? I'm a crat and arb and have never heard of that. On another note, I can barely keep up with cu-l, arb-l, clerk-l, and funcs-l. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They never have. I was thinking of potential issues; hopefully they will never occur. Avi (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've only seen a handful of RFA's placed on hold... one was handled poorly by the crat and created more issues than it should have and the other was as the result of the person unexpectedly being unavailable to respond to his/her RfA. besides those two cases, I can't think of an RfA that was put on hold, except for when a crat is closing the RfA and wants to read through it first.---I'm Spartacus! 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Rlevse of being on so many mailing lists that it becomes effectively impossible to keep up with any of them. If there's a consensus that bureaucrats should be on the mailing list, I'll do it, but don't expect me to do much more than glance at subject lines. Raul654 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt most users have great sympathy for those on so many mailing lists that they can't keep track of them all. If someone has so many functions/rights that they cannot keep on top of all of them, it does suggest that they need to focus their time on fewer responsibilities. I don't think people trying to juggle too many balls is great for the wiki and, on reflection, I rather overstretched myself when I was active... WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the Functionaries list comes with getting CU or OS (which both have their own lists), and is very active. I'll agree with the sentiment, however; too many mailing lists is a sign that perhaps you're stretching yourself too thin (something I'll fully admit I've considered for myself). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot

As Lightmouse is now indefinitely prohibited from using any sort of automation on this Misplaced Pages per the recent ArbCom decision, please remove the bot flag from Lightbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights). At this time, BAG consensus seems to be that a new BRFA will be required (after ArbCom lifts the prohibition, of course) before Lightbot is reflagged. Further discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Lightbot. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

An open discussion on User:Majorly/RFA is needed here User:Majorly/RFA/Bureaucrat discussion. Please proceed, single file, and leave all weapons at the door. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Special condition explanations added to Rename section

Please see Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats#Special conditions, and comments requested at Misplaced Pages talk:Bureaucrats#Rename special conditions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange voting on RFA's?

I'm not sure what's going on with User:Mikhailov Kusserow and User:Michel Mapaliey. They appear to be the same user, but they have gone through in quick succession and voted on all the active RFAs using the exact same signature. --Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like sockpuppetry to me.  In progress -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikhailov Kusserow. –xeno 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The puppeteering was so obvious that it might not have been malicious... –xeno 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin should decide if warnings or blocks are appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Overdue RFA

Yeah, probably obvious, but Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis is overdue. :) Steve Crossin /_{Help us mediate!} 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

By a little while, now. Isn't there a template to add to RfA's when they reach the time limit, and it's awaiting crat decision? It should really be added in this type of situation. – (iMatthew • talk) at 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope...there's one they will put on them when closing an RfA, but the general practice has been to leave them open until a crat shows up... its usually no more than a hour or two... plus, the close time is only a guide.---Balloonman 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks! – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs) is  Doing... –Juliancolton |  01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I'd rather people just leave overdue RfAs alone (versus putting a template on an RfA); keep in mind that the "scheduled to end" time is the earliest that an RfA will be closed, not the exact moment that it will happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's hardly imperative that RfA's are closed with anal punctuality, and templating them is extraneous. —Anonymous Dissident 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my overly-enthusiastic friend. Hopefully nobody will look too unkindly on this minor indiscretion. — Ched :  ?  04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say that it is the earliest an RfA can be closed... mine was closed 4 hours early and I've seen quite a few closed a few hours early (usually when the consensus is clear and there is another RfA closing at the same time.) The time stamp is merely a guide... give or take a few.---Balloonman 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well said. Mine was closed 8 hours early iirc. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mine was closed a minute early. :) –Juliancolton |  15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely unacceptable, I think we need to have somebody go back and validate your RfA to ensure that proper procedures were followed!---Balloonman 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, early closure is technically not permitted -- of course the three decisions just mentioned are no less valid than any others, but we should really try to avoid early closure in future. (I suspect those were just clock-reading errors or some such.) Late closures, on the other hand, are not really a problem. — Dan | talk 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of your former brethren felt otherwise as it happens . Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship