Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 09:49, 5 April 2007 (RfA extension request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 04:16:47 on December 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Would a crat be willing to be the "trusted user" in a reverse RFA?

m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access says that stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions for removal of access. They want a "trusted person" on the local wiki to inform them, with a summary of the results of the discussion. If we were to make an RFA on someone who already has sysop access, and the RFA showed a consensus to overturn the sysopping, would any crat be willing to be the "trusted user" and make the request to a steward? It seems to me that a crat ought to be in the trusted user role, since we already trust crats to promote in the first place. Anyone willing to do this, or would you see it as an undesirable expansion of crat authority? Friday (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Decisions to desysop someone lie, on en.wikipedia, with ArbCom. They do not lie with our local bureaucrats or with stewards (except, in the latter case, in cases of emergencies). --Durin 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But, they would, if a crat was willing to ask for it and had community consensus to back it up. Hence, me being curious whether a crat would be willing to do so. Friday (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But they wouldn't, since currently the only body given that authority at en.wikipedia is ArbCom. Bureaucrats can not take on the role by community consensus without ArbCom blessing it. --Durin 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you are trying to take a more general policy established at Meta and apply it to the English Wiki which has its own process called ARBCOM. Your question is hypothetical because it presumes that a consensus could be built via "reverse RFA". The problem with this hypothetical is that it presumes the consensus could be foremed without a massive vote against the process of "reverse RFA" itself. Many editors would oppose the "reverse RFA" on the grounds that it was "out of process".

If you really want to do this, you need to make a proposal out of the "reverse RFA" process that you have in mind, get consensus for that proposal and only then worry about whether or not there will be a bureaucrat that would participate. If you're looking for a b'crat to give you a generic "yes, I would participate in that process" type answer, I suspect that you would really need to spell out how the "reverse RFA" process would work before you could get an answer.

Even then, I suspect that most if not all bureaucrats would want to see that the new process was based on consensus, not something you thought of at school one day (oh, sorry, that means something else, doesn't it).

--Richard 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, I expect all manner of objections along those grounds. We already know no such thing will happen. But, who better than a bureaucrat to cut through bureaucratic paralysis? :-) Friday (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing here to a reverse RFA is CAT:AOR. ···日本穣 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While we do have an existing process, consensus can outweigh process. Requiring Arbcom to do this does not appear to be a foundation issue, so a clear consensus could change the policy here pertaining to administrators (it is afterall "no big deal"), but the way to do that is not via a test case, but by using the policy process. Recent debates (such as the ones over RFA Reform) have made it pretty clear that the administrator status policy is unlikely ready to change. — xaosflux 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• A "trial by fire" of this nature would have two problems: the sensitivity of the issue at hand itself, and additionally, the opposition of users to using a different method to desysop a user. We can remember Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1, and how the community loudly opposed intermingling one process with another. I'm not sure the same would not happen here. Titoxd 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• The problem is this: if there is a recent major incident that calls the trust of some admin into question, then the atmosphere becomes too heated to discuss a community deop process, because people on both sides will believe the other side to be biased and this will heat a lot of tempers. If there is not a recent major incident of that sort, then there's nobody to test the system on. So we have no feasible way of implementing this suggestion. >Radiant< 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, without a change in policy, we cannot hold a "reverse RfA" and then ask a Steward to desysop based on that. Current policy on the English-language Misplaced Pages is that desysopping only happens in very specific circumstances — and in the case of involuntary desysopping due to inappropriate behavior, current policies establishes that it takes a decision by the ArbCom for it to happen. A policy change would be required beforehand if something like this were to be done.
However, I would note something that has been upheld even by Jimbo himself: this kind of procedure, given the current state of affairs around here, could be detrimental to the role of Administrator. If all it were to take for a !vote to be held on removing someone's adminship, and usually in a badly charged environment, as noted by Radiant, were to be for someone to cry "witch!" then administrators would have a very difficult time making the more difficult decisions, and taking actions that are certain to annoy, or even anger, certain people. We should not force admins to chose between doing their job and keeping their job. Redux 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, such a process would quickly degenerate into the return of Quickpolls, which never were a good idea to begin with. Titoxd 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. It may not be traditional, but I'd rather see the crats doing the whole job than half of it. Don't we trust them this far? Friday (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"User X is an admin"

This is an odd, yet very common, edit summary used when promoting new admins. While it could be intended to mean that in their heart of hearts they were admin-material all along, or that +sysop is theoretically outside WP:RFA from a constitutional standpoint, it would make more sense to use "User X is now an admin" or somesuch. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought that as well... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Being told I was now an administrator with the words "Newyorkbrad is an admin" didn't bother me. :) Although I would have spelled out "administrator" to mark the full solmenity of the occasion. :) Seriously, I've noticed that individual 'crats have different formulas but I don't know that it matters very much. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the edit summary on promotion matters very much. I mean, they could say "Enjoy the chains of hell" and it really wouldn't change much about adminship itself, or the +sysop flag in the b-crat log. ^demon 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I swallowed before reading your "Enjoy the chains of hell" comment. (^_^) ···日本穣 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would think it was as witty as I did. ^demon 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If I ever become a 'crat, I think I will make that my standard promotion text. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It could reasonably be interpreted to mean "User X is already an admin, no reason to nominate him, delisting". —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I frequently interpreted it that way before I was informed otherwise. -- nae'blis 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What about changing it to "User X has been promoted to admin"? --TeckWiz Contribs_@ 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted isn't politicially correct these days :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be interpreted as meaning they are already an admin by the time the crat gets there because the crat doesn't make the decision, they just recognise it and implement it in the software, so you become an admin as soon as your RfA reaches consensus. --Tango 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Usurpations - minor change in eligibility

I plan to deny any usurpation request that intend to take over an account that was created less than six months ago. Let me know if there is consensus for the move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a sensitive move, given that people sometimes create accounts but then only start using them after a period of time. Redux 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And now I know why you need time, but are we talking about the target account, the one requesting or both? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The target account. The new user log must show that it was created (and never used, which is verified in Special:Contributions) at least 6 months prior to the posting of the usurpation request. The age of the requester's account is not concerned here. Redux 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the "no edit" clause preclude any other exceptions, such as consent? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have their consent, then there is no need for usurption. They can request a new name themselves, and then the other person can be renamed to their old name. --Tango 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair early closing of my RfA

I wish to complain in the strongest terms. I have just received a message from Nichalp that he or she has closed my RfA early as "it does not enjoy the support of the community". Well, I was gaining support votes daily; people were expressing their confidence in me as a candidate all the time. Even if it was doomed to fail, I would have appreciated it running to full term to allow the community to express their feelings in full. I request that my RfA be re-opened and be allowed to run for the three remaining days it had to go, going down in flames if need be, but going down in flames fairly. This is unfair. -- Earle Martin 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: in this diff Nichalp says it was "a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth". Well, the people writing in my support clearly didn't think so. -- Earle Martin 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Let me clarify, I'm a he. :) Please do not twist my words. I made a generalised statememt: a clearly failing RFA not your RFA is a waste of time and bandwidth. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And by applying that phrase in your notification that you were closing his early on someone else's talk page, you tarred it with that brush. I can't believe that you would not understand that, Nichalp. -- nae'blis 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any difference. The RFA was always failing. (oppose > support) =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any difference. - Yes, that much is clear. -- nae'blis 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It did not have a reasonable chance of success. Promotion of admins is the only thing that RfA is for. Remember, articles are what we are here for, and continuing the RfA would not have helped in improving articles. We appreciate your desire to help, and I'm sorry you wished the RfA to continue, but it wasn't helping the project. If your desire is to help the project, I would suppose you could come to see that. - Taxman 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"it wasn't helping the project" - would it have hurt the project to let it continue for three days more? I was more than happy to accept a fair defeat, but you've taken that away and left me with a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth, and sharply damaged my faith in the process to boot. Well done. -- Earle Martin 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It and this debate are taking resources away from articles. That should always be minimized. Again, sorry you're upset, but it's your choice to let it leave a nasty, bitter taste in your mouth. Also, I didn't do anything but agree. - Taxman 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you greatly exaggerate the extent of the resources involved. And no, it's not my choice. I chose to participate in the process and accept the outcome of a community-led process. -- Earle Martin 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the withdrawal. It was obvious that it would be contested, but that's what 'crats are supposed to do, right - make tough decisions? Anyway, though I sympathize with certain aspects of your complaints, continuing it would be WP:POINT more than anything else. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA isn't to see how many people support you. It's to see whether enough people support you for you to become an admin. Clearly that wasn't going to happen, so leaving this open is simply wasting people's time in your attempt to prove some point about RfA. Please use WT:RFA instead of misusing RfA like this. Nichalp did the right thing. Angela. 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Foundation staff agree with me that no, it isn't a point issue, and no, WT:RFA won't help. -- Earle Martin 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard is not a Foundation staff member. TacoDeposit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't think it had a chance in hell of passing (and had I participated in it, I would have !voted "Oppose"). Your attitude about the entire situation strikes me, a complete outsider to the whole thing, as a very pointed issue, to be perfectly honest (hell, even one of your supporters told you to ditch the chip on your shoulder).
I don't think it was particularly horrible thing to leave it open, but I don't think it served much purpose, either; basically, I think you need to just accept the fact that you didn't have community support (regardless of what a Foundation staff member's opinion is).
If you really want to show up all those who !voted oppose, I'd suggest dropping this and concentrate on improving the encyclopedia; your next RfA will then be able to pass on your actual merits, rather than people admiring your guts in not answering questions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting both what I have been saying and what actually happened. For the former, where have I ever said that I did have overall community support? To repeat myself, I would have been more than happy for it to end as a failed RfA. For the latter, for your information, I do nothing but attempt to improve the encyclopedia, day in and day out. That is precisely why I ran at RfA in the first place. Will it "show up all those who !voted oppose"? Of course not. That implies that the oppose votes were because I do not improve the encyclopedia, which is not the case. Anyway, I am here to work on the encyclopedia, not play games and try to "show up" people; it disappoints me that a bureaucrat would make such a suggestion. -- Earle Martin 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, I'm not a bureaucrat; I'm merely an administrator (while I'd like to run a successful RfB at some point, I'm not convinced that now is the time). Just want to make that abundantly clear so that my opinion doesn't hold more weight or authority than it should (incidentally, it shouldn't hold any more or less than any other editor; admins and 'crats aren't above other editors, necessarily; they merely have access to additional tools, which is both a blessing and a curse...).

I'm not suggesting that people were opposing you because you don't do any encyclopedia building. What I'm saying is that if you actually work on the project for a substantial period of time, there will be all the fewer reasons to oppose you (if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to explain my hypothetical opposition to your RfA on your talk page; here is not the place for a largely unrelated matter). I also wasn't suggesting that your edits be for the express purpose of "showing up" people; it was more of a statement of what behavior modifications I think you need to make if you earnestly want to run a successful RfA.

Also, if you're wondering why people think you're being pointed about the whole thing, it might have to do with your "RfA has decayed into a gabbling clique of process junkies who actually serve to damage the project by impeding the progress of numerous perfectly reasonable editors" statement.

However, this is quickly degenerating into a little back-and-forth between the two of us, I'll again say that, if you want to continue this conversation, let's do it elsewhere; your talk page or mine, I'm game for either. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of tallies on RfA's

Please participate in the discussion. It's a minor change to the template, but many people will be surprised at it. Thanks. Xiner (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC-style RFA

I'd raise this at WT:RFA but I thought it counter-productive. Given that the task of the bureaucrat is to determine whether there exists consensus to promote, the actual process by which consensus is divined is secondary, if not tertiary, so long as the process is open, public, and well-attended. That being said, if confronted by a Request for Adminship organized as a Request for Comment instead of the standard thinly-veiled vote, would a bureaucrat be willing to evaluate said request? In short, are the bureaucrats open to other paths? I'm not suggesting that this constitutes a change in policy--far from it. It's just a process tweak, really. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA extension request

Would it be possible for Cla68's RfA nomination to be extended? There was a serious concern a few months ago that Cla68 was either a sockpuppet of banned User:Wordbomb (a very abusive sockpuppet and stalker) or was helping him. My recollection is that there was no technical evidence that Cla was Wordbomb, but he definitely seemed to be helping him, and some of his edits indicate that they're based in the same area. I only just noticed the nom, and I've left a comment with more details, but it's due to close at 12:18 today. I would like to give Cla time to respond, and some of the supporters time to look at the new information. SlimVirgin 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship