Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Bureaucrat Tasks |
|---|
| Requests for adminship (talk) |
| Changing usernames (talk) |
| Assigning bot status (talk) |
| Noticeboard Archives |
| 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 |
| Noticeboard (Talk) |
| Edit template |
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where Bureaucrats can coordinate their activities. Although it is intended for use by Bureaucrats, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please record any actions which require review below in a new section.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Changing username
- Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals
|
Last updated 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) by Tangobot |
[edit] Note on recent action
In order to dissipate any doubts, I would like to clarify my recent sysopping of the account User:D. Recorder. This is DVD R W, who decided to abandon his account and start fresh on a new one. He contacted me in order to get the process going. He has also posted a confirmation/public announcement of his decision here. In light of that, I first desysopped his original account, and then sysopped his new account. The succession is hence made public, and there should be no fuss about it. Cheers, Redux 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hum, maybe I'm being overzealous about this, but I just noticed that a part of my statement above could be confusing to less experienced users who may happen upon it. I would just like to clarify, for those who don't already know it, that the Bureaucrats on the English-language Wikipedia cannot desysop anyone. I was only able to do it because I happen to be a Steward as well. Just thought I'd make this clear, since we have been contacted in the past about desysopping procedures, which is not part of this role. :) Redux 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Snowballed RfA
I snowball closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mewtwowimmer - not the hardest of decisions. Just making note here per someone's request to, well, make notes here. Picaroon 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia: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(?!? - cool stuff) 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 Wikipedia 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(?!? - cool stuff) 03:06, 30 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 Wikipedia 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.
[edit] User:Qxz
In the interests of clarity, I removed Qxz comments from multiple RfAs — not sure about the impetus, but they all look like this. Thanks. El_C 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Waggers overdue
This nomination looks like it should be approved, please review it and decide. Thank you, Anynobody 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt attention Majorly (o rly?), I must give kudos to Waggers for his/her patience too. Anynobody 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wooyi's RfA
Could someone please pull it? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sysop Inactivity
Hello. It seems that this user, Sango123, is not being very active as a sysop for more than 6 months. She might probably retired from editing Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. If possible, please desysop Sango123 because of her inactivity. Thank you.
This message was sent by Wikipedian, — zero » 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Admins don't get desyopped for inactivity. And there are admins who have been gone much longer than Sango, not quite sure why you picked her out. Majorly (o rly?) 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, z.e.r.o., that is not helpful. To the contrary, there are no policies and there probably will never be polices to support that. Cbrown1023 talk 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- z.e.r.o. — what purpose would it serve to desysop inactive admins? It's not like we have a limited number of accounts we can give the tools to. Plus, if someone hacks into her account and abuses the tools, it's a quick fix. This is just excessive process. — Deckiller 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No one has given a good reason why inactive administrators should be desysopped. Why exactly should she be? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not for removing sysop tools from inactive users, but is there any way the number of inactive sysops could be tracked? The reason I'm applying is because there seems to be a big need for new admins. Maybe if regular users had a way of knowing lots of admin were inactive they might self nominate on the WP:RFA. I'm pretty sure my nomination isn't going through, but there could be editors who would but aren't trying because they don't see the need. Thanks, Anynobody 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Inactive admins are listed at WP:LA. A script is run by Rick Block every 2 months or so which picks up all admins without edits for 3 months (inactive) and all with fewer than 30 edits in the last 3 months (semi-active). NoSeptember 05:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information, NoSeptember this list is exactly what I was hoping for. Anynobody 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not for removing sysop tools from inactive users, but is there any way the number of inactive sysops could be tracked? The reason I'm applying is because there seems to be a big need for new admins. Maybe if regular users had a way of knowing lots of admin were inactive they might self nominate on the WP:RFA. I'm pretty sure my nomination isn't going through, but there could be editors who would but aren't trying because they don't see the need. Thanks, Anynobody 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI: There was a straw poll about this a few years ago, and it did not achieve consensus. TML 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally it comes up at least once a month on the village pump or WT:RFA. See WP:PEREN for details. >Radiant< 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disqualified?
Hello, I'm sorry to have to bring this up but a rather ugly situation has developed proximate to my WP:RFA. To save your time I think the fairest way to sum up the issues in as brief a manner as possible would be to say: The accumulation of concern for Justanother's behavior on the part of myself and several others causes me to worry about whether or not it is appropriate for me to continue my RFA. I realize my approval looks pretty dismal as it is, but I had planned on letting it run it's course because things could change in the next couple of days. Thank you, and again I'm sorry to be the cause of any trouble. Anynobody 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
