Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e Requests for adminship sections Administrators Requests for adminship (edit · watch — talk: post · watch · archives) · Guide to RfA · Arguments to avoid · Successful RfAs (chronological) · Unsuccessful RfAs (alphabetical  · chronological) Shortcut: WP:BN Bureaucrats Noticeboard · Successful RfBs · Unsuccessful RfBs Nominate Nominate an editor · User rights log · Past nominations Current admin count: 1,666 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 30 (list all)
If you wish to contact bureaucrats to alert them of a privacy issue or an emergency please use Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org.	Noticeboard (Talk) Bureaucrat tasks: Assigning bot status (talk) Changing usernames (talk) Username usurpations (talk) SUL requests (talk) Requests for adminship (talk) Noticeboard archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 v • d • e
Related pages: Administrators' noticeboard (talk) • Requests for adminship (talk) • Changing username (talk) • Changing username/Usurpations (talk) • Changing username/SUL (talk) • Bots/Requests for approval (talk) • Bots/Requests for approval/Approved
For desysop requests, go to Steward requests.
Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where tasks related to the Bureaucrat permission can be discussed and coordinated. 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.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Davemeistermoab 49 18 2 73 03:03, 11 July 2009 4 days, 20 hours no report Fastily 31 5 4 86 00:30, 11 July 2009 4 days, 17 hours no report Pastor Theo 89 12 8 88 02:07, 9 July 2009 2 days, 19 hours no report Mikaey 2 57 5 1 92 06:08, 8 July 2009 1 days, 23 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by SoxBot (talk) at 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 Crat feelings 2 Bot to mark completed CHU requests 3 Rogue bot, known bot, or human? 4 A friendly nudge 5 Crat hats 6 Requesting bureaucrat opinion 7 WP:CHU 8 Vote striking by a crat, reversal by a noncrat 9 Request for guidelines 10 Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my 11 Coffee (talk · contribs) 12 Exchanging two accounts 13 CHU policy question 14 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab‎ 15 Opinions requested at WT:RfA

Crat tasks
USURP reqs	25
CHU reqs	5
SUL reqs	13
RfAs	4
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	12
Approved BRFAs	0

[edit] Crat feelings

Hey there.

How do you (collectively) feel about this discussion where the idea of an RfA with an explicit request to the 'crats to have "wider latitude" and the possibility of declaring a marginal success is discussed? Would the 'crats be willing to indulge at all? Do you see problems with the format, or the forum? Would you rather we found some other solution? Do you have some other solution? Would you like fries with that?

Thoughts? — Coren ^(talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that, in general, any time someone who has been an active admin for a period of time loses adminship and then reapplies, the RFA is unsuccessful in part because people affected by the admin's blocks, deletions, page protections, and so on come out of the woodwork to issue oppose votes. On the other hand, the performance record of admins who have completed a successful RFA after losing adminship as the result of policy violations is considerably worse than average, though the sample size is small. Still, I would agree in general that a degree of discretion in discounting clearly retaliatory votes might be appropriate.

There has been a tradition of separation of powers between the Arbitration Committee and the, er, bureaucracy. I think that has been a good thing.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand what you meant about separation: did you mean that encouragement from ArbCom to use more discretion in specific RfAs would be an unwelcome intrusion, or that this particular suggestion properly maintains that separation? — Coren ^(talk) 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. If such latitude is ever granted to bureaucrats, please do not extend it toward me. At present I have no plans to run for RFA again, yet in principle this is a troublesome concept.
2. Having conominated Everyking for one of his RfAs, it would be an honor to have the opportunity to nominate him again.

Respectfully submitted, Durova^Charge! 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume this refers to this discussion. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone considering this would be wise to have a look at Carnildo's third RfA and particularly the threads on the talkpage that followed this one. Whilst letting people know in advance that bureaucrats will have "wide latitude" might overcome some of the issues with the Carnildo close, I think many of the comnments made then remain relevant. Given Everyking's comments on that RfA close: [1], [2], it would surprise me if this sort of an arrangement were acceptable to him. It seems to me that one of the deciding factors in RfAs for Everyking was the fact that ArbCom made it pretty clear that they opposed his candidature. If that is no longer the case, a statement to that effect may go a long way.... WJBscribe (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WJB, there were 4 current arbs (me, Wizardman, CHL and John Vandenberg) supporting in the last RFA, and one opposing, I would have thought that sent a message. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In discussions outside of the Committee pages, we do not represent the Committee with our votes. We vote as individuals. If the Committee is going to give a formal statement about an users we will make it clear by announcing it as such. Let's not confuse the two, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some former Arbs like Neutrality supported as well, for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bot to mark completed CHU requests

Hi.

I've noticed a few times we sometimes don't mark completed CHU requests as "done" before the next Crat takes on the case.

Sometimes, this is due to e/c and sometimes it's just because someone forgot (I've done it myself in the past).

This causes confusion, as the next Crat that comes along thinks the account requested exists (because it does - now).

The people at the very busy AIV board tackled this a long time ago by asking a Bot to scrape the block log and remove reports of blocked usernames and IPs, with a helpful explanatory edit summary. This makes me hopeful that a similar Bot could scrape the user rename log and mark "done by [name of Crat]" against any requests open at CHU that tally with the log.

It won't really help the edit conflicts, but it will help the forgetfuls. And it'll nicely remove the 2 second job of marking "done" from our groaning, excessive Crat workload (I jest, but every little helps).

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added this functionality to Chris G Bot 3 [3]. --Chris 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh! Wasn't expecting that! Thanks. How often will it run, Chris? I did a namechange at 14:30 UTC and deliberately didn't amend CHU as a test. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spotted at 15:00. So, is it every 30 mins - or on the hour perhaps? --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On the hour. I can make it run most often if you like. --Chris 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged my WP:CHUU work last night, but later an anon user removed my done and notdone tags. So when Dweller came upon the requests, he was confused to find them done but not tagged as such. Is there a way to get the bot to revert IP edits that remove done and not done tags? Kingturtle (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AF would be the most efficient way to track such things. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue bot, known bot, or human?

User:128.174.251.48 has suddenly today been making bot-style edits to WP:CHUU. I reverted the first round of such edits, then warned the user. After it happened a second time though, I blocked the user for 48 hours - at least until we can figure out what is happening.

Is this a rogue bot? a known bot? or a human? Kingturtle (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The two users, X! and Chris G, whose bots help run CHU, do not live anywhere near where that IP geolocates to (Illinois). NW (Talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's User:ClueBot VI. That IP is www.acm.uiuc.edu, the proxy egon.acm.uiuc.edu uses to exit from the ACM subnet, where ClueBot VI runs. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Restarted bot so it is logged in. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the IP; the block seems no longer necessary given Cobi's restart. Useight (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly nudge

Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 4 was supposed to close about two hours ago, if someone has a minute to mosey on over to RfA and close it. Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that you seem to have passed RFA, one advice: Patience. You will need it as an admin ;-) SoWhy 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken :). Cool3 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors, including the bureaucrats, are volunteers. Usually this means we have additional obligations beyond the wiki. Often this results in a slight delay in the closing of an RFA. However, we have never yet forgotten anybody, and we are not about to start. It is therefore unnecessary to remind us, whether in "friendly" or nagging fashion, that an RFA is overdue. Thanks for your understanding. — Dan | talk 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crat hats

I was thinking about the German Wikipedia's rule limiting the number of hats a person can wear, specifically that a person can only hold one of the positions of arb, crat, checkuser, or oversight, and while En.Wiki is not De.Wiki and we do have many capable crats who wear more than one hat, I was thinking it might be nice to determine when and where multiple hats are a good, bad, or neutral thing. See the chart I thought up below. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hats	Good	Maybe?	Bad	Notes	Past and present occurrences
Admin	May block and rename VOA outing accounts		Should not de-bot accounts of users they blocked; should not close RFAs of users they blocked		All
Arbitrator	May do privacy renames submitted to Arb-l	Can re-admins/re-bot per automatic findings	Should not de-bot per findings; should not rename per findings		Rlevse, Jwrosenzweig, Deskana, Raul654, UninvitedCompany
Checkuser		May rename outing accounts discovered during CUs	Should not de-bot per CU findings, should not close RFA if involved CU		Avraham, Rlevse, Brion VIBBER, Tim Starling, Raul654, Essjay, Redux, Deskana, UninvitedCompany
Oversighter	May rename and hide outing accounts		Should not hide userrights log actions		Rlevse, Brion VIBBER, Tim Starling, Raul654, Taxman, Nichalp, EVula, Deskana, UninvitedCompany
MedCom			Should not close RFAs when they have privileged knowledge of mediation conduct		Angela, Bcorr, Ed Poor, Deskana, Essjay, Jwrosenzweig, TUF-KAT, WJBscribe, Danny
BAG		May de-bot at operator's request	Should not bot own bots, should not bot own BRFA closes		Andrevan, Essjay
Steward					Angela, Rdsmith4, Danny, Redux
Staff					Danny, Brion VIBBER, Tim Starling
Sysadmin		Reasonable testing of functions			Brion VIBBER, Tim Starling, Redux
OTRS	May do privacy renames submitted to OTRS				Rdsmith4, Tim Starling, Raul654, EVula, Deskana, Brion VIBBER, Angela, Avraham, UninvitedCompany
Mailing list admin/ IRC op	May de-bot per operator request; may rename per user request		May not close RFAs of individuals sanctioned on ML/IRC		Several
Functionary	May do privacy renames submitted to func-en		May not close RFA per func-en information, may not de-bot per func-en information		UninvitedCompany, Rlevse, Deskana, Raul654, Redux, Nichalp, Taxman, EVula, Brion VIBBER, Avraham
Arbcom Clerk	May do privacy renames submitted to clerks-l		May not de-bot per findings, may not close RFAs of users whose cases they clerked		Rlevse, Essjay

Most of the "conflicts" listed above don't bother me, e.g. a bureaucrat who's also a BAG member adding the bot tag directly to a bot whose BRFA they approved seems perfectly fine. However, there are some which do: I think it's obvious that they shouldn't add the bot tag to their own bots, although I probably wouldn't object if the BRFA had already been closed independently as "approved", since that means its already been evaluated independently. The most important issues above have to do with "privileged knowledge": if the bureaucrat is in a position to have privileged knowledge of a user's previous negative conduct, they should probably not be closing that user's RFA, particularly if it's a borderline case. If it's not borderline, though, does it really make a difference? If an RFA is under 65%, no bureaucrat is going to promote, so does it really matter what other knowledge the bureaucrat is privy to?--Aervanath (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that on the whole this is a solution looking for a problem. The difficulty it poses is that when a bureaucrat has the opportunity to become active in another area (in my case OTRS or Arbcom), a policy officially disallowing "multiple hats" would have required me to resign as a bureaucrat, something I would have been reluctant to do. Since some of these areas are high churn (notably, OTRS), while bureaucrats tend to remain involved over a more lengthy period of time, this is problematic. I was not active as a bureaucrat while on Arbcom, and other bureaucrats who have served there have had the sense to behave in a similar fashion. With OTRS and oversight I don't really see a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I am not saying we should adopt de.wiki's one-hat policy, just that our crats shouldn't act with two hats in the same situation. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Enigmaman's 2nd RfA established that.
As for the chart, I think there are several stretches being made. For example, Vibber and Starling are 'crats pretty much in name only; they have the permissions simply because there could be a legitimate need for them to test the tools on something, and it's easier for them to just have the bit (though I'm a fan of extraneous flags like that being removed, especially when they are overshadowed by the sysadmin rights). The Functionary items seem strange, too; I honestly wouldn't have thought about the possibility of an RfX closure being based on mailing list content, but then again, I'm not particularly imaginative in that department. :) The Oversight item isn't a valid concern either (though see my previous comment about imagination), since we have very strict rules for what we can and cannot suppress; covering up userright logs would result in some well-deserved bitchslapping (or "userright removal" for those that prefer proper terms) by ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the oversight one is a bit of a stretch since there are strict rules on what can be oversighted. Also MBisanz, where did you get some of your information? Neither can I recall, nor find in the logs, a time where I hid userrights log actions or either of the items on the functionaries line. Given the nature of the situtations that may be involved, it's probably best not to give details anyway. In general though, listing people for something that there isn't even a consensus that they did anything wrong, but listing it as if they may have isn't in great taste. I suppose it's not a bad idea to encourage separation of the use of tools on a given case. Don't act on your own checkuser data if you can, etc. If you can't convince someone else that it is a good idea, perhaps it's not. Though that can only go so far, since if you tell someone the checkuser data supports X, they need to trust that and take the necessary action. In many cases involving the above userrights it's immaterial then who carries out the next action. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant it as past and present occurrences of a crat wearing the hat in question. If a combination is so odd is has never (or almost never) occurred, like Arbcom Clerk, it doesn't need as much attention as a combination like Crat-Oversight or Crat-Admin which is rather common. No, as far as I know, the current crats haven't done any of the bad things listed above. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought that it's widespread consensus that noone should use one "hat" where they were previously involved in any other way, content- or "hat"-like? Is there really a need to codify that in any way? Regards SoWhy 08:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there are three exceptions I see to that statement. One, if a request is a non-decsion type request like an operator requested de-botting, a crat who had say blocked them in the past could fulfill the request. Two, if it is a privacy related rename, someone could wear two hats and do a rename+oversight or rename per mailing list request. Three, if they are a sysadmin or staff member they could do anything per WP:OFFICE and it probably would be ok (or at least we couldn't undo it). Other than that, standard commonsense COI principles would apply. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Picking one point, given the frequency of privacy-related work we do with renames, I think Oversight is an extremely useful tool for Crats and I'd welcome more of the users who are active with the Crat tools being trusted with it. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently posted some general thoughts on this topic on my talk page for those interested. I won't reproduce them here, as we can be more or less confident of the response from the users in a position to do anything about it. --JayHenry (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is a solution in search of a problem. Unless there is no other choice (and there is almost always another choice) privileged information from one role should not be used to affect a decision in another role. Also, I think that bureaucrat and oversight are complimentarycomplementary tools, especially as regards HideUser, and CU+OS is VERY complimentarycomplementary, as most of the name-attack sockfarms (of dozens and dozens of names) are found by the CUs and then the names have to be hidden and the revisions suppressed. -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean complementary? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no problem with one editor here having many different hats as long as they act in an open way and don't do things which may compromise their objectivity or move into the realm of COI. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting bureaucrat opinion

While I believe that most bureaucrats who watchlist WP:BN also watchlist WP:RFA, I advertise a discussion for those who don't. Could a few bureaucrats pop themselves over to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Requesting bureaucrat opinion and give a nice conclusive decision, just so that the community doesn't have to bicker over this for months and months? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this is a massive tempest in a teapot (though I'll admit that TLDR comes to mind).
As far as removing !votes that are going to be disregarded (or weighed less), they are left there because, really, it doesn't matter that they are. [keep in mind I am talking in a very broad sense; I'm not talking about this particular instance] A somewhat inflamatory statement to one person could sound make perfect sense to another; if we squash those comments just because we dislike them, our (the bureaucrat's) sense of true consensus is hindered. If someone keeps saying something and nobody listens at all, it's pretty clear what the true consensus is (on that particular argument) and so it can be properly weighed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In general these comments generally don't affect the actual course of the RFA, so that would probably account for why we don't physically strike them. bibliomaniac15 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two advantages and one disadvantage that I can see. Firstly, you send a clear message (to that user and others) as to the sort of comments or rationales that are routinely ignored by crats, which helps to educate RfA contributors and hopefully improve the standard of future discussions. Secondly, you may help to defuse a situation where other contributors would (depending on one's point of view) badger or challenge the contributor, which often leads to unnecessary drama (unnecessary because the !vote will ultimately be ignored). The most likely disadvantage is the drama potential - that users may accuse bureaucrats of censorship, abuse of power, etc. It's my hope that the potential disadvantage can be outweighed by the advantages through clearly explaining the reasoning behind the strikeout when it is performed.

I've written this on the assumption that the comment being struck is uncontroversially non-constructive, for example because it's unrelated to the candidate. I don't think the striking of !votes during an RfA is constructive otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHU

Hi Where's the discussion about the new templates and stuff on CHU? I currently don't get long periods onwiki, so haven't the time to search for it... --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what happened to the clerk bots? (I've been inactive at CHU for a spell as well; yeesh) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What new templates and stuff are you referring to exactly? Regards SoWhy 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the ones that pop up when you edit the page. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vote striking by a crat, reversal by a noncrat

I have alerted Biblio to this already, but in talking with him yesterday, he said he would not be around for the Fourth of July weekend, so I was unsure if he would be here for this discussion. NW (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, at Mikaey's RfA, Bureaucrat bibliomaniac15 stuck Peter Damian's oppose with this rationale. Just very recently, Malleus Fatuorum reverted Biblio[4] and posted on the talk page of the RfA his reason for doing so[5]. I have my own personal feelings on this matter, but I ask that bureaucrats go and affirm or deny that any user can revert a bureaucrat's actions at RfA. NW (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of RfAs, I leave in for the historical record any !votes and comments made (with a few exceptions), although I weigh them differently during closing. It is best IMHO not to strike out !votes and comments unless they are solely bigoted, excessively disruptive or made by socks or unqualified users. It is best to leave as much in the closed RfA as possible. I don't think there was anything wrong with reverting bibliomaniac's edit, however, I wish Malleus had been more tactful. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious but not altogether surprising that my action is criticised as being tactless while the exact same action from a bureaucrat is considered to be acceptable. You guys clearly just make the rules up as you go along. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I take it you disagree with several of your (present and former) fellow bureaucrats would agreed that a bureaucrat striking votes was acceptable? (See the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2). NW (Talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reverted a 'crats striking of an !vote before, I have zero problem with doing so. We are talking about the BRD cycle here. Biblio is free to strike the !vote, but others are free to say, "there is no consensus to do so" and revert him. Generally, unless the account has been blocked, is a sock, or blatantly offensive in a vandlistic sense, nobody (crat or otherwise) should be striking !votes. At the same time, I fully encourage 'crats to use their discretion in considering the merits of an argument when closing an RfA... and have no problem with them saying, "I gave the John Smith's vote little or no credence because there is no community support for it."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Balloonman, in your reversion of Nichalap, several bureaucrats (WJBScribe and Taxman in particular) said your action was not appropriate. Quoting a few more bureaucrats below:

"I also agree that if a vote is going to be discounted, there is some benefit to the community to knowing that early as Frank mentioned. - Taxman Talk 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Whilst it is true that bureaucrats enjoy no greater authority than any other editor in general, that isn't the case where RfA is concerned. It is specifically the job of bureaucrats to assess comments made in the course of an RfA and do have the authority to discount comments...WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"This practice is not new - Nichalp in particular has been striking comments he feels add nothing to the discussion with some time and it is a practice that has generally been approved of. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" (Note that WJBScribe disapproved of his Nichalap's actions, but acknowledged that Nichalap had the right to do it.)

"So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that, but as it's just a piece of friendly advice from one bureaucrat to another, he's well within his rights to ignore me and tell me where to go, what cliff to jump off, or somesuch. The absolute difference between striking a vote (what Nichalp did) and telling a user that you have no intention to pay any attention to the vote (what I'd do) to the RFA is minimal- either way the vote does not get counted...Deskana (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Now to people who have not seen my work, I have indented several RFAs opposes in the past (please go back to 2005, I think you might find some examples there). So, it's nothing new to me, new perhaps to people who have not been around since then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

NW (Talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, but I stand behind my actions, as did a number of other people. Nichalp overstepped his bounds in striking the !votes. A crats additional authority comes in closing the RfA and evaluating the consensus at the end of the RfA, they do not have extra administrative authority during the RfA. During the RfA they are free to ask questions, !vote, make comments, etc as anybody else, but they do not have extra authority. The difference between Biblio's actions here and Nichalp's is that Nichalp tried to apply his "crat action" and make it more authoritative, which was an abuse of position.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Lest people forget the other comments at the RFC, as I responded to NW on the rfa talk page, most people agreed Nichalp was wrong.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here. As Deskana said, there are only minor differences between striking the vote, indenting the vote with a {{crat note}}, and discounting it entirely without telling anyone. Everyone knows that bureaucrats (theoretically) do the latter all the time. I personally see no difference between Biblio's and Nichalp's actions - only to whom they applied it to (which would make Biblio's action even more legitimate, considering Peter Damian's recent past) - and really don't see what the big fuss is with striking a vote. If a vote is discounted by the bureaucrats, would you not want to know now, rather than in 7 days (or more likely, never)? NW (Talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Nichalp struck votes without asking for clarification from well respected members of the community (without discussion), which lead to one admin relinquishing his bit because he felt it was a slap in the face. A better approach would have been to ask for clarification or elaboration. Everybody knows that Peter's !votes are going to be discounted, that is generally accepted, and discussed to death. The problem is that the community hasn't ruled that he can't make his !vote, and generally it takes a lot to reach the point where they are banned/blocked (although that leash is getting shorter.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Also, like I said when I undid Nichalp's striking of some !votes, striking !votes during an RfA by a crat is insulting and an affront. There is a HUGE difference between using one's discretion at the end of an RfA and striking an !vote during the RfA. The former is what we appoint crats to do, the later is not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you not consider such opposes may be insulting too? Majorly talk 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To Balloonman.. 'blatantly offensive in a vandalistic sense'... you mean like announcing the intent to disrupt Wikipedia by opposing every RFA and then doing so? I have tried my best, but I am at a complete loss as to why we mollycoddle such people. → ROUX ₪ 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ce)To be honest with you, I haven't looked at Peter's case very closely, but I do know that there are numerous discussions on this thread. He is our latest Kurt/DougsTech. If the community can't reach a consensus on his !vote, then the actions of individuals related to his actions are subject. IMO, Biblio's reverting Peter's !vote is no different than Majorly's reverting KMWeber/Dougstech... they can do so, but the until the community speaks on that particular case, the odds are somebody else will come along and undo it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Plus, I've seen both Deskana and EVula making posts telling an opposer essentially, "FYI as written it is likely this !vote will be discounted." Everybody knows that Kurt's prima facia, Dougs too many admins, and Peter's destroy the wiki !votes are going to be discounted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If we know they are going to be discounted, what possible reason is there for allowing the vote to even be made? Majorly talk 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read what you just said again, slowly, and then think about what the implications of your position might possibly be. How do you know that a vote will be discounted for instance? How does anyone know? What are the criteria that you'd apply to the discounting of support votes? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bureaucrats said they discounted Kurt and DougsTech's votes. That's how I know. Majorly talk 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A few of them, so far as I recall, made a general statement, not addressing any particular vote on any particular RfA. You have been similarly evasive, in not addressing my question about your criteria for striking support votes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think support votes should be discounted unless they are irrelevant to the topic at hand (the user's suitability for adminship. The same for opposition. Majorly talk 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I get a few free lightyears I must try and drop in on your planet. Almost all support votes are "irrelevant to the topic at hand". They're mostly "He's my mate, so of course I support; thought he was an admin already." When I see someone striking out nonsense like that then I'll perhaps take your opinion more seriously than I do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for two people to disagree and live on the same planet. In any case, "thought he was one" is most certainly to do with the topic at hand. If you think someone is an admin already, and that they are doing a good job, that is most certainly an on-topic reason for supporting. The buddy-type votes, I can only agree with you, but I consider it only a serious issue when someone does it consistently, or in a disruptive manner. Normally it doesn't make any difference. For example, I know you oppose quite a bit, but I normally find your opposes thoughtful and persuasive. When someone (like Peter) goes on an opposing "spree", using the same copy and pasted "rationale", it's clear very little, if any, thought has gone into it. You could very well argue people go on supporting sprees. I don't like them either, and brought it up with an editor who I saw doing it. Personally though, I consider supporting the default stance on an RFA, and opposition should only happen if absolutely needed. Remember each oppose requires three supports to make up for it. So for every dumb oppose, there could easily be three dumb supports. That's why there's a lot of people upset with these thoughtless opposes – they are dig at the person, and are unnecessary. At least with a thoughtless support vote they are (normally) done in good faith and don't demoralise the candidate needlessly. Majorly talk 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Because consensus can change and variants might be derived from them. In this case, there has been several discussions related to Peter, but in none of them has the notion of striking his !vote been supported. I'm not saying if that is right or wrong, but until the community reaches the point where they want to cut him off, then he has the right to vote, even if it is in a manner that nobody respects.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we probably broadly agree, just not on the details, or their implementation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Biblio (or any crat, for that matter) striking/indenting !votes, but realistically it does seem a tad pointless. The 'crats could just as easily ignore a vote upon closing the discussion; the end result is the same, with far less drama. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that if I saw a Crat strike a vote or respond to a vote in any kind of dismissive manner and then close an RfA, I would immediately seek their removal via either RfC or ArbCom. The CoI standards in terms of using rights and participating in an event except in terms of vandalism (or sock puppetry) would be unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any bureaucrat would do that, but what you're saying is a given really. Majorly talk 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a question for you then. Say a user adds a nonsensical rationale in an RfA. The community generally asks us bcrats to use our discretion when closing RfA's and in that case that rationale should add little or no weight to the RfA, and that is typically what bcrats would do in closing an RfA with that type of rationale. What you are saying is that you would not only prefer not to know ahead of time if a bcrat would not put much weight behind a given rationale, but that you would actively seek sanctions against them for pointing out ahead of time that there is a case that they would use their discretion to not consider a given rationale as adding much weight to the consensus. So what about pointing that out makes it participating in the RfA and automatically a COI? - Taxman ^Talk 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava and Majorly, I don't think I understand. Surely the authority by which a bureaucrat can strike votes (if he has any such authority, which is what we're arguing about) is the same as the authority by which he can close RFAs? Hence to do both on the same RFA is in no way a conflict of interest; it's simply doing two parts of the same job. The COI problem arises only when a bureaucrat votes in and closes an RFA, i.e. acts both as a regular old user and as a bureaucrat. — Dan | talk 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a very clear and important difference. By striking vote during an RfA a bureaucrat is influencing the course of an ongoing election. For that same bureaucrat to then decide the result of that election poses obvious dangers. But what if an independent bureaucrat who closes the RfA doesn't agree that the struck-through vote really should be ignored? Whichever way you cut it, bureaucrats striking votes is a very, very, bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for guidelines

I would like the bureaucrats to consider collectively producing some guidelines for contributors at RfA. I feel that it would be helpful for contributors and 'crats to have a set of criteria (by analogy to WP:CSD, a deliberately limited set of cases in which deletion is always the right thing) defining those rationales which are universally considered unhelpful and which will always be ignored.

For example, it might be stated that bureaucrats will ignore positions which are...

• Nothing to do with the candidate (e.g. "Oppose Admins are stinky")
• Specific to the candidate, but based on Wiki-politics rather than candidate's suitability for adminship (e.g. "Support Candidate is a member of Wikiproject Foo. Down with WP:BAR!")
• Based on personal prejudice, whether on grounds of religion, gender, etc. (e.g. "Oppose Wikipedia has more than enough left-handed admins already")

The establishment of such guidelines will help to guide contributors at RfA, improve the quality of future contributions, and should help to reduce drama. The discussion, if not the standard itself, may also help to ensure that different crats aren't evaluating and weighting rationales in too divergent a fashion.

One final point. I'm not going to argue that this should be the basis of 'crats striking out or commenting on unsuitable rationales, much less unclear or controversial ones. I think the establishment of this guideline would neatly side-step that can o' worms. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a subject the 'crats can decide upon, this is something the larger community would have to weigh in on. While a 'crat can say, "I don't weigh !votes where people use the arguement prima facia" they cannot dictate the types of !votes people make. Any such discussion would have to be supported by the larger community. 'crats have extra responsibility/authority in closing RfA's, not in their operation/administration. While an RfA is open, a 'crat is no different from anybody else (although their input is often more respected---but that is true of many non-crats as well.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should encourage anyone to pounce on a comment during an ongoing RfA and say, "A-ha! This rationale is subject to speedy deletion!". I'm saying we should have a document that says, "Bureaucrats will always ignore too many admins as a rationale, so don't bother posting it, and if you do see it, don't bother replying." SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy, but if such a document/policy came about, it would need to stem from community consensus. If the community wants to encase certain criteria as policy/guideline, then the community can, but it's a community responsibility. Now an individual 'crat could say, "I don't weigh" specific types of objections. But I think that might lead to a slippery slope wherein crat candidates will be asked for such as list and it might lead to customized opposes knowing how 'crats think.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Plus consensus changes. Before Kurt finally left us, he started to win people over. There was a short period where others were !voting opposes due to self-noms. By cementing in rationales, you limit growth and diversity.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I personally don't understand why people get so het up about obviously off the wall !votes but clearly they do. However, judging the admissibly of any argument in an RfA is a slippery slope because it discourages other new reasons for !voting, especially where the rationale is close to the off-the-wall one but not quite there. Once a few specific rationale are banned, we'll have a list that will only keep growing and soon reasons that are borderline kosher today will find their way onto the list (there will always be at least one rationale that will drive everyone crazy!).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank God for a rational voice! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A set rationale for judging RfA comments would not work because each RfA is different with a unique editor. Where some guidelines will work with a specific RfA, in another it will make no sense. We choose bureaucrats because we trust them to determine consensus correctly, so let's allow them to do their jobs. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my

I apologize for the new topic heading, but I would like this to be a combined thought on both issues above:striking !votes and discounting !vote guidelines. First let me preface by saying this solely my own opinion, nothing official, and I am not coming to call anyone else's actions into askance. The thirty-some-odd bureaucrats are all individual people (we are all individuals) and have their own ways of approaching every situation. There is no crat-bot; there are people, and there must be an understanding that two people may come to different decisions. Be that as it may, the following is my understanding, although, as always, I am open to conversation, intellectual debate, and reserve the right to be swayed by superior arguments.

RfX's are, at there core, the opportunity for editors to comment on the judgment and trustworthiness of the individual under discussion. Is there a consensus that the candidate will uphold wikipedia policy and guidelines where they exist, and will make reasoned decisions where policy and guideline is vague (now where have y'all heard that before). Commentators have the opportunity to voice their opinions, and attempt to sway or be swayed by the discussions, that currently take the form of support, oppose, and neutral lists and their associated back-and-forths. In my opinion, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that the majority of respondents are of perceptive enough to recognize weaker arguments and when making their own internal judgment, afford them the appropriate weight. As such, I would personally prefer not to strike such votes. For what it is worth, if someone thinks that their are too many admins it is their prerogative to say so. I--the editor/!voter--may disagree and think that their are not enough and will not be influenced by such a vote. I would hope, and counsel, that everyone be proactive with their opinions and not reactive. Just because editor A automatically opposes does not mean that editor B should mechanically support. We are all individuals .

That regards the individual comments and opinions that are listed at the RfX. When the alloted time has expired, the bureaucrat in question has to make a decision--what is the consensus. Consensus is not solely a matter of the number of votes; although quite often they are highly correlated. Thankfully, most of the time, their is a clear consensus, or clear lack thereof, and each individual argument's strengths or weakness becomes subsumed into the overall pattern, obviating the need for a case by case analysis. For example, I am uncertain anyone would argue that an RfA closing 5/86/4, where each and every oppose was "too many admins", should be passed due to the "weakness" of the opposes. Consensus, however, also includes the trend of the discussions, the ebb-and-flow as it were, the actual arguments themselves and their relative "strength" for lack of a better term one versus the other. It is in those situations, where the bureaucrats need to determine if a consensus exists, that argument relativity and opinion shifting plays a role. And since each of those cases are unique, there is no way to create a general guideline. The cases where the existence of consensus needs to be decided upon by the bureaucrats requires that each opinion be looked at on a chronological and substantive basis, to see if a "community voice" can be heard over the din. To say that certain opinions should be ipso facto discounted would prevent the bureaucrat from using all available information. Bureaucrats are elected to have the opportunity, when necessary, use their judgment about the relative merits of each RfX; let them exercise it as efficiently and flexibly as possible.

That is not to say certain opinions should not be automatically discarded: the ones that are against wikipedia policy and guideline such as sockpuppets of banned users, IPs (in the support/oppose section), personal attacks, vandalism, etc. should be removed. But, in my opinion, !votes which relate more to the process or project than the candidate should not be struck, and, when necessary, should be given the appropriate relative weight vis-a-vis the entire discussion, which may well be zero or close to it. Again, in the extreme case where the community as a whole felt that there were too many admins, and wanted no more despite the obvious qualities of the candidate, should said candidate be given the bit regardless? I would think not. But where the community wants more admins, a support directed specifically to the candidate and his or her qualities would be a stronger identifier of consensus than a vague oppose that was more a lament about the project than specific to the candidate. The volume of opinions is also a factor, as 4 directed supports are not enough to overwhelm 73 vague oppositions: in that case the consensus is that the community does not want another admin at this time. So, (and I apologize for the redundancy) this demonstrates, that there are enough factors in the decision to preclude any guidelines relating to opinion relevancy outside of the outright vandalistic type in the RfX process. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

well said---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A voice of sanity. So does that mean that I'm not going to be blocked for reverting bibliomaniac earlier today? To be honest I'm not bothered either way, I'd just like to know. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you were going to be blocked, it would have happened already. To do so now would be pointless and punitive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I know how MF will respond to this, let me do so... that never stopped some admins ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting too much sleep currently, so I'm a bit fuzzy-headed, but that seems a fair statement of my take on the issue, too. --Dweller (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Avi. I think you presented the process very clearly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well-put, aside from the tl;dr aspect. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Would it be useful to see if there is consensus among bureaucrats to take a consistent stance on these issues or should the current practice of individual discretion be maintained?  Skomorokh  16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've largely felt the same way, that poorly reasoned arguments don't sway an Rfx much and can largely be ignored. There is a bit of a problem however where poorly reasoned arguments repeated more often than the better reasoning refuting them can still sway people. It's like the vaccination issue. There really is an extraordinary lack of evidence of harm from vaccines and an extraordinary amount of evidence of the good that they do that vastly outweighs any claimed harm. But the harm claims are loudly repeated enough that increasingly people believe them (or doubt the real facts) despite the weakness of the claims. So my general preference as I have stated before is that anything short of abusive comments, sockpuppets, etc, should be allowed to stand, not be struck or removed, but should simply be pointed out. For example a user showing up to RfA on their 2nd edit shouldn't have their comments struck, but it is helpful to have that fact pointed out so people can take it into account. Similarly for really bad arguments, people can simply point out that they are widely considered to be very poor arguments. I also tend to go for the angle that drama rarely helps improve articles, so the less drama angle is usually better for the project. Striking comments usually leads to drama, and probably isn't worth it. - Taxman ^Talk 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would even go so far as to say that it isn't the 'crats role to do so... one of the things that I think the community does a good job at is pointing out bad/weak arguments. If the argument is really bad, then somebody will make that observation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee (talk · contribs)

Per a motion by ArbCom: Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

As such, could a 'crat please reinstate Coffee's bit?

For the committee, Tiptoety ^talk 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Y Done -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Exchanging two accounts

Hi, I'm an italian bureaucrat, user:GdaBaskerville asked me to help him arranging his account: he created also user:Giovanni Camporeale, now user Giovanni_Camporeale@en.wiki should be renamed into a temporary name, then GdaBaskerville@en.wiki should be renamed into Giovanni_Camporeale and finally the old Giovanni Camporeale into GdaBaskerville. Both the accounts are owned by the same user who have the full access. So I ask for the way he can do the request in the right way, thanks. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason he has two accounts? On English wikipedia, without an acceptable reason, we usually only allow one account per editor. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and in specific Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On it.wiki we allow declarate socks but he wants to use only one of them, he registred two account because he didn't know that an account can be renamed, now he wants his most important edits (that he made with GdaBaskerville account) be under his new username: Giovanni Camporeale. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept a request in these terms? --Vituzzu (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK, provided that the secondary account be retired and the primary account be the only one used going forward. Any other bureaucrats, clerks, or interested parties think otherwise? -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CHU policy question

Interested parties, your comments, corrections, and suggestions would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Renaming accounts with no contributions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab‎

FWIW, I've observed at least some canvassing (or close to it) at this RfA. Feel free to e-mail me for evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot disclose the evidence publically, please forward it to wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions requested at WT:RfA

People seem to be requesting the opinions of more 'crats at Wikipedia talk:Rfa#Unexplained opposes. hmwithτ 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained my views above at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my, is that what you were looking for? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)