Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 3

Consensus on RfB
Just having withdrawn my second RfB, and noticing that this RfA is yet to be closed almost ten hours after its scheduled ending time, I again wonder why on RfBs should we allow Jeffrey O. Gustafson's "very long standing rationale"™ that we don't need more bureaucrats have as much weight on the closing bureaucrat's final decision as 10 supporting users. It is my firm belief that the current stakes for promoting a bureaucrat are totally incompatible with WP:Consensus. It is understandable that a candidate for bureaucratship should have more experience and greater trust from the community than a candidate for adminship, but I do not understand that this can be done by dramatically increasing the approval rate necessary for a promotion. Users participating in an RfB are well aware that they are evaluating a candidate for bureaucratship, not adminship, and that thus the standards are different. On my RfB, a user (Picaroon) opposed me by acknowledging that although he believed that I was a fine admin, he didn't think that I would make a good bureaucrat. This position reveals that users are perfectly capable of separating the two positions, having their own higher stakes for the latter, and making a decision on a candidate accordingly. But having an approval rate of around 90% results in: I would appreciate comments on the RfB process and its seemingly clear violation of WP:Consensus. And for the reasons I stated above I propose that the promotion rate for a bureaucrat be lowered to the approval rate of any other process on Wikipedia, such as WP:RFA, which is commonly accepted to respect the consensus of the community. Thank you. Hús ö  nd  19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * patronizing the users who took their time to participate by disregarding their ability to make a proper evaluation, instead relying on an almost unanimous super majority for a promotion.
 * allowing a very small minority of users to decide for the community, which not only is blatantly unfair, as is also against policy (WP:Consensus).
 * empowering opposers with the ability to exercise petty revenge on a candidate for personal disagreements on issues that are completely unrelated to bureaucratship.
 * empowering opposers with the ability to protest against the role of bureaucrats by preventing a candidate from being promoted independently of his or her suitability for the position, thus effectively disrupting a process in an attempt to promote their points of view.
 * empowering opposers with the ability to use bad faith in a way that can hardly be verified but will nonetheless meet its goal.
 * permitting only extremely popular, well-known users to become bureaucrats, because only an extremely high quantity of supports will eventually overcome the perpetual, resident opposition.
 * wasting the time and sanity of a candidate in a painstaking process.
 * damaging trust in the process.
 * damaging Wikipedia.


 * On Meta-Wiki, we are much more relaxed about this kind of thing. For a start, bureaucrats are promoted at 75%, or would be. Normally all RFBs are clear "yes" or "no", mostly yes though. However, it is not easy to compare, as they are very different wikis, but I believe the principle is the same. Seriously though, it just sucks here, and I want nothing to do with it :)  Majorly  (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion would really need to be moved to WT:RfA. But since it was brought to the Bcrats here, I will note this: with the exception of the core proposal to lower approval rate, there is nothing in this that is particular to RfBs. This is the well-known dichotomy of "don't just count votes" vs. "don't disregard our votes". The assessment of a RfB is not supposed to be different from that of a RfA in terms of taking into account well-reasoned rationales for any participant and logically treating differently ill-reasoned rationales, or those ivotes lacking rationales. That's the ideal side of the story. The other side becomes apparent if a candidate were to get promoted [to Bcrat] with an apparent (key word, really) support rate of, say, 72% because the closing Bcrat judged that the valid, or well-reasoned rate was sufficient for promotion. But if that were to be the case in any given RfB, we would still be supposed to promote. The closing Bureaucrat is not a slave to the raw numbers, and is not supposed to care only about the formula "90% = 1 opposer offsets 10 supporters". If a candidate for Bcratship is getting opposition based on less-than-appropriate reasonings (or more commonly, one such reasoning, followed by several "per user" rationales), he or she should wait for the closing and expect the closing Bcrat to take this into account. But if, as you said it yourself, the vast majority of the community is making informed decisions regarding promotions, then yes, a substantive opposion, and one that doesn't need to be as sizeable as that necessary to fail a RfA, would result in a failed RfB. In that case, you can, of course, propose that the opposition needed to fail a candidate be changed to match RfA standards, as it appears to be your intention. But not because we are allowing this or that type of reasoning, made by a handful of users, dictate who gets promoted. We are not supposed to allow this to happen. And that is when the problem I mentioned surfaces: if we don't allow it to happen, people will protest, because they feel that valid opposition is being ignored for some reason; and if it appears that we are allowing simple vote counting to happen, then people protest as well. But that's not a problem with RfB-specific process, rather it is an issue that involves RfA in general. Redux (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose moving this thread/RfC to WT:RFA, although I fear that its subject would there shift to the, and I quote your words, "well-known dichotomy of "don't just count votes" vs. "don't disregard our votes"". Not something I am looking forward to... My intention is precisely to receive feedback on an eventual proposal to lower the opposition needed for deeming an RfB unsuccessful to match that of an RfA. Bureaucrats closing RfAs, just like admins closing all sorts of discussions, are indeed aware that they'll receive protests if valid opposition is ignored. But what should be your stance when valid support is ignored or at least given so little importance, as it effectively happens in RfBs currently? Could there be any consensus when opposition is empowered tenfold when compared to support? In my view, the current situation is clearly unfair and against the policy of consensus we've been promoting on Wikipedia for so long. Hús  ö  nd  05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed true that what should happen ideally often differs considerably from what actually takes place. And, although I'm not sure whether or not this would help this discussion, but there is an interesting piece of history regarding RfB that, unless one was there to witness as it happened, it would be difficult to dig up now: the 90% threshold was not instituted by community consensus, at least not directly.  The position of Bureaucrat was created in 2004, which is when RfBs came into being.  Originally, all RfBs were processed by the original Bcrat, Angela.  When more Bureaucrats were elected, the instructions were created to help guide the procedure for promoting users.  The instructions were written somewhat to the effect of "assess consensus and decide whether or not it is sufficient for the user to gain Bureaucrat access; but bear in mind that the standards for promotion to Bureaucratship should be quite higher than those for Adminship and that, historically, no Bureaucrat has ever been promoted with more than 3 users opposing and less than 90% support."  So you see, 90% came up as a result of the practical state of affairs: the first Bureaucrats were elected in landslides, and that became emblematic of the kind of support a user would be expected to command in order to be promoted.  In time, 90% became the expected number, and the guideline of "no significant opposition" still exists for us to consider when deciding on the outcome of a RfB.  Now the community has come to accept this number somewhat as a "given", but it didn't actually reach consensus to adopt it as the threshold for promotion to Bureaucratship.  And the same happened in RfA.  There are certain aspects of it that were put forward by the first Bureaucrats upon observing how RfA worked back then.  Despite the deep changes that have taken place in Wikipedia since then, most of those systems continue to guide RfA, not because there was consensus to adopt them, but because it's the way it's always been done, at least as far as most of the currently active users are concerned.  Redux (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO there should be no limit to the number of bureaucrats in en.Wikipedia. As a Bureaucrat here, I often find that when I go to check in on Bureaucrat-Tasks, they are already done. That's a good thing. It is better to have things happen more promptly than to let them sitting too long. I imagine the apprehension people have in giving out bureaucrat status centers on the bureaucrat's power to create admnistrators. What if some nefarious bureaucrat in a mad frenzy started dishing out admin privileges to trolls and ne'er-do-wells? Could such a mess take weeks to repair? Certainly, an admin's interpersonal history should be considered for bureaucrat nominees; what should not be considered is that there might be plenty of bureaucrats already. Kingturtle (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. There were actually a handful of bureaucrats chosen at the beginning (I am one). RfB came later. Secretlondon (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's not quite right? Kingturtle (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Redux's history. He says "The position of Bureaucrat was created in 2004, which is when RfBs came into being. Originally, all RfBs were processed by the original Bcrat, Angela. When more Bureaucrats were elected, the instructions were created to help guide the procedure for promoting users.". There were actually a handful of bureaucrats chosen at the beginning. User:NoSeptember/crat_stats has a little bit on the history but doesn't list the original 5 (I think). Secretlondon (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 6 original bcrats, Angela, Eloquence, Secretlondon, Stan Shebs, Tim Starling and TUF-KAT. None were elected in, and this was around Feb 2004. The first RFB was Ed Poor's, which came about a week or so later. A very interesting RFB is Cimon Avaro's. That comes to less than 80% if I'm not mistaken. So things have changed.  Majorly  (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's indeed a very interesting addition to this thread, Majorly. I truly hate to nag about, but now there's also inconsistency of the process to justify a modification of the traditional decision making of RfB closures. Bureaucrats' feedback with pros and cons on matching RfB to RfA would be extremely appreciated. Hús  ö  nd  18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. I just hadn't gone into so much detail on the origin of the position, as Secretlondon and Majorly just did. But since it is on the table now, observe: Angela was the first user to be made Bureaucrat. In a matter of days, 5 other users were also made Bureaucrats (all of that was handled by e-mail or other private means of communication). Then, shortly after, RfBs started to happen. But, if I recall correctly, Angela was handling 95% (if not all) of them (they weren't that many anyway). In the early RfBs, results were usually clear-cut landslides, which in time evolved to the expected 90% margin of support for promotion. That is not to say that every single one of them was either 90% or 91%. Remember: this was done by the early Bureaucrats themselves, upon observation of the developments. I just didn't think it was necessary to be that detailed on the origin and evolution of Bureaucratship in order to make the core point that the 90% margin was not put forward by community consensus in the first place. And something else of practical importance should be noted: up until... let's see... around mid 2005, things weren't as charged as they are now on RfA/B. We were asked to keep in mind the 90% and the "no significant oppostion" guideline, but ultimately there was more leeway for the decision to be made. Now there's a lot more scrutiny and even nitpicking about numbers, vote counting and overall Bureaucrat activity. Paradoxically, the time when Bureaucrats had the most latitude to act was exactly the time when this wasn't necessary, because RfA/B was [comparatively] a walk in the park and most results were clear-cut. Go figure... Redux (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the historical origins, the 90% threshold has become cemented, though. In a way, I'm rather concerned about that, as the sheer scale of Wikipedia's editor base makes the quasi-unanimity easily acquired in 2004 an impossibility nowadays. This is not necessarily due to the candidates being less suitable, but rather more due to my first law. At the same time, we do have the force of volunteer attrition acting on the editor base, and it will cause some bureaucrats to leave the project eventually. As the Wikipedia community scales even larger, I'm worried that the current RfB standards will cause a shortage of bureaucrats in the mid-term future, so I would consider a proposal lowering of that threshold seriously. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I predict that the community will correct for a shortage of bureaucrats if one ever arises. It's happened before. &mdash; Dan | talk 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started this thread after realizing that an RfA took ten hours to be closed, which is quite a clear sign that we need more bureaucrats, as we need more admins. Bureaucrats should discuss lowering the RfB threshhold and see if they can reach a consensus about such a proposal. Or, maybe the proposal should be taken to somewhere where it could be submitted to greater attention by the entire community. Hús  ö  nd  15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to this thread, I've since changed my long standing opinion about RfAs. It appears, from the above comments that they are a vote, and RfBs are totally flawed in the way they are 90%.  Majorly  (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revoking admin status
How does revoking admin status work? I understand you are able to revoke it and then ask for it back, but are you allowed to do so using a different account? Hiding T 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this ArbCom precedent, a user who resigns their sysop (and according to that, any other) flag under non-controversial circumstances, they may get them back upon request. Although stewards are usually (indeed, they are the only ones technically able to) the ones who revoke a flag, it is usually bureaucrats who give the +sysop back. As for getting them under a different account, this sysopping (and another one as well) indicate that if the new account is verified as belonging to a previous admin, and they resigned their bit under non-controversial circumstances, then they are restored. However, this is just evidence as I have seen; only a bureaucrat can give a definitive answer. I (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a steward can remove admin status. Whether we'd resysop a different account would depend on the circumstances (and the bureaucrat). Secretlondon (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats
Is there a possiblity if i could become a Bureaucrat, i have knowledge about wikipedia but if i become a Bureaucrat i could start with the Change username Right and another Bureaucrat could coach me, and tell me what to do so in the future i'll know how things work.  →Dust  Rider →  17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your enthusiasm is welcome but I'm afraid there is no possibility for you to become a bureaucrat at this time. You must be an administrator before you may become a bureaucrat, and you're likely months away from becoming an administrator. Both duties require experience and community trust, and only time and dedication to the project may give you those. Please read Guide to requests for adminship. It'll be a good start. Hús  ö  nd  18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at WP:RFB, the place to request for bureaucratship takes place, would be a good place to look at also. But like what was mentioned above, you would have to be an English Wikipedia administrator first, before you can start an RfB. But of course you would have to have experience as an admin first before an RfA will have a chance at passing. What I'm trying to say is, if you become an administrator, and you have an RfB right after you become one, it will fail pretty quickly because of little experience as an admin. Thanks, RyRy  ( talk ) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights...
When granting Admin rights to a user who already has Rollback rights, should we remove the Rollback rights? Should the system see the redundancy and remove the Rollback rights? Should we just leave the Rollback rights? Kingturtle (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am supposing that we just leave it - just as we leave Admin rights when one becomes a Bureaucrat. If a user loses her/his Bureaucrat rights, she/he could still possibly have her/his Admin rights. If a user loses her/his Admin rights, she/he could still possibly have her/his Rollback rights. Kingturtle (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been leaving the rollback rights, and it's not caused any obvious problems, but I don't know whether it could possibly be a drain on system resources - seems unlikely. Warofdreams talk 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't, as user groups are additive, and they are all loaded at once. Both the rollbacker group and the admin group have been set in LocalSettings.php to have the authority to use rollback, so having the same right enabled twice doesn't disable it. Now, rollbacker should be removed if for some reason admin rights are removed... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since the rollback rights and the admin rights are attained through different means and are different entities, it is possible for an admin to lose admin rights but retain rollback rights. Let's say the admin loses admin rights because of continually blocking articles that shouldn't be blocked. It might be decided that since the Rollover tool was never abused, the Rollover rights could remain. Kingturtle (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. I was thinking more about the emergency desysop case. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems redundant to me seeing rollback and administrator on someone's user rights, to me it makes more sense to take rollback off and make them administrators, as administrators have rollback, what really is the point of having it twice. Unless they are desysoped, which they could just request rollback again, if they did not misuse it. Earth bending master  00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My practice has been to remove rollback rights when assigning sysop rights. My logic is that the fomer is redundant to to latter, and that the ability to use Special:Listusers to keep track of the number of users assigned rollback rights is increased if we don't have people doubling up. Its not a big issue, but I'd rather see users having either rollback or sysop rights. WjBscribe 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what should the protocol be? Because I have not been removing rollback rights. Kingturtle (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed but haven't thought it a big deal that our approaches differed. Admins can remove (or readd rollback) to their accounts after all. If we think our approach needs to be consistent, I suggest raising this matter on a more watched page - the crat noticeboard or the talkpage of requests for rollback... WjBscribe 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another issue that hasn't been brought up is NUMBEROFROLLBACKERS: this is a manual template (although one would be forgiven for thinking it is an in-build magic word, due to the upper case title), which is updated by a robot that, I believe, counts the number of entries in Special:Listusers/rollback and updates accordingly. Leaving +rollback on a sysop. account could, depending on the particulars of the bot's operations, throw that counter off-kilter, which is obviously not ideal.


 * Tangentially, to respond to Kingturtle's point, above: "just as we leave Admin rights when one becomes a Bureaucrat". Actually, the scenario of leaving rollback on an admin. account and leaving the sysop. flag on a 'crat account are not comparable: the particulars of each are such that, whilst admin. superceeds rollback—in that it "builds" on its features, e.g. by adding block and protect to the rollback function—'crat is a almost completely unrelated to sysop. Hence, perhaps that argument is not applicable here? AGK (contact) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Kingturtle (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. I've got Toolserver access now, however, if you'd like, I can do it via SQL queries instead, and, discount users with +sysop. SQL Query me!  02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats
Actually, Rambling Man falls under the heading of Inactive bureaucrats - which brings me to a question - Why do we care which ones are active and inactive? Why do we care which ones were active in the past two months? Kingturtle (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the matter (slightly rambling ones I'm afraid - no pun intended...) I think the idea is to direct people towards those bureaucrats likely to be able to help them. If someone is looking for a bureaucrat, knowing that Linuxbeak is a crat isn't of much help. Similary as TheRamblingMan is away til Monday, there's not much point people going to him. If we all remembered to indicate whether we are available to perform tasks it might produce a better system (Secretlondon is "active" but has been away for some time, ditto Cecropia - so they are unlkely to respond to requests quickly) but it seems a little ridiculous to keep updating our status. We could just list all crats without distinguishing but I don't think that's very meaningful information either. Also people rarely approach individual crats - most requests for our help are at centralised locations but I kinda feel we should be available if someone needs a crat. Of course, no doubt one of the reasons we do this is "because it always has been done in some form or another"... WjBscribe 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The list bases bureaucrats on their use of bureaucrat tools. It should only be based on their contributions as editors. Just because TUF-KAT hasn't used his tools for a while doesn't mean he's inactive. I am sure if a user asked him to perform a bureaucratic function, he would. Kingturtle (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I asked TUF-KAT to close an RfA a few weeks before I became bureaucrat and he did refuse - said he was no longer really sure what the procedure was. I've also asked Cimon on occasions and he has also said no. I presume the idea of having crats who are active but not using their tools listed separately is that they might be worth approaching if others are not available but may not be a great first port of call. I agree the ordering has problems, but I'm not sure what a better one would be, short of just abandoning having a list alltogether. That said, for a while the list did I think operate based only on edits - those active, semi-active or inactive - I think working out what consistitutes "semi-activity" was the problem there. WjBscribe 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If bcrats can't, or won't use their tools, they should be removed from the position. I also agree with Kingturtle regarding on how we order the list.  Majorly  (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The position is not one of grandeur. They don't have to be taken away. We don't take admin tools away for lack of use. Kingturtle (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot compare it to being an admin. All admin actions are easily reversed. What if TUF-KAT came out of retirement, and decided to promote a user at, say 65% support? He's admitted he doesn't know what he is doing - if an admin said they did not know what they were doing, we'd be pretty concerned, right?  Majorly  (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I strongly agree with Majorly here, for the exact reason he cited. As for the listing, I think it's good to differentiate between inactive and active bureaucrats, but I think shortening the time frame would be better, as two months doesn't really indicate a bureaucrat is active. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Inactivity does not necessarily mean out-of-touch, incapable or unable. There is a difference between *won't* use the tools and *hasn't lately" used the tools. Kingturtle (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in two minds about the removal of access from bureaucrats. Cecropia has strongly argued for removal in the past - he feels that those not active in closing RfAs lose touch with community expectations, and some of (in his opinion) the most problematic closes have been done by bureaucrats who had not closed discussions for many months previously. That argument has some validity. I also don't think bureaucatship should be a badge - if people don't plan to use the access, they should let it go. On the other hand, we have had two bureaucrats return from long periods of inactivity and play important roles in the process. Secretlondon who currently has performed the most renames of any crat did not use her tools for over a year prior to returning to activity, and similarly Kingturtle is now one of the most active bureaucrats in closing RfAs after not using his tools for more than 3 years. But ultimately, I don't think its for bureaucrats to say "of course we should keep the tools if we are inactive" - if the community feels that bureaucrats should perform a certain number of actions to continue being bureaucrats, it is their right to require that. Other projects - e.g. commons - do remove access rights from inactive admins and bureaucrats. WjBscribe 12:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be a column for bureaucrats who have not used the tools in a while, but express an interest in using them. A bureaucrat might want to do promotions but never get the chance. Kingturtle (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An easier solution would be to come around to CHU and change a username, which will by virtue of being a bureaucrat task, automatically transfer the bureaucrat in question to the active bureaucrats column. Making an extra category is just a waste of space. Andre (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat is removed do to inactivity, which I think only one bureaucrat has, if they ever decide to return, could they request bureaucrat status back? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One user, Optim was removed for inactivity in February 2006. I don't know who asked for it, where it was asked, and it doesn't appear to have had any discussion. Bear in mind, Optim had quit Wikipedia 2 years previously and had never used his tools. I think that they should have to go through the normal process again, especially as some of the early bcrats (TUF-KAT being a great example) weren't even voted into the position.  Majorly  (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Optim had also expressly given his consent to the removal of his bureaucrat access when he left . WjBscribe 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So he couldn't, for example, ask a bureaucrat for his bureaucrat access back? Correct? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's an interesting question. I don't think there's any precedent for it - closest I can think of is Majorly resigned his crat access on meta and got it back without a new request, but there was only about a week gap. Cecropia resigned and came back a year later but he specifically had a new RfB. I would probably want to see a community consensus that crat rights should be restored to those who just ask them back (provided they didn't resign in controversial circumstances) before I returned those tools, but I don't know what approach other bureaucrats might take. WjBscribe 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins can get them back, but not bcrats. They require a higher level of trust in the community. I expect hardly anyone today has even heard of Optim - why should he be making possibly controversial decisions when he's going to be so out of touch with the community? Maybe if it was just a week though, in my case.  Majorly  (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. In the ruling allowing automatic resysopping, ArbCom explicitly said "(or other powers)". That clearly included bureaucrats. Whether or not it this is a good idea, however, is another story. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care what arbcom did whenever in whatever case. The above statement is my opinion on what should happen.  Majorly  (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I go along with Majorly. No doubt that in my mind, 'crats aren't the same as admins. We must absolutely avoid any appearance of impropriety, whether reasonable or not. That's why we have a so high % for 'crats. Same here.  Snowolf How can I help? 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions
All bureaucrats are administrators, but not all administrators are bureaucrats? How can we have bureaucrats if we don't have a bureaucracy? Vivio Testa rossa  Talk Who 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you read this? You even made a link to it! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Alexius08 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually technically a bureaucrat don't need to be an administrator as their rights are separate.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the name "bureaucrat" really has nothing to do with bureaucracy. Being a Bureaucrat does not mean that those users deal with bureaucratic work.  When this position was created, back in 2004, we tried to come up with a name that would be true to what the work entailed &mdash; and remembering that when Bureaucratship was created, its sole task was to implement promotions (that is, successful RfAs) locally, thus eliminating the need to ask Stewards on the Meta-Wiki.  The term "bureaucrat" was chosen because it was thought that a "bureaucrat" would be someone that implements directives, or orders, without adding his or her own original thought to it.  In RfA, bureaucrats use judgement, but only to make sure that the collective will of the community is respected; ultimately, bureaucrats only implement community decisions (whether or not to promote a user to administrator). So there you go, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it does have "bureaucrats", in the specific meaning that the term has on Wikipedia.  Redux (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Crat feedback
This was a very interesting discussion about the high threshold for bureaucrat promotion. According to the discussion, there seems to exist clear consensus that the 90% barrier should be lowered. Yet, I still haven't seen any crat's stance on this matter following the outcome of the discussion. Has the threshold been lowered? Hús ö  nd  17:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier this month there was a community discussion, and once that closed there was a bureaucrat discussion about the community discussion. A suggestion in that second discussion that the policy should be "Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment." Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat abuse and activeness
I think it is important not only to tell users how to become things, but also to tell them how they might have the status revoked. Currently Administrators lists that it is indefinate and that the only way to have it revoked is to voluntarily resign, or in response to complaints of abusing the position. Currently there is no similar explanation on this page. Could someone who understands how this works and has had experience with people losing Bureaucratic status add something to the page identifying how Bureaucrats lose it? When I look at the list of formers all of them resigned, except for one, User:Optim who was removed (at an unspecified date) due to inactivity since 2004. This means that unlike Admins, Bs can be removed due to inactivity and their status is not indefinate. This means that there are then 3 ways to lose that status: resignation, termination due to abuse (presumably, though it is not mentioned it shold be) and termination due to inactivity.

I think it's important to clarify the inactivity issue. For example, instead of stating the last time Optim was active, people could list how long he was inactive for that it warranted changing his status. It should also clarify whether 'active' refers to use of bureaucratic powers, or editing. There is after all a list of active editors who are bureaucrats who have remained active on Wikipedia, but whom have not used their powers. Are people removed for not making Wikipedia edits, or for not exercising their powers? Should people be punished for not making edits? Is there a way to monitor that people are logging in and checking accounts and simply choosing not to make edits, or is making edits which appear on 'Contributions' the only way to verify people's active observation of Wikipedia? Tyciol (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a particularly pressing issue; the reason that adminship is so much better defined is that there are of them, versus the 27 total bureaucrats (there are roughly 58 times as many admins as bureaucrats). I'm also not sure what exactly needs to be defined; you seem to have pretty clearly determined how bureaucrats are removed from their post. The only outstanding issue is Optim, but checking his userpage, it looks he out-and-out left the project, hence the removal of the bit for inactivity. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the bureaucrat bit from extremely inactive users, but I wouldn't consider it the hottest issue we have to deal with right now. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins first?
To become a bureaucrat, should a user be an Administrator first? I need to clear this up because while User:Husond says here that you need to be one first, User:Snowolf says here that they're separate and you don't have to be. User:EVula also said something similar when I first discussed this on RfA because there is no page specifically addressing RfB, both types of applications and elections are hosted on the same page. This is fine, but I think feedback from the 'Bureaucrat' wikiarticle's talk page would be helpful in resolving this. I think it needs to be clarified both on this page and on the RfA's RfB section whether or not someone has to be an Admin prior to applying. Tyciol (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically you don't have to be an admin in order to become a bureaucrat. But that's a de facto requirement, as most users expect a candidate to bureaucracy to have had on his/her shoulders the responsibilities that come when a user becomes an admin, as well as a first thumbs-up when it comes to trust (given to the candidate if his/her RfA is successful). When a user is an admin, it's much easier to analyze how he/she handles with complicated issues and how he/she interacts with the community regarding his/her accountability for performing administrative tasks. Hús  ö  nd  17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be clarified at all. It's not a technical necessity, and though it is probably a de facto necessity -- i.e. the community expects bureaucrats at least to be administrators -- we don't normally codify those matters in instructions, since they're always liable to change. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first line of Requests_for_adminship states "Bureaucrats are administrators." Yes, a crat needs to be an admin first. Kingturtle (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (of course, if I did that, I wouldn't be a bureaucrat much longer, but still...)
 * This is well after the fact, but I just noticed my name here. I was talking about how being an administrator isn't a prerequisite for being a bureaucrat from a technical perspective. If I wanted to promote the TallyBot account to a bureaucrat, I wouldn't need to promote him to a sysop and then promote to a bureaucrat, I can just jump straight from "auto-confirmed" to "bureaucrat". EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section "Becoming a bureaucrat"
Since this article doesn't seem to describe how one actually becomes a bureaucrat (other than that bureaucrats can give bureaucrat status), I propose adding the following brief section, similar in nature to the existing section on WP:Administrators (WP:Administrators):

Becoming a bureaucrat
Users are granted bureaucrat status by community consensus. The process is similar to the process of granting administrator status, but the expectations for potential bureaucrats are higher and community consensus must be clearer. Comments? I will add it within a few days if there are no objections. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's needed. If an editor does not know how to go about becoming a bureaucrat, he is not ready to be a bureaucrat. But it's not a huge deal, I suppose. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to know how editors become bureaucrats even if one doesn't want to become one. For example, one might want to know how democratic or consensus-oriented the Wikipedia system is. As the article stands now, it's unclear if bureaucrats are created by community consensus, appointment by some authority, random sortition, etc. I don't think obscuring (intentionally or not) the process of becoming a bureaucrat is beneficial, either. -kotra (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with seresin about the "if you're unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia to not know, you're not ready to be one" spirit, I do think that instructions serve an informative purpose to more than just those aspiring to the position. The blurb posted above I think is good as-is. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that, and I should note that the task of writing accurate guidelines for users aspiring to become bureaucrats would probably prove a major headache. Hús  ö  nd  23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for a separate section, I think. A sentence in the opening paragraphs to the effect of "Bureaucrat rights are granted through the Requests for bureaucratship process" would be quite enough. &mdash; Dan | talk 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to use just your sentence, but I couldn't find an appropriate place to put it. The intro starts out by launching directly into bureaucrats' abilities and restrictions on conduct, and a sentence about how one becomes a bureaucrat doesn't really fit anywhere there. So I went with my original section, since others seem to be ok with it. Feel free to revert if there is disagreement, of course. -kotra (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I de-headinged your section to bring it in line with Dan's point that we don't need a separate section. Your text and placement were fine, there's just no need to call so much attention to it with a huge heading. Andre (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, no objection here. You're right, three short sentences doesn't necessitate a new section. I didn't like "Becoming a bureaucrat" anyway. -kotra (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I find Raul654's behaviour objectionable
It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research, or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that page shows several users agreeing with Raul, and the link to Straw polls you gave is to a rejected policy based on an essay. Besides, what does this have to do with bureaucrat duties? If there were anything objectionable, the place to lodge a complaint would be WP:AN/I, not here. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So what if several users agree with Raul? If something is wrong, no amount of votes can make it right. Maybe I should have linked to this. I'm suggesting that people in roles with responsibility should be more responsible for what they do in Wikipedia. I have lodged an AN/I but Raul chose not to respond--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul hasn't responded, but others have, and they're all saying the same thing: they're not agreeing with you. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they disagree with the Soviet General Staff, and the author who coined the original but unhistorical name for the article. As long as the name was "sexy" there were no problems for years. As soon as I rename it to the actual name, there is a vote on to change it. Does that seem odd?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted here and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up can be found: here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"See also" link to Special:Listusers/Bureaucrat
Hello, nothing contentious, just that the link mentioned on the page links to usernames with "Bureaucrat" in the name; not the intended target which is users with Bureaucrat rights, located here - I can't find a way to make this an internal link, so I thought I'd see if anyone else knows how to, before we insert an external-internal link. Cheers! 82.39.33.148 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New page layout
What are the advantages to this layout? I think we should revert to the old system, this way seems meaninglessly complex. Andre (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Advantages: bureaucrats can note their availability; the areas they usually work in; any inactivity notes; their timezone if they wish, to give an idea of whether they might be around or not.
 * Disadvantages: I can't think of any, and don't buy the complex argument. It's a very simple wikitable, and bureaucrats are some of our most seasoned editors, I think they would have got to grips with a basic table by now. If you want complex, look at the source code of my userpage.  Majorly  talk  18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [I made a comment here, but I've moved it to Bureaucrats' noticeboard so as not to split the conversation. &mdash; Dan | talk 20:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)]


 * Andrevan reverted to the old version, claiming it's not supported, despite having the apparent support of Rlevse, Deskana, EVula, Biblomaniac15, Kingturtle, Nichalp, and Warofdreams. It's also supported by myself, E, and Anonymous Dissident. The only three who oppose it are Andrevan, Rdsmith4 and Taxman (though Taxman filled out his information).  Majorly  talk  22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those instructions seem ridiculously arbitrary; are they really necessary? Surely if bureaucrat's do not know how to process something (which they should not anyway) they could contact another privately? It seems to me that these have been listed as an apparent way 'to show' that bureaucrats 'are working'. Caulde  11:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which instructions?  Majorly  talk  12:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats. Caulde  13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The instructions haven't changed as part of the redesign, but that doesn't mean that they can't be discussed. They fulfil two very useful roles: firstly, as information for new bureaucrats and a reminder to bureaucrats of the various steps they need to go through as part of the processes listed (and that is very useful; I always check them if I'm doing something I haven't done for a while).  Secondly, they make the technical part of the processes transparent to other users.  I'm very much in favour of having an open culture like this, and would strongly oppose any idea of processes only being known to bureaucrats who might discuss them privately. Warofdreams talk 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I referred to the instructions many a time before I became a bureaucrat whenever I closed down a snowed RfA (and continued to reference it for a bit once I was promoted, before I created my own cheat sheet). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Caulde: Why do you not like the instructions? They are much more helpful than the old ones were. [Note for transparency: I was the one who wrote the new instructions.]
 * On objections to the new 'crats list: I am a fan of the new table format simply because it allows bureaucrats to provide information on status, activity times, and so forth; the list format could not do so without being unwieldy. The page is fine as it is now, I think.
 * AGK 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll keep quiet for now. Although, in some respect, I agree they are more helpful than the "old ones". Caulde  14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

crats disenfranchising...?

 * Lotsa talk on WT:RFA that crats ignore Opposes which do not supply a reason. Is this true?? Is it ever true? Caution: I would label this as insufferable arrogance, disenfranchising voters, especially since Opposes get badgered. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say completely ignoring an oppose, but I would say that the burden of proof is on the opposition to demonstrate why a candidate would be unfit for adminship.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name three cases where a lack of supermajority of Support (70%) ended in successful RfA? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Krimpet, Danny, and Ryulong links, among others, here: User:MBisanz/Qs — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then crats are evil. I should write an essay...
 * You don't feel ashamed for disenfranchising people? I say that because: Wikipedia is supposed to egalitarian, but one crat vote, and it certainly is a vote, overrides scores upon scores of other editor votes. Do you not see that crats are super-users? Little emperors, in a sense? If they can override the express will of the community, then... one crat vote is 50 editor votes. Oligarchy. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this number? Are you saying that a support from a bureaucrat is weighted as if it were 50 supports from other individuals? Are you saying that a support of a bureaucrat will inevitably end with 50 "per bureaucrat" supports tacked on by other editors? Useight (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I can't say I would have promoted in any of the RFAs, but I think you confuse discretion with voting. If RFA is a strict vote, then we might as well just have a crat-bot just autopromote everyone 75% and higher. But RFA is meant to be a discussion with a close made with discretion. Either the crats decided that there was a consensus, or they decided to IAR, or something. I don't agree with them, but I wouldn't describe the current situation as an oligarchy.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going ahead and assuming we're all insufferably arrogant, though; love you too! ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole thread is confusing. Not only is it not news that bureaucrats weigh different opposes differently (I assure you, I won't give the same weight to "Candidate has blonde hair, I only like redheads" as I will to "Candidate was blocked for 3RR last month"), but opposes that don't provide a reason are the ones that most consistently get badgered. Where's the actual problem?
 * The ones that give insufficient or poor reasoning (example, "Not got enough edits in project space) will get "badgered" too, and rightly so.  Majorly  talk  13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If an RfA ends without a clear result to promote or decline, I've got to read closely (in the RfA and nowhere else) the reasoning behind the support and the opposition !votes. Therefore, it is good practice for all contributors (for and against) to lay out their arguments in the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think it is in taht badgering that we, as a community, get things right. It is up to the oppose to justify his/her position.  If it lacks merit, the community should demonstrate why.  I do not support the one person one vote concept here, that makes it into a popularity contest.  It might be different if we had a larger sample of people !voting, but as 50% of any RfA are "regulars"...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the "insufferable arrogance" bit. I retract it.
 * That's OK (all comments above). I see the reasoning for ignoring votes that say "I like blondes" (though I am not filled with strong support for the idea of discretion). The idea of discounting Opposes that have no comment is offensive to me. If someone takes the time to vote Oppose, we should AGF that they have good reason for opposing. All else is... not at all AGF, to say the very least. I am also offended by the apparently popular idea that badgering is acceptable (yes badgering, folks, why is it even vaguely sufferable to see folks say to an Oppose voter "You are the reason RfA is broken" or other ad hominem remarks?). To see the logic of this viewpoint, see everything from this standpoint: voters deserve respect. They deserve for their voice to be heard. They deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve to have personal remarks stricken immediately (which crats decline to do). In fact, in gross cases, blocks should be considered (though warnings are almost certainly sufficient). Everything I'm saying comes from the conviction that the generic, unremarkable Wikipedian, going about generic, unremarkable, legitimate business, has the right to be free from the whims of the not-generic Wikipedian ("nongeneric" meaning either hecklers on the one hand, or crats on the other, which are vastly different things, but both are still somehow other than generic and unremarkable). However, that is not the case if crats can ignore Opposes which offer no reason, or if ... well-known editors who shall remain nameless... can harass folks then smugly claim they're only doing what's best and right blah blah blah.
 * Everything is motivated by the conviction that my vote (or anyone's vote) counts the same as everyone else's, and no one should stand outside the polling place telling me that my vote (or anyone's vote) is the harbinger of destruction. But neither of those is the case now, apparently, if it is true that Opposes which offer no reason are ignored. And if that is the case, then yes, crats are super-users. They have one vote... the closing vote.. and it apparently can simply eliminate the votes of others. What's not true in the above? I think folks are just swapping terminology, calling it "discretion" etc., when the simple truth is that one user has multiple votes. Break away from the terminology and look at the unadorned outcome.. it's one super-user, multiple votes, and it is in fact a vote by that user.
 * But OK, I get it. You support the current system. Of course you must, else you would be arguing against it. Sorry to have bothered you with a value system you see no value in. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone takes the time to oppose, they can take the time to write a reason. It's discourteous and rude not to provide one. And you say voters deserve respect? No they don't. It's their choice to come to the RFA. It's their choice to participate in the discussion. If they wish to make a controversial view, they should expect someone will question it. But most of all here, you're missing the point that RFAs aren't just a vote. They are on the outside, but they involve consensus and discussion within them. If someone comes up with a view someone disagrees with, it's only right in a discussion for someone to challenge it. If people perceive this as badgering, I am sorry for them, because it's really not. This is why we have bureaucrats, and RFAs aren't closed like a robot. How does "Oppose - no reason" help the discussion along in anyway. Not only is it a dig at the candidate (and the nominator), but it offers no reason, just "I don't like the idea of it". While supports are generally explanation-less, they are basically saying they have nothing more to add to the nomination. Opposers are saying... well, if they can't be bothered to give a reason, nobody knows, and the bureaucrat has no idea how to weigh it in the end.  Majorly  talk  23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... and then there is the human element. Let me reflect on my RfB.  Most of the Opposes didn't bother me because they gave reasons and explained the rationale for their position.  The one or two that did bother me, were the ones where the person gave a completely subjective stance without substantiating their position.  If I go up to somebody and say, "I think you are great!" Most people will take that and accept it.  They may ask for more information, but their ego has been boosted and they don't really care why somebody said that.  Go up to the same person and say, "I think you are an idiot."  Now you've insulted them and they are likely going to want a reason.  Common courtesy dictates that when you are negative towards another, that you explain why.  If somebody gives a poor rationale, then they should be challenged.(This is why when I've opposed that I've given detailed reasons and avoided opposes without providing definitive links.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Side note, one of the reasons why I haven't liked the role that I've been playing is because nobody challenges my opposes---it seems as if they are accepted as gospel.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more strongly. We don't ask why someone decided to buy you a present. We don't ask why someone gave you a hug, or told you that you're a good friend. If someone told me I was stupid, or an idiot, I'd be really upset and angry. This is the case with supports and opposes. We should support because we're kind people, and only oppose when there is need to, and with a reason.  Majorly  talk  23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)My contention is that RfAs simply are votes, with that fact obscured by tons of terminology that borders on mythology. In that vote, moreover, one set of users has the ability to vote any number of times... meaning the crats, with their closing vote, since they can essentially delete Opposes that don't have comments. But you are firmly resolved to believe the non-vote terminolgy; discussion on that point won't change your mind.
 * And as for badgering, as I have repeatedly stated, people use the universal acceptability of discussion of points as political cover for unadorned ad hominem. Less obviously, they challenege the voter rather than the facts as stated by the voter. All challeneges are not created equal. Challenging that stament "I Oppose because I dislike is notthe same category as challenging the voter. The former is supported by most Wikipedians; the latter is subtle ad hominem that takes the mantle of legitimate debate as camouflage. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for asking why about hugs vs. insults, of course you are describing a psychological reality, but finding legitimacy in it is also a non sequitur in this context. Did some folks vote for Obama 'cause he's handsome? Did some folks Oppose him cause he's black? yep and yep. Yet neither needs to be explained. Voters have the right to vote, end of story. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, and we can do something about votes like that. I.E, ignore them as irrelevant. We are not a democracy and we work by consensus building and discussion. If someone has something irrelevant to offer to the discussion (e.g. I oppose because he has an E in his username), then that argument should rightfully be ignored. We aren't ignoring the person, we're ignoring the argument. I've said it before, but you're taking this way too personally. This isn't about you, it's about voting patterns (and not even yours at that).  Majorly  talk  00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I keep telling you, I see the reasoning behind discarding votes with lame reasoning (though in theory, I'm not sure I support that idea, I see that everyone else does, and I also see their point in doing so). But I cannot see the legitimacy of discarding votes that have no comment. Are you simply assuming their reasoning is flimsy? Congratulations on your status as a mind-reader. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. I'd also assume anyone with good reasoning would let everyone know. As I said above, to not include reasoning is downright discourteous to the candidate, nominator, and the other voters. What if the opposer knew something important the supporters didn't? Please explain what benefit there is in hiding your reasons in a discussion? I can't see any. It would be like me replying to you with "I don't agree with you because". It simply doesn't get us anywhere.  Majorly  talk  00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As per your logic that hugs need no rationale, simply Opposing is downright discourteous. Your perception that a simple, unadorned vote is discourteous is irrelevant. People have the right for their voice to be heard. People have the right to do so without harassment. You do not (I'm afraid) have the right to insist that their votes should not be discourteous, in your eyes. Or you do, but you shouldn't. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to understand - what voice? How is a signed name a voice? How does an unexplained vote help build consensus? And you don't have rights on Wikipedia either. Please explain what benefit there is in hiding your reasons in a discussion? I can't see any. It would be like me replying to you with "I don't agree with you because". It simply doesn't get us anywhere.  Majorly  talk  00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are as many reasons why a vote would have no rationale as there are voters and voting situations... including, not wanting to get sucked into interminable arguments with boorish supporters. The "signed name" bit is a red herring; I am Ling.Nut, and many people know me as Ling.Nut, and Ling.Nut has a voice. But some Joe Blow may be User:JowBlow, and maybe neither you nor I nor anyone in the RfA knows him/her, but he/she should have a voice via voting. It does get us somewhwre: it shows that Joe Blow doesn't approve of this RfA candidate. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're relying too much on the idea that RFA is a strict vote. It is not a strict vote. Bureaucrats do read arguments and look at the community's responses. If no argument is provided, what is a bureaucrat supposed to do? How do they consider that argument? RFA is not a place for "your voice to be heard", it's a consensus building process, that involves discussion and reasoning. Someone opposing without a reason does not help build consensus; while it shows they disapprove of the candidate, it could be for all manner of reasons - be it because they edit war frequently, they're uncivil, they abuse the rollback tool etc; or it could be they have a blue signature. We don't know, because the person hasn't bothered to tell us. And if they can't be bothered to tell us, we shouldn't bother to take their "voice" into account. A bureaucrat simply will not take note of an unexplained oppose, regardless of who added it. It's not how RFA works.  Majorly  talk  00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we get to the nut of the disagreement: you are saying that people have no voice unless they explain themselves. You are saying this: Silence carries an assumption of guilt. My wife is after me to get off the computer now ;-) But I simply and flatly disagree that silence carries an assumption of guilt or illegitimacy. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was either of those things. I said it doesn't help build consensus. Have fun away from Wikipedia :-)  Majorly  talk  00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
I've proposed a new method for handling inactive crats at Bureaucrat_removal.  MBisanz  talk 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
Occasionally we OTRS queries that are crat related (privacy renames, etc). Would it be possible to add a variable to the Notes column to flag those Crats who have OTRS access?  MBisanz  talk 02:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems NuclearWarfare has added it. Only three OTRS crats though.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That probably would be pretty useful, so I went through and I checked each bureaucrat's userpage to see if they said they had OTRS access. If they did, I added them, though it obviously still has to be clarified if they have access to the useful (for this purpose) queues, and not just the image permissions queue. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OTRS/personnel is badly out of date as far as queue access, but it does have several more users who you can ping for details.  MBisanz  talk 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea if all crats could get OTRS access so they can handle such queries.  So Why  21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

rfatally
I need some clarification. Are we substituting the rfatally with  rfatally or does the   rfatally go at the end? Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't make this clear there. It seems like a good idea to subst: the rfatally on closing the request. While it's running, it can be left transcluded. substing it is like purging the cache, if you will, and it removes unnecessary transclusion. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually removed that. My edit was inspired by this diff. It is a fair point that an actual tally should replace after an RfA is over; however, I don't think a regular subst will work. Hmm... &mdash;  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because rfatally is a redirect, it will actually subst in the redirect for the user. You need to place it manually. If you subst the actual template, it will put in the template code, i.e. "switch...". Regards  So Why  20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename special conditions
Please see Bureaucrats. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I can't think of any more special conditions.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list subpage merger
This thread refers to WP:Bureaucrat mailing list --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the list should have its own page. A sentence or two here under instructions should be sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion. I created it because it had become controversial and needed extended discussion, which I thought best done on a subpage. Anyone in future coming along and wanting to read the debate about it would find it all in one place, separate from the vagaries of Bureaucrat processes. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group
According to this page bots are flagged based upon the advice of Bot Approvals Group. However, the BAG tells me they authorize bots but have no responsibility for bots they authorize, only the bot owner has this responsibility. This concerns me, particularly since the BAG appears to be hostile to comments from the community, particularly comments critical of bots. This issue arises from the mess associated with anybot's creation of over 4000 bad algae articles that recently had to be deleted. Only abut 20 articles were saved. There were basic safeguards that the BAG should implement, imo, that might have prevented this mess. The BAG is not interested in discussing the safeguards and one reason appears to be they bear no responsibility for bot behaviors. This is tricky, imo, that a group authorizes something but has no responsibility for what they authorize. The biggest problem is in the area of article creation. If the BAG authorizes a bot to create thousands of articles, gives the go ahead for the bot to get a flag, at some point they should have some responsibility for what the bot does. If they don't have responsibility, why is the bot running on their authority? These questions are posed here only to describe issues I am looking into. This probably calls for a community discussion, but not on this board. I came here to ask for some background information to understand the situation as it is.

I would like to find out how bureaucrats flag bots, what flagging means, and how the BAG was granted the sole authority to advise that bots be flagged, if this is the case.

Can someone here point me in the correct direction to start looking into the matter? Thank you. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats flag bots through either the Special:MakeBot or Special:Userrights interface. Flagging a bot mean to add the account to the  usergroup. You can see what the bot group allow the account to do here and here. As for the discussion where the BAG was established, I am not so sure, but perhaps some other editor would know? NW ( Talk ) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know either but looking at the history it would seem it was created as simply a list of helpful users initially in March 2006, by September 2006 was protected as "only authorized users should be able to edit this official page" and by October of that year they were holding elections for positions. As at April 2007 it was a "group" but declared itself as a list of users with the ability to approve "bots requests for approval", a location which had also commenced in March 2006. In April-May 2007, bot policy was quite different to today - "Getting the go-ahead from someone in the approvals group" was all that was required. By Jan 2008: "Requests must be approved by a member of the bot approval group". The Bot Approvals Group was nominated for deletion in May 2008 but was withdrawn and moved to a policy page. The bot policy dates back to 2002. Orderinchaos 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the useful replies and links to additional information. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Add spoken languages ?
Could the current bureaucrats add which languages they speak ? They are likely to handle requests from non-english speakers, it would be a help for them to find someone who understand them. Thanks in advance, Blinking Spirit (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How often does that happen? This is the English Wikipedia, we can expect people to have at least a limited knowledge of English, can't we? Foreign-language speakers will usually use OTRS instead anyway if they do not speak English. Regards  So Why  09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it happens, for example, when a french user wants to usurp a local account on en.wp to complete his SUL, but don't speak a word of english. Which is fairly often, by the way. A good number of them don't even know OTRS exist. I wouldn't have asked if I hadn't miss the information myself, see. More than once. I usually have to redirect them to Bastique, the only bureaucrat I know of who speak french. Now multiply it by the number of other languages where the very same problem can arise... Blinking Spirit (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be more useful to have instructions in multiple languages on those pages then? Regards  So Why  10:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it would ! I just wasn't sure how feasible it would be, and thought it would be easier to just add the languages spoken by the 'crats. If you can propose the instructions in others languages, it would be most helpful ; should you need it, I can translate whatever you want to that effect. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not a crat, so I cannot answer for them, it just seemed like the most sensible solution since people usually a.) do not know what crats are and b.) find only the rename pages (via interwiki links I'd say), so any help for them should be on those pages. I think someone who finds this page will usually speak enough English anyway. Let's see what they think about it (I'd take this suggestion to WP:BN if I were you) but if there is no opposition, I'd be happy to help setting it up. Regards  So Why  10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense for en.wiki Bureaucrats to list their spoken languages. Since en.wiki is by far the largest sister project, there tend to be more SUL conflicts. Unfortunately, I speak only English. Kingturtle (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the language/babel tags on our user pages be sufficient? User pages are not supposed to be surrogate webpages; they are meant to facilitate the running of the project, and clicking on a 'crat's name and getting the user page with the babel box prominently displayed should be all that is needed, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added a babel tag to my userpage. Kingturtle (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [[image:face-grin.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew, that finally clears that up. Useight (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes not sorting
I can sort the table by all the other fields, but not the Notes. Any clue what might be happening? (Safari 4.02, Mac OS 10.5.7) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not working for me either. I assume it has something to do with the fancy coding in the template.  MBisanz  talk 20:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, it was an error with the way Rdsmith4's colspans were formatted.  MBisanz  talk 04:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Groovy, thanks. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCKPUPPET now has ramifications for RfA
The input of crats would be appreciated in this discussion of (?newly inserted) text in the policy that has significant ramifications for the RfA process and for admins in general. Tony  (talk)  01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Linky?  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
 * Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
 * Review the candidate's statements: Dominic &bull; Frank &bull; Jredmond &bull; KillerChihuahua &bull; MBisanz &bull; Tznkai;
 * Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how: MBisanz &bull; Tznkai; here. For the Arbitration Committee,  — Rlevse • Talk  • 17:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
 * Review the candidate's statements: Dominic &bull; Frank &bull; Jredmond &bull; KillerChihuahua &bull;
 * Or go straight to your personal voting page:

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the Bureaucrat Mailing List

 * Move from Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat mailing list following merge

Privacy vs. openness
Let us re-start the conversation. I see two valid competing issues here: How can 1) be accomplished without fear of 2?
 * 1) There are times where I can conceive that some private information would have to be disseminated to the "nearest available crat"
 * 2) Closed-channel communications are always subject to the suspicion of cabalism


 * Pros of a list:
 * Mailing lists are the most efficient way to contact the "most available" crat without having to release private info on a notice board.
 * Direct e-mails to a bunch of crats may or may not work.
 * Direct e-mails to ALL the crats is tantamount to a list
 * Mailing lists have an archive, allowing for retrieval of information and auditing at a later date
 * Cons of a list:
 * Lists are not public
 * Non-public communications are always subject to the suspicion that the lists are being misused


 * Case Study 1:See Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive_15. This was handled with the help of the oversight list, and then the information was reposted elsewhere requiring further oversight (ArbCom was informed the entire time, as an aside).

How should the above have been handled without having people to go scrambling to protect the person's identity after the fact?

Possible options:
 * No mandatory list, we continue as we are, with the resulting possibility that not all crats are aware of necessary issues
 * The list is mandatory, and we "trust" the crats to behave (yeah right :) )
 * The list is mandatory and others who already have access to private information (ArbCom, AUSC, functionaries) are allowed to subscribe to ensure compliance
 * More suggestion?

--Avi


 * I would observe that in all cases but those rare to the point of uniqueness there shouldn't be a need for crats to handle private information. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We just had two :) -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would bureaucrats need to be identified to the foundation in order to subscribe to functionaries-en-l? Nathan  T 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe so. More so, they would need to be approved to be able to see possible CU/OS information. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some bureaucrats are not old enough to be given such responsibility.  Majorly  talk  22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the sarcastic "yeah right". Of course the bureaucrats will "behave". We don't need overseers. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a tongue-in-cheek crack based on the entire genesis of the discussion, which is why there is a smiley there. -- Avi (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Instinctual responses
Following the various conversation threads, it appears that we have two, almost "instincts" at odds. I don't think anyone is accusing anybody of wrongdoing (at least yet). What we do have is people who are more sensitized to cabalism and people who are more sensitized to privacy trying to figure this out. I will be the first to admit that I am more sensitized to privacu issues. That is likely due to the fact that I deal with more privacy related issues than the average wikipedian, and I have seen the results when privacy has not been protected. On the other hand, I don't recall taking part in many of the cabal related discussions, or feeling adversely affected by them, so my instincts lean to privacy. There are many others whose on-wiki experience is the opposite. It is not that one is worse or better than the other, it is the product of peoples' experiences which helps shape their mental outlook and their emotional responses. That we all agree that "back-room lulzing" is completely out of the question should be a given. That we all agree that there exists information, mainly related to people's real-life identities, that should under no circumstances be broadcast should also be a given. The question becomes, in the rare situations that they come into conflict (and we did have one not a few weeks ago--Case Study #1 above), what is preferable - a quick an efficient way to inform 'crats, but a way that may lead to suspicions of cabalism, or run the risk of having personal information on wiki longer than we may like, but the crats are free from any suspicion of cabalism. Let the discussions begin :) -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Purpose
I'm surprised to see the purpose section here. I thought the purpose was to have a speedy way to contact a bureaucrat in an emergency after no one knew how to how to find one the last time a vandal had to be renamed before they could be blocked. Angela. 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I thought, and it is what was proposed originally on WP:BN. I'm not sure where the expansion in purpose has come from, but it has clearly had some pushback. I think its unfortunate that discussion is being shunted to a brand new page, rather than on WP:BN where it is more likely to draw interested participants. I doubt Avraham intended to limit discussion, but that is often the effect of moving a discussion from an appropriate but high profile venue to a slightly more technically perfect but much lower profile page. Nathan  T 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In wiki-world, talk pages are meant to be used for discussions. I did leave links; would a box be more helpful? The idea was to localize and centralize discussion; NOT to stifle it. If you're more comfortable back there, fine. -- Avi (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I echo Angela's surprise. The addition of private issues amounts to a sudden expansion of the scope of this list. I'm not strictly opposed to the expansion, but the bureaucrats are obliged to deal with genuinely private matters only on extremely rare occasions. Accordingly, I've made some changes to this page, making clear that (1) the primary function of the list is as a way to notify bureaucrats of urgent matters, and that in such cases all actual discussion should still occur on the wiki, and that (2) only those non-urgent issues which are strictly, necessarily private are permitted on the list.
 * I don't think we need any more detailed regulations, though we could use one more administrator to make sure that the list is used appropriately. As a group, the bureaucrats are not inclined toward unnecessary secrecy. Let's keep it that way. &mdash; Dan | talk 02:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. I just want to ensure all 'crats are signed up for those rare cases which we need (see Case Study #1 above). -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Current status
I think this is shaping up well now, and is beginning to reflect how I for one perceive the function of the list. Are there any glaring problems now, other than peoples' concerns that it shouldn't exist?
 * Looks good, but the question remains should list membership be mandatory for 'crats. I think it should be; others believe that making the crats HAVE to be a member increases the likelihood of it being uses for back-channel communication. -- Avi (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's difficult to impose retrospectively. What do you mean "mandatory" - what would you do, decrat those who don't pop along and sign up? That would be extremely controversial. I'm not sure how that would work. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. But if bureaucrats are informed that it is a good thing to be signed up, and can you please subscribe for the reasons listed, do you think people will not sign up on principle? At this time, there are people who did not sign up on principle, because it is optional. But if it is "strongly recommended" as opposed to "purely optional" I think we'd have the active bureaucrats signed up pretty soon. No sanctions against someone who doesn't, of course, since we do wxpect the list to be used rarely. Again, it's coming up now b/c of the HideUser/Rename difference (I'll post when to use what on wiki somewhere, once I figure out the best place) and the temporary release of personal info into WP:CHU and the logs that had to be removed, which may have been avoided had we been able to alert the bureaucrats that the OTRS request was handled via oversight. -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For "current status", can I ask why we need this page? Do the other mailing lists have their own project page? Since this list can be assumed to be low traffic in comparison to the others, is a dedicated project page necessary? Nathan  T 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm fine with centralizing it back there instead of here; up to Dweller I guess. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats -- Avi (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder
Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators.  Tony   (talk)  09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)