Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where Bureaucrats can coordinate their activities. Although it is aimed mostly at Bureaucrats, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

See also: Administrators' noticeboard

Please record any actions which require review below.

Add a new section

Bureaucrats, RFA's and related discussion

There's a lengthy conversation going on here concerning RFA's and the number of additional bureaucrats we may or may not need. I think it might be useful if some more bureaucrats joined the discussion. I know some have, but more voices can't hurt. Especially as it concerns how active the group and it's members are. Rx StrangeLove 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith/sockpuppet edits

There are 2 oppose votes that are likely bad faith/sockpuppet on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili. I was tempted to remove them, but I didn't want to step on any toes. These are the only votes by these users. Would I have been overstepping my authority to remove them? --rogerd 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please do not remove or strike them out. Just put a comment below the vote that the user is a possible sockpuppet. The closing b'crat will investigate the claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this strongly; removing or striking votes is a) a bureaucrat task, and b) potentially inflammatory. It is, however, extremely helpful to put a note below the vote pointing out any legit issues with votes, as the bureaucrats can't possibly hope to know all the various inter-user situations. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

General Eisenhower

I have prematurely delisted user:General Eisenhower's nomination (2/22) (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/General Eisenhower). I may not have the time this week to respond to any queries. Please ensure that it is not relisted. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan235

Removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonathan235 due to low experience levels, among other criteria (incorrect placement of RFA, etc.). — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot status changes

Bureaucrats can now grant or revoke the bot status of other user accounts using the MakeBot extension which was taken live this morning. See the meta page for a little more information on using it. This was done after a long wait and requests from both bureaucrats and stewards. I am informed that somewhere along the line, this was endorsed by Jimbo Wales, too.

The technical announcement was made on the technical village pump. I'm replicating it here because it affects bureaucrats. Rob Church (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling all BCrats

I am asking for 'crat's opinion on the matter of HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Please see related discussion on the RfA talk page. The matter at hand is about BCrats recusing themselves from RfAs and the 'crats' rights to alter RfAs. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I support the removal of the RFA nom. It's far to controversial and is generating a lot of bad blood. A relist after 45-60 days would be more suited to gain a better consensus. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that works though someone should ask his opinion first, if he specifically wants to go with it through to the end then then he should be allowed to. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well not necessarily. We can't just allow candidates to choose how they want to run their request by restricting whom can "vote" and how. Linuxbeak probably should have just let the whole thing run, then at the end discounted the socks, etc. And explained his actions! (A little communication goes a long way) Restarting the RfA with these restrictions seems very odd. But HRE has been very quiet on the whole thing (from what I can tell). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with allowing sock puppets to overwhelm an RfA that can't be remedied by just discounting the sock puppets at closing time—the effect that the sock puppets have on other voters. With a few sock puppets, this is hopefully negligible. When it gets to 10 to 15 sock puppets supporting/opposing for similar reasons, I think legitimate voters, especially those on the fence, may be swayed. Also, I know that I will sometimes not bother to investigate an RfA for an editor I'm not familiar with if the outcome of the vote already seems to be a foregone conclusion. So I think something needed to be done, although I'm not too comfortable with how it was handled. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging

I've made a proposal to the bot approvals group (see Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging) that they provide a convenient and centralized place to note that an account needs to be flagged/deflagged (since that is now our responsibility). I've proposed the use of Wikipedia:Requested bot flags, which I've drafted for the purpose. Comments from others (as I've been presumptious to speak for all of us) are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging, since I started the discussion there. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

GeorgeMoney

Could a bureaucrat please do something about this user's unlisted RFA? I am not sure what should be done, perhaps just blank the page? Thanks for the help, Prodego ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly recent, so why not list it? It looks fishy, but RfA voters should catch that fine, and treat it accordingly... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But the votes already on the RFA have to be removed, and that only a bcrat should do, right? Prodego ^talk 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the weird thing is, he has not officially accepted the nomination, yet he has edited it... should it be considered accepted? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd let it sit based on procedural grounds. It's not been accepted. There are nominations that have sat for a while before being accepted. Perhaps the user does not want it posted yet for some reason. Let it be, and contact the nominee for clarification on their intent. --Durin 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Until he accepts it, this is basically a user subpage. Once accepted, the old votes need to be cleared. My concern is with long-time users who keep adding these types of RfAs to WP:RFA. Leave it to the nominee or nominator to add their RfA, we don't need to be doing it for them (unless they ask). My RfA sat for 3 weeks before I accepted, I would not have appreciated it if someone found it and decided to add it to WP:RFA without asking first. NoSeptember ^talk 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the pre-cast votes, and left a note about voting before the acceptance. Since he's indicated he won't accept until June 16 (well over a month away), it's likely to become another CSCWEM2, and we don't need that. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{rfaf}} and {{rfap}} (at least for now)? Or maybe make new templates for non-accepted noms? — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or recommend making a new page and moving it over this one. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxman's RFB

By the way, that one needs to be closed now, as it's been past due over 6 hours now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Amgine's RfA more time to come to consensus

Ok, rather unusual situation here. Amgine clearly has the support, respect and trust of some very respected Wikipedians and Wikimedian's. From the perspective of a person very displeased with Amgine's two blocks in the Wikinews issue, I must say that overall (not in every case) the support in this RfA is much stronger and generally more well reasoned than the opposition. If I could ignore the numbers, I'd call this one as a consensus to promote. But bureaucrates are generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone. Unless there is a bureacrat consensus to promote despite the strict numerical standards not being met (or a Wikimedia board member giving the nod), I'd say we have to close as no consensus and wait for the next time to promote. So I'd ask for some additional time to discuss this one and see if bcrats can come to a consensus or for a board member to weigh in. - Taxman ^Talk 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)