Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 1

From the village pump 4th Feburary 2004

I stumbled over this at special:Specialpages... is there anyone with this access yet? Or is it a new thing? Just curious. Pakaran. 03:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean. Sennheiser 04:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It says that "sysops with bureaucrat access" can promote other users to sysop. Pakaran. 04:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Special:Makesysop. No idea where that came from, never heard of it before. Using the term "bureaucrat" suggests that it's either a non-native speaker or someone trying to be funny. -- Tim Starling 04:26, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Disabled for now. -- Tim Starling 04:32, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

As you may not be aware if you don't work on the software, activating sysop accounts currently requires manually mucking about in the database. It's a big pain in the butt, and dangerous in that there's always the potential for making a mistake that wipes out all accounts (oops). This is just putting the sysop-activation into the wiki interface where it can be done easily and safely, and won't require pestering a small group of developers for every admin action on each of 100+ wikis. We picked the name "bureaucrat" because it sounded unattractive, no one will want to fight over it. ;)

There so far are no bureaucrats. --Brion 01:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On En, I would have no problem if it were given to the 2-3 developers who currently do promotions, to make their lives easier. On the bigger non-En wikis, why not give it to the 2-3 most active sysops, again to make their lives easier? Pakaran. 16:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Good call. →Raul654 12:35, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

From above:

"We picked the name "bureaucrat" because it sounded unattractive, no one will want to fight over it. ;)"

Well, not unless they are Michael Swanwick fans... (sorry, obscure joke. Check out Stations of the Tide sometime.) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:53, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

troubles?

I successfully utilized the system to make Tillwe and Francs2000 admins. However, when I tried to make Pakaran and Cprompt admins the system failed.

User 'Cprompt' could not be made into a sysop. (Did you enter the name correctly?)

Any ideas? Kingturtle 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are on the Administrators list... were they admins before you started? Failing that, maybe case-sensitivity? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh duh....they were to be made into bureaucrats. that's why. Kingturtle 23:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat customs and common practices

Since the institution of a bureaucracy is a relatively new one on Wikipedia, we have an opportunity to craft customs and common practices. In particular, I would like to address the question of the addition an extra layer of hierarchy to the power/technical privilege structure (my premise being, of course, that this is a bad thing).

One possible solution is that every sysop could have bureaucrat privileges. However, there appears to be considerable opposition to that idea, judging from the response to the suggestion on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. My own feeling about this idea is that it isn't parsimonious: in terms of our practical requirements, it's overkill. Still, it would resolve the issue.

Another possible solution, suggested by Maximus Rex, is that two sysops would be required to enact a promotion. This would require developer time to implement, but it seems a fairly reasonable suggestion nonetheless.

My own feeling is that we can establish a custom that lessens the impact of this further level of hierarchy. Specifically, I propose that every so often (say, two or three or four months), bureaucrats, at their own individual discretion, shall nominate someone they trust to take over their bureaucrat status. This allows the role of bureaucrat to "flow" throughout the group of sysops. I also propose that if, after their tenure, any bureaucrat feels that more bureaucrats are needed, he or she shall simply nominate two people to take over the bureaucrat role. This will hopefully take care of any problems due an insufficiency of bureaucrats.

The best part is that there doesn't have to be a vote about it. ;-)-- Cyan 02:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I can see that various people have been made Bureaucrats as a result of voting. Where did the original set of these people come from? Morwen 09:23, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some, at least, were handpicked by Eloquence. Pakaran. 13:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All of the initial ones were chosen by Eloquence. He said "I've picked a few users from Wikipedia:Administrators who I think would make good bureaucrats". Angela. 18:16, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Should this page be protected? There's no reason for anyone besides sysops to edit this page... of course, it doesn't really matter... ugen64 23:22, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Pages should be unprotected by default, so leave it unprotected. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I have sectioned the page similar to Wikipedia:List of administrators, indicating which bureaucrats are active and which are not. I have also added 1 account that is marked as bureaucrat but was not listed. Doppelgänger 16:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratic statistics

Here are some stats about the current bureaucrats. "Not voted in" means they were bureaucrated unilaterally by Eloquence when the bureaucrat status was first introduced. I would support the debureaucratting of the final four groups and confirmation after a year for the first two groups. The numbers in parentheses are the number of times they have used their bureaucrat status.

1. Active bureaucrats who were voted in: Cecropia (34), Kingturtle (21), Infrogmation (8), Ed Poor (8)
2. Less active bureaucrats who were voted in: Cimon avaro (2), Danny (1), Ilyanep (3), Jwrosenzweig (3), Raul654 (3), Ugen64 (4), Warofdreams (2)
3. Never active bureaucrats who were voted in: Bcorr (0), Cprompt (0) (basically inactive- 50 edits since June), Pakaran (0), Optim (0) (no edits since March)
4. Active bureaucrats who were not voted in: Angela (69), TUF-KAT (8)
5. Less active bureaucrats who were not voted in: Eloquence (1), Secretlondon (3) (no edits since July)
6. Never active bureaucrats who were not voted in: Stan Shebs (0)

See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship which implies bureaucrats ought to be receive a higher percentage of votes than admins and that inactive bureaucrats make bad decisions. Angela. 23:55, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow, Angela. You would debureaucrat group 4, including yourself? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think it's fair that some bureaucrats got in with no votes when people are suggesting that even 80% support is too low. I would probably reapply though. Perhaps some sort of confirmation of their status could be used instead of the normal RfA process, such as the one Danny proposed at Wikipedia:Confirmation of sysophood. Angela. 00:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I admire the spirit of your proposal--I have no doubt that you would be reappointed (or confirmed) virtually be acclamation. If there is a more trusted person on Wikipedia, I don't who it is. So, it seems unnecessary, a pro forma exercise, if you will. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Angela's proposal to debureaucrat (what a word) the last four groups. I would, though, support re-confirmation of group 4, if Angela and TUF-KAT wish to retain ability (and hope they do). I think yearly re-confirmation is a little too long, and would suggest 6 months going forward. -- Netoholic @ 00:34, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

How about this?

Groups 1 and 4: Reconfirm annually on January 1 (same date so we don't have to watch for anniveraries).

Groups 2 and 5: Reconfirm immediately, then annually on January 1 if they pass the first reconfirmation.

Groups 3 and 6: Drop from the rolls, but allow them to reapply immediately, if they choose.

Since group 4 is only Angela and TUFF-KAT, I don't see the need to force them to immediate reconfirmation simply because they were appointed, as I don't know of any dissatisfaction with their work. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In Group 3, I object to removing Bcorr's bureaucrat status based on "inactivity", given that he is by far the newest bureaucrat (fewer than two months) and therefore hasn't had much opportunity to be active in this capacity. After all, Danny, who was made a bureaucrat one month earlier, has used his bureaucrat status exactly once. There is absolutely no reason to treat Danny and Bcorr differently here. [Oh, and Pakaran has since exercised his ability to promote Slowking Man. --Michael Snow 06:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

I do support Angela's suggestion of removing the other bureaucrats who are inactive or were not voted in, subject to reappointment through the current process. --Michael Snow 01:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll just note that I have yet to go to WP:RfA and find someone who is eligible to be promoted but hasn't yet been. In the time between my logging off last night and back on this morning, two people were promoted. If I ever get a chance, I'll be happy to "do my duty." having said that, if people still feel that it's a problem that I haven't promoted anyone in the two months I've been one, I'm happy to reapply. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should all get the status flag by virtue of participating in this discussion, since it proves that you're a bunch of fucking bureaucrats!--Eloquence*

Which illustrates nicely why I have always hated the use of that designation for this particular status. --Michael Snow 01:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only when I get my prescription for Viagra®. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Angela, Cecropia and Kingturtle apparently performed 73% of all adminship operations. Commendable enthusiasm, but...it's nice to spread the workload and give others a chance to exercise their capabilities. Perhaps a guideline that an bureaucrat should allow (number of bureaucrats / 3 rounded down = 5 at present) other bureaucrats to act before acting again may be of value? Waived if it's three days or more since a candidate clearly succeeded, not if there is clear disagreement by some non-minor portion of the community. Not a rigid rule, but a wait of a few days is unlikely to do lasting emotional harm to a candidate.:) Jamesday 06:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That won't work at all considering people are complaining about promotions being delayed now, depsite them all happening within 24 hours. Angela. 17:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of a bureaucrat is to determine that consensus has been reached, promote or not depending on that determination, and be ready to explain the reasoning in a contentious vote. If some bureaucrats express a desire to be more active, that would certainly be a good thing, but I don't think having active bureaucrats defer their work is in any way helpful. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being confirmed as a bureaucrat, though I don't think it's really necessary for the reasons that have been mentioned. I haven't actually promoted anyone in a couple months, partially due to a wikivacation and partially because I don't follow RfA closely enough to be the first to notice that a deadline is up. Tuf-Kat 16:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't followed any of the discussions at RfA or elsewhere. So just looking at this discussion, I would say: Yes to reapplication for last four groups: those that are active will most likely be un-de-bureaucrated on a quick vote (perhaps have the vote before possible debureaucrating to avoid a discontinuity). If noting else, it puts everyone on the same footing.

Secondly general debureaucrating should be based on a lack of any editing or a dissatisfaction with/abuse of a bureaucrats powers. If someone thinks a bureaucrat isn't pulling their weight, that can be voted on on an individual basis. -- Solipsist 08:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

status of bureaucrats

I am working on new policy for the dutch wikipedia regarding becoming a admin and bureaucrat. Current policy is that any admin can become a bureaucrat if the ask for it. No one has ever used that option until now. Current there is only one bureaucrat on the dutch wikipedia.

There is here on the English Wikipedia a special vote for it and it looks like the bureaucrats have a higher status because the need more votes to become a bureaucrat then for a admin. What is exactly the status of a bureaucrat here? For me a the only difference is that the can make admins and bureaucrats. But the are like admins servants of the community. Walter 09:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only technical difference is that bureaucrats can create admin and bureaucrat rights. The community has expressed the sentiment that bureaucrats are also expected to gauge community sentiment on ambiguous nominations and make the final decision to promote and not, and defend that decision. Since it is very difficult to withdraw rights from an admin once made, most en Wikipedians want to examine potential bureaucrats more closely than admin candidates. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More power to the bureaucrat

I am the bureaucrat of the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I feel uneasy that I can't remove sysop rights from a user that I have nominated to be a sysop (I must ask Angela to do this for me, after the vote for removing the sysop has ended). This asymmetry makes me very careful, too careful, before nominating a new sysop. There was only one case that I badly needed to remove a sysop, but it still bothers me. Removal of sysop rights will be done according to the current procedure, but after the vote has ended the bureaucrat should be able to do the rest of the task. David Shay 18:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the asymmetry is necessarily a bad thing. It ought to be easier to make sysops than unmake them since that is a far rarer occurrence. Angela. 19:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

But on the other hand, the circumstances in which removal of sysop-hood might be required would be likely to include a "need for speed" (i.e. if a sysop goes rogue, you have to shut them down fast). --Phil | Talk 13:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can think of just two de-sysopings in the last six months or so, and these weren't emergency situations. I think this is one of those issues that will be revisited if we ever have an actual mechanism for de-sysoping, or something really nasty happens. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that a Wikipedia community should be autonumous, and not to be dependant on help from the outside. The desysop function will be used after a vote in the community, and not just by the decision of the bureaucrat. Maybe I should have given to this discussion the title "More power to the local Wikipedia community". In the Hebrew Wikipedia we had only one de-sysoping, and it was an emergancy. No harm was done, but I disliked the danger. I believe that there is also a technical need for de-sysoping of a sysop that became inactive for a long period, say three months, because we had a case of an impostor, who claimed the rights of the inactive sysop. David Shay 22:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

desysop ability

crossposted to m:Talk:Bureaucrat
Recent events (see Special:Log/rights and [1]) reveal that it's possible for at least one bureaucrat, on en:, to remove sysop access. Questions arise:

1. Is this possible on all wikis, or just on the English Wikipedia?
2. Is this possible for all bureaucrats, or is there something about Ed Poor's previous developer ability that allowed him to do this? (He's not a steward as far as I know.)
3. If the former, who switched this feature on, and why?

Does anyone know anything about this? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Anthere does:

---

From [2]

It came to my understanding that Ed just unsysoped 4 people on the english wikipedia.

This is not correct. Whatever the reason why he did it (rules for desysoping are not my concern), Ed was not allowed to do it.

First : desysoping should only be done by stewards, and only under strict community approval. In this case, Ed is not steward, so is not allowed to do so.

Second : Ed removed the status with his developer flag, directly in the database. This is again incorrect. Developers should not remove status to editors, unless there is an urgency. And given the names of the people unsysoped, I do not think there was an urgency.

Third : Jamesday indicated me that Ed is not a developer. Him having developer flag is a residue of old times (ah :-)). We try to give developer flag only to developers.

For all these reasons, I asked JamesDay to remove Ed developer flag. Consider it technical cleanup. Ed, I love you very much, you know that do you ? But you are not really a developer, and definitly not a steward. I am sorry Ed.

[. . .]

Anthere 19:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

So I have no further questions. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the Adminship process

Dear Bureaucrats, please allow me to offer a few comments on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship process, from one who recently was not accepted into those hallowed halls.

As this process is one that the Bureaucrats "do", and so it takes your time, I think that it deserves a little of your attention to neaten up the process, for your and everyone else's benefit.

(1) As I commented at my talk, I am in an organisation with ISO 9000 quality management procedures and I found this whole adminship process a bit "untidy". It screams out for clarity at all of the steps.

(2) While User:Cecropia announced my non-elevation, it was not clear to me under what authority this was being done. Therefore, I asked questions along those lines for several days. Hence, I suggest that something like this form of words be incoporated into the instructions: "As the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat in this case, I am informing you that..."

(3) The process is not clearly laid down for the users of the process, as far as I can see: It's at the Bureaucrat page (!) where the process is set down in numbered-list form, at (Wikipedia:Bureaucrat#Instructions for sysoping someone). Hence, I suggest that this be clarified then copied, or moved, in some form to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship so that everyone knows what's ahead going in, and can follow the process.

It might look something like this:

Decision-making process

After the voting period has begun, a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat will:

1. Wait at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship;
2. If it is not a self-request, check the user has accepted the nomination;
3. Check if there is a general consensus that the person should be made an Administrator or Bureaucrat;
4. If the above conditions are met, make them an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop;
5. Let the person know they are an admin, using the form of words, "As the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat in this case, I am informing you that..."
6. suggest they read the Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide;
7. Add their name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats;
8. Move the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats;

Of course, I don't know everything. Hoping this helps, talk Peter Ellis 19:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser

It should be noted that there is quite a bit of support for bureaucrats getting access view the IP addresses of logged in users at m:CheckUser. This means that the powers of a bureaucrat could soon become a lot less limited. This should be kept in mind when deciding whom to nominate or support for bureaucratship. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

At one time...

Is there value in the extra layer of, ermmm, bureaucracy, in having bureaucrats and stewards separate? I thought we had a debate on this one time but couldn't find it. Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Percentage of Bureaucrat Promotions

I don't know that it serves any useful purpose except curiosity to list how active Bureaucrats have been, but, anyway, the percentages aren't accurate. I believe I've made something more than 1/3 of sysopings, but well less than 1/2, rather than the 3/4 I'm shown as having done. I think whoever did the counting forgot to include the Old bureaucrat log which shows, for example, that Angela made a huge number of sysopings. Also, before the logs were instituted, I think Ed Poor made almost all the sysopings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Time for a change?

I wonder whether it is time for this group to be called something other than "bureaucrats."

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm all for a change. But I haven't got any brilliant ideas for a new name. I had thought that a simple "election official" would sum it up, but that doesn't really include our new role changing user names. Warofdreams 11:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Super-Admins? Redwolf24 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, how silly. If you can't stand the title, get out of the bureaucracy. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I was bored, so I started playing around with Wikipedia terms and an anagram solver. When I typed in 'sysopadmin', sympodia was the first word. According to dictionary.com, it is "a primary axis that develops from a series of short lateral branches and often has a zigzag or irregular form, as in orchids of the genus Cattleya." So, you could become sympodians. ^_^ Daimons also came up, which are inferior deities or geniuses. When I typed in 'bureaucrat', bearcat was suggested. 'Adminbcrat' spawned tamarind, which is an Asian evergreen tree. (Second time plants were mentioned. I think it's a sign). Last, but not least, 'isnocabal' produced albinos. :P Just my two cents. Acetic'^Acid 13:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Here in the southwestern US, tamarind is often used to make yummy agua frescas in taquerías... so with that in mind, I'm all for it. -Satori ^(talk) 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well for an expanded bureaucracy if we're already talking about a more attractive title. How about "Fuhrer." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ninjas are better than pirates. Redwolf24 (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Randomness. o_o Oh yeah! JimboWales spawns my personal favorite, Lambies. Acetic'^Acid 13:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I brought it up because one highly respected individual refuses to become a bureaucrat because of the name. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You think we need bureaucrats so badly that we have to cater to egos in order to get more? You must think me some kind of fool to have ruled on more than 250 nominations with such an undesirable title. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty good sign they shouldn't be one. Secretlondon 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (Übercrat)

I believe that your choice of words in describing yourself as having "ruled on" howevermany nominations is ample evidence that the false modesty implicit in the term "bureaucrat" has no effect on people's attitudes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am so sorry to have displeased you, Fuhrer-in-Waiting. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if two of our leading bureaucrats would stop turning every difference of opinion into a personality conflict grudge match, it would do Wikipedia a lot more good than changing the name of the position. --Michael Snow 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How about Judge? Andre (talk) 18:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer Wikipedia be named Vegetarian Kingdom, but that doesn't stop me from contributing. Acetic'^Acid 15:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the title be changed to Admins on Wheels? No? OK. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 17:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that bureaucrat is a bit of a misnomer, but a rose by any other name, yada yada. Andre (talk) 18:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The reason for originally giving the position the name of "bureaucrat" is still relevant. Leave the name as is. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

A new name wouldn't have to be more "attractive" - we could be functionaries, or dogsbodies (!) - I've just never liked the idea that we are deliberately building a bureaucracy - look at the dangers of bureaucratic collectivism! Warofdreams 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There must be dozens of things more important to use your brain power for than changing the name of the bureaucrat. Kingturtle 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Daimons sounds cool, but it's either Lambies or no change ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 11:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

:) Acetic'^Acid 10:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Superadministrator"? Sure, it connotes extra privilege (beyond the ability to promote admins), but so does "administrator". ~~ N (t/c) 16:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre (talk) 19:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anthere

Apparently Anthere isn't on this list [3] - is this an error? Andre (talk) 19:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anthere is a steward. →Raul654 19:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tim Starling: (Bureaucrat, checkuser, developer, sysop) -- what is checkuser. Is that IP address checking or what? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Check user allows you to compare to users and see if they have overlap in their IPs (I am not sure about hte details) →Raul654 19:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't everyone who had bureaucrat status and who won a bureaucrat election be on this list? Andre (talk) 19:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A steward and a bureacrat are not the same thing. A bureacrat has the ability to promote sysops and new bureacrats on a single project; a steward has tbe ability to promote and demote admins and bureacrats on all projects, however, they are not allowed to do promotions if that project already has a bureacrat →Raul654 19:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Andre (talk) 19:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's no rule forbidding them, it just wastes your time and theres to request a steward to promote you when we have bureaucrats. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"there's no rule forbidding them" - Actually (while I might not agree with it) there is - Normally, they will not perform actions that can be carried out by a local bureaucrat. -Wikipedia:Administrators →Raul654 23:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny is listed here but he's a Steward as well. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason someone can't be a steward as well as being a bureaucrat. I was a bureaucrat on en before stewards existed and I still am one. I can't make sysops on en as a steward since en has local bureaucrats, but I can make admins on en as a bureaucrat since I am one. Not all stewards are bureaucrats on en, but Danny and I are. Other stewards may or may not be bureaucrats on their own wikis. Angela. 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hermes bcrat.jpg

Image:Hermes bcrat.jpg so obviously doesn't qualify as fair use, I'm surprised anyone would revert its removal. Per the wording in the copyright tag itself, "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film or television program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." That seems pretty clear-cut to me. Before you restore the image, please discuss why you think that image, used on this page, qualifies as fair use. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My apologies. Andre (talk) 18:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancy

This page says Ed Poor as no longer a bureaucrat, but the Special:Listusers page says he is. [4] Is one of the two an error? --Tabor 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

please reload the page. I removed the bureaucrat flag 3_4 days ago. Anthere 09:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights. On the 14th of september. I checked the tool, it seems to work. Perhaps Ed can answer if he still is ? Did you check that no one made him bureaucrat again ? Anthere 12:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue of existance of a language version of Wikipedia

This page is definitely the wrong place to post this, but at meta: meta talk:Requests for deletion and meta:talk:Main Page which would have been more appropriate I got no answer. In fact, I doubt there is an appropriate forum in which to discuss the deletion of a language version of Wikipedia to start with. So I thought, wrongly perhaps, that this page is the more likely place where I could get some "authoritive" opinions.

The background of the issue and some comments on it are available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Moldovan Wikipedia. More information can be found at mo:User:Ronline/Propunere. In short, mo.wikipedia.org is a version of Wikipedia written in Romanian with Cyrillic characters. This combination is used nowhere in the world except in Transnistria which is a breakaway region of Republic of Moldova without international recognition and with a rather dubious regime. It is a relic from Soviet times, when in Republic of Moldova people used Cyrillic.

There are two views on this matter. Some people think that nothing is wrong with having Wikipedia in all languages/character sets possible. The number of potential readers and editors of this particular version of Wikipedia is very small, but it still could be useful. And deleting a language version of Wikipedia would be against the Wiki spirit, would make Wikipedia politicized, etc.

The other view is mostly reflected by people in Republic of Moldova itself and neighbouring Romania (again, we are talking about the Romanian language here, the issue is the set of characters — in Romania proper they use the Latin alphabet). To us (I am from Republic of Moldova) writing our language in Cyrillic is a symbol of what was wrong with the Soviet Union, a totalitarian regime which did not give us even the choice of how to write our own language, and of all the tragedies which happened after Republic of Moldova was annexed to the Soviet Union in 1940 and then again in 1945.

The discussion of this issue has been going on since June; see again mo:User:Ronline/Propunere. Neither side of course has any power to do anything about it (an administrator is not enough to close it down, for example), and that is why I am writing here. My big question is, where to have a discussion of this issue, and more importantly, how to reach a binding decision on the matter. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. This issue has come up before on Wikipedia-l mailing list which is the appropriate venue. Secretlondon 06:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I did the post at Wikipedia-l, thank you for the suggestion. I hope that this time there will be a wider discussion on that list than before. As bureaucrats have (should have) a good experience/weight in all things Wikipedia, your comments on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks, and sorry for posting the above here, which was not the right place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ramallite admin nomination

This nomination is extremely close to the cut-off level of voting. With a high level of participation, and a few possible sock puppet votes, the nomination doesn't quite reach 80%. I'm inclined towards not promoting Ramallite, but suggesting a new nomination in a month or so, once things have calmed down, but would very much welcome any other views. Warofdreams talk 18:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, WoD. Ramallite has 80 per cent by my calculation. There were three (almost certain) sock puppet accounts who voted to oppose at the end, and one oppose after the close of the nomination. I've requested a sock puppet check from David. Not counting those gives us a tally of 81/20/6, which is just over 80 per cent. Also, if you look at the supports versus the opposes, you'll find that it's the experienced editors, and particularly those with experience of Ramallite's editing, who support him, and editors with less experience, and none of Ramallite (with one exception) who oppose him. That might make a difference if you feel it's borderline, though my understanding is that 80 per cent would make it a clear case of promotion. Are you inclined to include those three new-user votes? The accounts were all set up today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking also of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9(4), who was promoted with 72/20/4. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the people and the comments on both sides of the gate. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I thought the required votes necessary was 70-75%, that's the number usually applied, isn't it? This is an admin candidacy, not a bureaucrat candidacy. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nomination process at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship cites a 75-80% consensus. Ramallite reached the upward end of that. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, the four disputed oppose votes are #20 Windturbine (talk · contribs) (first edit was to oppose Ramallite); #22 Mishauli (talk · contribs) (third edit was to oppose); #23 Mickwe (talk · contribs) (second edit was to oppose); and #24 User:Lord Voldemort, who voted after the close of the nomination. If these votes are not counted, the final tally is 81/20/6. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been verifiable sockpuppeting as far as I can tell, but there's been a hell of a lot of blatant meatpuppeting - accounts clearly created just for this vote (e.g. Mishauli, Mickwe, Windturbine - in each case, they were created and immediately used to vote on this RFA). Ignoring those would take it over 80% for sure. - David Gerard 09:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And unless Zeq is somehow stopped from running the sort of ballot-stuffing campaign he ran this time, I see no reason he won't just try the same sort of thing in a month - David Gerard 09:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I second this remark. There actually wasn't any particular row that could be expected to calm down, other than the controversy caused by a number of editors voting on what appeared to be a purely political basis, as a bloc, and a number of other editors objecting vocally to this. There is no reason to expect that the result would be different in a month's time. I suspect that the opposing voters who might change their minds in a future renomination are the minority who raised questions of numbers of edits, number of WP namespace edits, concentration of edits on a smallish range of articles. I imagine that it will take more than a month for the candidate's editing profile to change enough to persuade those voters, where they haven't already changed their minds in the course of the debate. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, David. And with all due respect, Warofdreams, Wikipedia is not a democracy and a Bureaucrat is expected to read the RfAs closely prior to closing them, especially ones that prove contencious. Most RfAs are easy to close, but as for the particularly devisive ones, that does requiere considerable reserach on the part of the closing Bureaucrat, I believe. That said, your request for input is certainly to your credit. I hope you will choose to take these criticism with the constructive intent in which they were written. Thanks. El_C 12:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your comments. I have read these, and have also looked carefully at the support and oppose votes and discussion. I have concluded that it is reasonable to make Ramallite an administrator and have outlined a few points at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ramallite. If you have any questions, please raise them there or on my talk page. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Would another bureaucrat be useful?

I was pleasantly surprised to be nominated for bureaucratship yesterday, and I'm quite honored. But I don't want to accept the nomination unless there's a void I'd be filling. Would another bureaucrat be useful, or would I just be superfluous? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need 50% of the bureaucrats we have.. However we can say the same for admins too. Secretlondon 16:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ouch... scathing. Maybe the other half of that cup will fill for you soon. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But you know what I mean though. Many people are inactive or randomly active. We don't need a lot of the admins, but having more admins and bureaucrats involves a greater number of people, improves NPOV, diversity, community ownership etc etc. Before bureaucrats could rename there was nothing at all to do. Some people would stalk RfA so they could promote people. I think there is too much renaming going on as bureaucrats need to justify their position. However I still think you should go for it! Secretlondon 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand what you mean... it was just a little funny the way you phrased it. Speaking of randomly active, you planning on being around more often? I noticed you came back a little bit ago. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Being randomly active is a fairly random thing. To be honest it depends upon how the mood takes me... Secretlondon 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A tricky case: mine.

I was recently nominated to be a bureaucrat, and the voting was very close: 85.3% support if you only count supports and opposes, 76.3% support if you include neutrals.

But there was a ton of interference with the vote: an anonymous AOL vandal, who I personally believe is the "coolie vandal", repeatedly blanked the page or altered others' comments. He frequently voted using sockpuppets, although his votes were promptly removed. He stated that I had withdrawn when I had not, fooling several users. He spammed potential voters asking them to vote against me, et cetera. Because of these problems, Cecropia stated:

User:HappyCamper informed me on my talk page that someone had visited anonymously with the obvious intent of influencing Quadell's nomination. This person does not want us to know who s/he is. Now I see that we have a sudden flurry of voting activity, three of which are opposes, which could certainly sink an RfB. I do not know whether these or any future voting has anything to do with covert activity and I'm accusing noone. I am not taking a position on this nomination, but we have to have fair play here and you can be certain that whatever Bcrat looks at this nomination when it closes will have some questions to ask and some looking around to do.

There is reason to believe that this AOL vandal was effective. Of those supporting my nomination, many were admins and long-time users, while those voting oppose tended to be relatively new. Some support votes gave detailed and healtfelt comments as to why they felt I should be promoted, and many of the oppose votes were for odd reasons: my nom wasn't a self-nom, for instance, or that the position of bureaucrat was too "dangerous" no matter who was in the role. Many of the the neutral votes simply gave the reason that they weren't familiar with me, although I began editing on January 3, 2003, and have made 33,328 edits since then. It's worth looking over all the votes to get a feel for the mood. I believe that some of those not supporting my candidacy were influenced by the efforts of this AOL vandal.

Because of all this, I had optimistically expected that the bureaucrat would decide that 85.3% support (or 76.3%), considering the extenuating circumstances, would have been sufficient for promotion. The RfA page, after all, states that "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support". The vote was officially closed by Cecropia with the edit summary "final (58,10,8), insufficient consensus for bureaucrat". Until I looked in the edit history, however, I didn't know what the bureaucrat had decided, since there was no information on the page or on my talk page. I am personally very disheartened by the result. The AOL vandal who worked so hard at undermining my campaign, however, was delighted: He posted to the talk pages of those who voted against me (e.g) the following:

I want to thank you for helping me stop Quadell's power grab. That son of a bitch belongs in jail, not as a bureaucrat! Crimes against nature should always immediately disqualify all nominees for Bureaucratiship.

So my question is: was this a correct assessment of whether there was consensus or not? Is there any way to request a second look, or an appeal? I hope this decision can be revisited. Sincerely, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I made the decision, obviously I think it was correct. You know, Quadell, that when you were going for admin, I thought that you were unfairly treated by people who thought you had put Jimbo in some kind of jeopardy and I went to the trouble of contacting Jimbo myself and got an opinion from him which I posted and extended your nomination for the time that the erroneous charges were posted and this eventually saved your nomination.

In your present RfB, I appropriately informed voters of possible bias and backstage manoeuverings so all would have as much information as possible. When I vetted the votes I removed one obvious sock but this still left 10 opposes, and all but one were from significant editors and did not carry an obvious taint of politicing. I would have had to discount four of these votes in order to feel comfortable in promoting you. And if I started discounting otherwise valid oppose votes then I would reasonably have had to start reconsidering support votes as well.

The expressed standard for bureaucrat has run well above that for admin, generally 90% or more with some feeling there should be no significant opposition, something which you should be aware of in seeking the position. In point of fact, noone has been made bureaucrat in more than a year and a half with less than 90% support, and just one with more than two opposes.

Do I personally feel you would make a good bureaucrat? I think you probably would, but it is not my province to decide this, just to see that consensus is reached and try to make certain it has been reached fairly. Given all, I couldn't attempt to promote you if I were so inclined under the circumstances and set a precedent not supported by either prior nominations or expressed community sentiment.

I always hate to remove someone from an RfA or RfB without promoting them. Although I am just "pushing the button" it is always pleasant to think that someone is made happy by success rather than saddened by even a trivial rejection. I hope you will not be discouraged and that the voting editors will see this differently in the future. -- Cecropia 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughful answer. I'll mull this over for a while. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Bureaucrats

I have taken the liberty of moving Cimon and Secret to "inactive" - Secretlondon has not promoted a single user in nineteen months and 5000 edits, and Cimon has just two promotions in seventeen months. Additionally, I believe that Angela (yes, I know, I know, just don't kill the messenger here) should be moved to "inactive" as well as she has done just four admin promotions in the past year - though I shall leave that up to discussion here. Same with Ilyanep, who in the past 16 months or so has done one small batch of promotions in August 2005 - nothing again until August 2004. Naturally, putting them in the "inactive" slot does not do a thing to their status as bureaucrats, but simply illustrates the level of participation from the numerous bureaucrats. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not list Angela, at least without asking her first whether she thinks it's appropriate, because (aside from her obvious goddess standing here) she is an active Steward who is always available to the other bureaucrats to fix things that they themselves can't do, such as fixing a promotion error or carrying out an ArbCom decision involving adminship. As to anyone else, always check out the renmae log to find out who the active bureaucrats are there.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what criteria should be applied as to who is active or inactive in either admins or bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added myself as you've ignored the fact that we have two jobs - promotions and renaming. I've done loads of renaming. Secretlondon 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and no offense, BTW. I did not ignore the rename thing, and as such, you haven't renamed anyone since September 1st, and with just a small handful of renames between the log's beginning in July and your last rename, would putting you in "inactive" be too innacurate? This isn't a judgement of you as a bureaucrat, but a guide for users who need to know who's who. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm active if needed. Renaming was not possible for a time at the end of last year. There are also issues about frivilous renaming - should one go and rename people just so I look active? I think too many people get renamed currently. This list almost makes people do non-needed work to look active. There needs to be a difference between totally inactive (ie Optim) and those who are active editors who can do bureaucratic things when required. Secretlondon 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to let Secretlondon determine his/her own status, and respect that. If s/he is available to do b-crat work but hasn't recently because others have gotten to it first, that makes him/her none the less active. Same thing for admins who are out there actively editing but haven't seen anything that requires clicking the shiny buttons. -- Essjay · Talk 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, and wasn't going to revert him anyway. Just trying to define parameters. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound terse, I was just tossing in my $0.02 ;-) I think that for most purposes (excepting maybe the Missing Wikipedians page) users should decide whether they consider themselves active or not in regards to various duties; my standard is "If someone asked me to do an action, would my response be "Yes, no problem." or "Sorry, I'm not doing that right now." Thus, I consider myself an active administrator, but an inactive mediator. If Secretlondon would be willing to do bcrat actions if asked, but isn't necessarily hunting them down, then I think we can still consider him active. Same goes for others; maybe for future changes we could ask the person "Hey, do you still consider yourself active?" and then list them accordingly. (Same rule for other pages, like the list of admins, as well.) -- Essjay · Talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Still here! Just haven't gotten to the RFA page when a nomination was over. And I just don't get renames. Now with the controversy on the talk page for RFA it's just getting too instruction creepy. —Ilyanep (Talk) 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, what're the standards for 'inactive' anyways? —Ilyanep (Talk) 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what we're trying to gage. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than curiosity, is there a purpose served listing "active" and "inactive"? -- Cecropia 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If people need to contact a bureaucrat, it might be useful to establish which bureaucrats are active on Wikipedia and which no longer are. On the other hand, I can't see any need to provide some kind of ranking as to how many bureaucrat-only activities people have fulfilled. Warofdreams talk 10:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of active and inactive bureaucrats deserves periodic updates. For example, I just noticed User:Bcorr somewhat active again in edits but still listed as inactive.--Jusjih 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Define "active". Bcorr might be editing, but this bureaucrat has not done anything requiring bureucrat priviledges since the beginning of logs being kept on these activities. --Durin 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added a definition. It should clarify who are considered "inactive". Minor spelling correction: "priviledge" should be "privilege", i.e., no "d" near the end. :-) --Jusjih 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speeling Naxi. :) --Durin 15:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• How about a definition of inactive being has not used bureaucrat privileges for six months or more? --Durin 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think no Bcrat work in six months = inactive, but we have to come back to square one on this. Why is it important to list active/inactive bureaucrats? The main reason I could think of is if someone needs a bureaucrat's help? But why would someone need a bureaucrat's help? All bureaucrats do is figure out promotions and rename users who have requested it. Both of these functions are performed from openly published requests placed on their respective pages, where whatever Bcrats are acted observe them. Bcrat is not like admin, where someone may need an admin to block a rampaging anon or semi a vandalised page. No one should be writing a Bcrat to ask to be promoted, or to ask that someone else should or shouldn't be promoted. So why do we need to know who the "active" buyreaucrats are? And if someone who hasn't taken a Bcrat action in 5 months and 29 days is listed as active, that is not much help in looking for an active bureaucrat. Answer the necessity of dividing active from inactive bureaucrats, and we can go from there. -- Cecropia 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the project page to indicate active/less active/inactive by objective measureable standards. -- Cecropia

Excellent. It is now clearer, but as bureaucrats have administrators' privileges, I consider that any dormant bureaucrat, like User:Optim, should be demoted if after inquiry, there is still no response. Imagine someone stealing a dormant bureaucrat's password and abusing restricted functions. It is a major security risk.--Jusjih 09:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take up that question with Angela, who has the power to do that. She had an extensive proposal (above) to recertify bcrats (including herself) periodically, but it was never acted on. -- Cecropia 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message at Angela's talk page. Hopefully she will respond. Thank you for your referral. Without it I would not know whom to ask.--Jusjih 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't regard myself as an inactive bureaucrat since I've done 10% of the renamings this year. People who have left the project should obviously have their bureaucrat access removed. Angela. 09:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Old crats and new tools

Not only should highly inactive BCrats be demoted, but BCrats should have a new tool:

Block and admin completely.

This would stop rogue admins from protecting/deleting if a BCrat blocked them, so as to avoid needless re-blocking. A BCrat block could only be undone by an admin that is not the user in question. Any thoughts?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of new tools, I heard we might get the ability to reattribute edits. This might be a good idea. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:BN

To all my fellow bureaucrats; if you haven't added WP:BN to your watchlist, I'd reccomend doing it. We could probably use this to discuss adminship nominees if needed (those that are in the grey area in particular), and if WP:RFR is instituted, it would gain a higher importance (and I think that's the best place to put it) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding 'crats authority?

I'm rather lazy to retype much of what I've been saying on the mailing list and IRC, so here. I think 'crats constitute a "super-trustable" user base, and therefore they should be able to step in to stop wheel wars, etc. immediately instead of leaving it to Jimbo. I'm fed up of all the shit we've got flying around, and I know Jimbo can't keep faeces grounded forever, so I figured this is worth a shot. Somebody needs to be able to step in and say, "Everybody stop and discuss this now or we'll flip your sysop bits/block you lot, no questions asked." Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been support among those who could make the technical changes to allow bcrats to de-sysop, though I suppose it could be given to individual bcrats if they wanted to, or they could give the ability to a new class of trusted user if they wished. My own opinion? Whatever. -- Cecropia 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. There's very few bureaucrats and as some people have seen recently becoming one has a very high threshold. I would be wary about putting pressure on bureaucrats in the middle of some of these disputes - blocking an admin prevents them from doing everything apart from blocking/unblocking, so a block can serve as well. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also the potential of removing the prohibition on stewards acting on thier own projects (as far as desysopping is concerned, not promoting) as they already have the technical ability to desysop. I don't know if other projects are having this problem as well; if it's restricted basically to us, then allowing steawards to desysop here would be a good solution, as many of the existing stewards are editors here (and thus prevented from desysopping our admins). Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say Stewards can't desysop on their own projects? That makes no sense--and Angela has desysoped at my request several times. -- Cecropia 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From The Steward Policy on Meta: Don't desysop people from your own project, unless they request it themselves. It is better to leave such cases to neutral stewards. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The people I've desysopped on en were either made admins by accident, needing their adminship switching to a new username, or requested de-adminship of themselves. As a steward, I generally wouldn't desysop someone here for other reasons (though there might be exceptions). Angela. 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest I thought you were a rogue steward (hence my note below), but rather to provide Cecropia with the requested reference. I think you're amazing, you know that!  :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot one note: I think Angela is an exception along with Jimbo and Anthere: those three have such high visibility on so many projects that no project really qualifies as thier "home project." The majority of thier attention isn't focused on any one project; every project and no project is thier home. ;-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that both of these are a great idea - someone' needs to be able to step in and stop wheel warring; the question is, if we give this power to Bureaucrats, what power does that leave stewards with? Alphax ^τεχ 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, giving the power to bcrats would only be on thier own project (i.e., our bcrats could only desysop here, not at fr or de). Thus, the stewards would continue just as they do now: Serving the projects without bcrats (as stewards have access on all projects), and as an emergency saftey valve for every project. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds ok, but would bureaucrats also be able to de-bureaucrat each other? That could lead to much worse wheel warring than admins can do. Angela. 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd venture the answer of "no", but if our bureaucrats aren't level-headed and trustworthy enough not to wheel war, why are they bureaucrats in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That should probably be left to stewards; the issue to debureaucrat rarely comes up, and probably wouldn't happen often. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it'd be convenient to let us desysop for name changes. However, I'm not sure how the community feels about it (cause obviously the software can't distinguish between desysop wheel warring and name changes, but I don't think the bureaucrats are a group of people who would edit war). — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. It seems to me that less than a year ago, "wheel warring" among admins was pretty much unknown. Now, with a doubling of the number of admins, it seems to be commonplace. That's why I'm now inclined to be skeptical about adding bureaucrats unless their is a demonstrated need, then we could, perhaps, say "we need one (or two, or three) new bureaucrats." Take as many nominations as people desire, but only promote the top one, or two, or three, and only if s/he otherwise meets the requirements of consensus. Can you imagine wheel warring among bureaucrats, rushing to promote their friends, or on arbitrary interpretation of voting results? An ounce of prevention... -- Cecropia 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, we have incredibly high standards to become a bureaucrat. I doubt a wheel warring 'crat will be promoted, unless the community goes bonkers. We don't need to set a limit; we just have to ensure there are very high standards for determining who gets to be a 'crat. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of a functionary to handle wheel wars and other time critical issues is a good one. Linking the idea to bureaucrats is not correct IMO. We select crats for their judgement of community consensus. We pick arbitrators for their judgment in making long term rulings about user behavior. The Wheel War functionary should be chosen for their cool head and quick but reasoned judgment under pressure (plus for having the trust of Jimbo, since he will certainly be asked to review every case). While it would be no problem for a bureaucrat to be a Wheel War functionary (just as we currently have a bureaucrat/arbitrator), there is no need for us to assign Wheel War functionary duties to any existing class of functionary. They should be chosen individually for their suitability for this particular job. NoSeptember ^talk 06:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree, I dislike the idea of adding more user levels to the community. IMO, adminship should remain no big deal, but 'cratship should be a very big deal -- the former can be called a janitor, while the latter can be the custodian in charge of the mop & bucket supply closet (a very trusted user, in other words). Only those who can be really really really trusted not to go off the deep end or overuse IAR or any other little thing should be elected as 'crats. I don't think people generally look for ability to judge consensus on RfB; they just see if the candidate can be trusted not to fuck up when closing an RfA. Still, 'crats are as human as anyone else. Mistakes are to be expected. The same can be said for both closing RfAs and desysoping in a wheel war. The point is, if these 'crats are willing to do the right thing, and won't say, "Hm, I think I was right, so why should I listen to these blabbering nuts?" (and are also capable judges of how involved they are in a dispute), which they should be if they get past RfB, I think they can be trusted to desysop when necessary, and quickly undo a mistake if shown to be wrong. Really, can you name me a 'crat who you wouldn't trust to do the right thing in intervening in a wheel war? Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see bureaucrats differently. They are trusted, but are really just people who are trusted to do an extra job or two, not as an extra layer of supervision in the organization chart. I regard the Check Users, Arbitrators, and Board Vote functionaries the same way, just with different special jobs to do. I don't remember anyone voting for a bureaucrat to be a supervisor over the community. And being trusted by Jimbo (like Danny with WP:OFFICE) is important, because they need to be unconcerned about being overruled (the short term action to diffuse a situation may not be the same as the long term solution), and admins need to know that Jimbo will back up their decisions. NoSeptember ^talk 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say 'crats would have to supervise admins. It implies they'd actually have to be on the hunt for rogue admins, keeping one eye on them while tending to normal 'crat business. My proposal is to just give them the power to desysop, but discourage use unless there's obvious wheelwarring that shows no sign of receding (fortunately, such wheelwars appear to be becoming rare, so this proposal can probably be ignored...for now?). In such cases, the 'crats should use common sense and desysop whoever appears to need it (just like how admins are trusted to use common sense and block whoever appears to need to be blocked). Such quick decisions don't have to be correct ones, since the arbcom/Jimbo can easily make amends. I agree that a 'crat would need to be unconcerned about being overruled, but from my experience, most if not all 'crats seem to be of the right temperament to be at ease with this, provided it's understood that in egregrious cases of wheelwarring, they get to shoot first and ask questions later (since extracting the bullets is just as easy as shooting them). Anyway, this is all academic now -- I don't think this should be a top priority, since the trend appears to be decreasing wheelwars, not increasing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

Hi, apologies if this is in the wrong place. I find User:Tiocfaidh Ár Lá's username to be offensive. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá is the slogan of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Am I right in thinking this is an inappropriate username? Stu 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the slogan states that it is the unofficial slogan of the whole Irish republican movement. If this is the case, I'm unconvinced that it meets the criteria to be an inappropriate username. However, the page on usernames states "user names that are offensive to a significant number of people will be changed". If this is shown to be the case, then it should be changed. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, apologies if I'm not raising this in the right place. User:Ian.kyle.paisley's username is clearly inappropriate. As far as I know you aren't allowed to use a real person's name? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Although bureaucrats can change usernames, it isn't for us to determine what is or isn't an appropriate name. You should use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for that. Angela. 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Instructions for changing usernames

4) Recreate the old account and then block it. This prevents someone else creating it in an attempt to impersonate the renamed user.

I propose removing this point from the Instructions for changing usernames section since it seems pointless in most cases, generally isn't done, and wouldn't be a good idea if a user is changing name for privacy reasons. Angela. 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally recreate and then set a random password. Don't the logs allow to see who changed name and to what anyway? Secretlondon 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...yes yes go ahead and remove it. I've done this for every single rename i've done and it's the most damn time-consuming step. However, replace it with 'move the user's talk page to its new home and delete the redirect' or something (in case a new user comes along under the old name and mysteriously finds a redirect on their userpage). — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(addendum) In fact, if you do it I'll probably go in and do a lot more user renames than I am doing right now :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My vandalism of this page

After making this edit to this page, Cecropia reverted the edit with the comment "When did Mr. Bell gain the competence to specify how promotions are performed?" and I found this message on my talk page:

You are not the first, nor will you be the last, person to feel that a Wikipedian was unjustly promoted or denied adminship. You have not the experience here to dictate how policy is carried out and you are presumptuous to place rules on a policy page. This is vandalism. I think you should calm down about the AzaToth nomination.

— Cecropia 10:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am a relatively new user here, and Cecropia is a bureaucrat with many times my experience and with considerably more power and influence, I would like to know if I have indeed crossed over the line and committed vandalism? I made this edit in good faith after a situation in which the newest bureaucrat, Francs2000, who has promoted only 12 admins since becoming a bureaucrat, erroneously calculated the support:oppose percentage on at least two occassions (stating 52 support:20 oppose was 61% and 54 support:20 oppose was 62%, when these percentages had been previously correctly stated by others to be 72% and 73%).

If making this edit to this page was indeed vandalism, can somebody please direct me to the policy pages that would allow me to gain the proper experience and perspective so that I won't make this mistake in the future? I'm feeling somewhat intimidated by having received the above comment on my talk page from a bureaucrat. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been here for almost a year now, and yes, I would say that the messages you received could have been worded a bit differently. I don't know how long you have been here, but Wikipedians typically are nice people - just like humans. This also means that sometimes what we write or what we say does not accurately reflect what we want to express. I don't know the context of those edits, and I don't know what Cecropia is thinking, but I would suspect that this issue has been brought up a few times in a context that inclines on being unproductive, so perhaps "vandalism" was a term that that was thought of at the time that would convey the severity of the disruption; one that would advocate the activity to stop.

I would not take it personally, and I'm sure Cecropia did not intend you to feel intimidated either. Perhaps write off the incident as one of those unfortunate transient happenings on Wikipedia and move on? Yes, it does not feel particularly good to feel "bitten", but I have observed enough exchanges on this project to believe that there was not any deliberate maliciousness involved.

It is important to note that not everything on Wikipedia is codified - it would be impossible to do so, and nor would it be desirable to have everything codified. I would not be surprised if such a policy page does not exist - it probably does not exist because the effort in writing something of the sort would, (as one Wikipedian once put it) "...subvert the spirit, while adhering to the letter".

In this situation, changes made to long standing and existing policy pages were simply a bit overboard - not that your ideas and thoughts are not valued, but it is necessary to approach the situation a bit differently if you want to see certain things written and sanctioned by the community. I would start on this talk page first, but for the time being, it might be better to sit back and relax - and just observe the dynamics behind how these pages work for a while. Then come back with fresh ideas. It can be unhealthy to jump right back into the conversation - especially after receiving the sentiments being conveyed.

As for the percentage calculations that Francs2000 did, it would be necessary to see what the context was. For example, just randomly off the top of my head, 61% arises from rounding down the expression 1-(20/52) - the thing is, it depends on what statistic was determined to be best at hand. Yes, perhaps differing from certain conventions, but I would not worry too much about these calculations. The reality is that other factors go into deciding successful or unsuccessful promotions, and sometimes these qualitative factors may outweigh the quantitative, precise value of these statistics. It is the bureaucrat's skill in discriminating the former (not the latter) amongst many factors which is important. On rare occasions the community may have a differing opinion, but bureaucrats are also ushered in for the purposes of umpiring the RfA process, and finding that right balance between describing at length possible precedents, and moving on to addressing other important matters; keeping things running smoothly. In a sense, their opinions regarding policy changes are noticed more because they guide the process in finding that equilibrium.

Well, better to leave the choice to respond to the rest of your query, to those who you addressed directly. I hope this helps :-) P.S. I would not have responded to this had you not used an edit summary - I would not have even noticed your post! This is one reason why they are extremely useful! See you around. --HappyCamper 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your response. I'm afraid it still leaves some significant questions unanswered for me, and I really want to understand if I have transgressed. Frankly, from my point of view I have done nothing to deserve these comments and feel I am owed an apology, but I feel at a distinct disadvantage in terms of status here in making that claim, so I am looking for some guidance and opinions from others. If my behavior has been out of line, I would like to correct it; if on the otherhand, Cecropia was out of line I would appreciate an apology, but lacking that, would at least appreciate confirmation that I acted reasonably.

So please allow me to provide the context for my edits in the form of a brief chronology:

• I have been here for almost three months, quite actively (around 4,400 edits, and I've never done RC patrol, so those are largely content additions, RfA, AfD, TfD, portals, templates and policy pages). In that time, nobody has ever suggested that any of my edits could be vandalism in any form until Cecropia's comment on my talk page. Receiving this rebuke from a bureaucrat is unsettling, to say the least.
• I was actively involved in discussions on the RfA for AzaToth.
• Related to this RfA, I asked Essjay a question on his RfB (#10 at the bottom of the page) regarding this RfA because I thought it fit the type of RfA mentioned in his comments regarding seeking consensus from other bureaucrats in certain RfA's between 70–75%.
• Essjay responded that while it was an excellent example, it wasn't appropriate for him to comment on a pending RfA.
• I asked if he could comment once it was closed since it was due to close later in the day.
• Francs2000 closed the AzaToth RfA with a failure to reach consensus 38 minutes before its closing time.
• I pointed out to Francs2000 that he had closed the RfA a little more than a half an hour before it's closing time and that it was "relatively close to the 75% where the procedure requires the discretion of the closing bureaucrat" at the time of the early closing.
• Francs2000 acknowledge his inadvertant error and brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, but then erroneously stated that it only had 62% consensus at the time of closing (instead of the 73%).
• I withdrew my question from Essjay's RfB, having decided that since I thought the closing had been mishandled that it would be unfair to Essjay to have his RfB dragged into the developing AzaToth RfA controversy.
• After several users participated in the discussion thread on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, Cecropia weighed in with a comment and moved the thread to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth.
• Given that Francs2000 had made the erroneous calculation twice, I edited the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats page to specify how to calculate the percentages discussed on the page.
• Shortly after that, Cecropia reverted my edits and left the above message on my talk page.

Throughout the entire chronology, I had no direct interaction with Cecropia until the comment on my talk page. I don't understand what motivated his acerbic comments, but as I said, I feel at an extreme disadvantage because of the discrepency in status here. You speculated "but I would suspect that this issue has been brought up a few times in a context that inclines on being unproductive, so perhaps "vandalism" was a term that that was thought of at the time that would convey the severity of the disruption", but I have looked over my comments and actions and I don't understand how they would fit that description, so I'm left confused by Cecropia's comment.

Thanks for reading this. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 13:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Splash's edit summary "This is more than a little bit insulting" when removing the formula from the instructions, please not, that it is not! As a matter of fact, the Bureaucrat who closed out AzaToth's vote today did miscalculate. So I think you would do wisely to revert yourself and add the formula back in. Additionally, the formula is good information for those who are new to the process and want to know how the percentages are calculated (i.e., how if at all do the neutral votes count) because that is not at all obvious at first. I also think that you owe Doug an apology for assuming bad faith. --Mmounties (Talk) 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. Percentages are taught in the early grades, to suggest that making a calculation mistake is the same as not understanding how calculations are done is insulting. If I started linking every word with more than one syllable to Wiktionary, just to make sure someone "understood" how I was using those words, I would be doing the equivalent thing to adding basic math formulas, and doing it in an insulting manner. It isn't helpful and should be considered insulting as it was likely intended to be. NoSeptember ^talk 13:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're assuming bad faith as well? Come on! To quote Cole Locke's admonishment on Splash's talk page: "Math is not insulting". Adding that formula was in direct response to a calculation error made by the 'crat who closed the vote. Since the error was made, it is not at all out of line to add it to the page. It is also helpful because it spells out that Neutral votes are disregarded entirely (which is not something that is clear to newcomers trying to understand the process). What's more, two other bureaucrats have agreed with my take on the incivility displayed here by their colleagues. And no, Cecropia, I don't really care whether you are paid or not. You accepted the job. If you can't perform up to standard, you really need to ask yourself some serious questions... --Mmounties (Talk) 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy this either. The correct thing to do would be to discuss this with Francs2000 in private or on some other medium instead of all but directly insulting the intelligence of bureaucrats by assuming that they wouldn't be familiar with procedure. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing before I get to work, I find it disturbing that Bureaucrats have made themselves guilty of [[WP:CIV|incivility}} twice in the last 24 hours for no reason at all. And twice the incivility was directed toward someone who has been conducting himself in a calm and helpful manner all throughout the discussion. That is very disturbing indeed. Bureaucrats for all the experience they have and the trust that's been placed in them, should be held to a higher standard. The fact that two sank so low on two occasions in the last 24 hours does not honor the trust the community has placed in them. --Mmounties (Talk) 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, it can hardly be calm or helpful to add an elementary math formula to a policy page while obliquely implying that Francs2000 is too dumb to know what the formula or promotion procedure is. (Were it not for its indirectness, it might even border on a personal attack.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I'm not obliquely implying anything about Francs2000 other than he got the calculation wrong—and that I don't need to imply as it's there for all to see. I don't believe were talking about a math calculation error here, as in adding the numbers incorrectly. I believe we are talking about a math formula error here, as in 62.9% = 1-(20/54). Also, this page is presumably not something that current bureaucrats need to frequently refer to—It is much more likely that this page is refered to by people hoping to become admins, by people voting on admins, by people wanting to learn what the heck a bureaucrat does. Excuse me, but I figured if a bureaucrat could get confused by the calculation, maybe it ought to be spelled out to remove all ambiguity. But don't worry, I'm done vandalizing this page. I'm not going to risk getting blocked or banned over this stupid, stupid issue of people feeling threatened and insulted by a math formula. Good grief! —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the term "math-impaired" in your edit summary was supposed to connote, then... After all, you don't have to be "math-impaired" to make a mistake. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A simple math error that results in a real promotion error can be corrected. At least three times in the past, the stewards have been asked to de-sysop or de-bureaucrat someone incorrectly promoted, and its even easier to sysop someone who was wrongly rejected at first. (I'm talking about math errors here, not legitimate judgment calls). So once the math error was pointed out, and the correct calculation still indicated a failed candidacy, there was no need to add text to avoid simple math errors in the future. NoSeptember ^talk 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk and NoSeptember, not everyone is as clear about these things as you apparently are. It is a good idea to make things clear to those who go there because they have questions. Just because you remember how to do it and know how it is applied around here does not necessarily mean that ALL know. There are many people who do not know how this percentage in particular (i.e, in the evaluation of RfA votes) is calculated. For starters, we have Neutal votes. They could be considered in the total or they could be disregarded alltogether. The formula helps make it clear. Therefore, having it posted to that page is a service to the community and for that reason should be there. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you see the neutrals aren't simply discounted out of hand. This misunderstands the nature of a close RfA. The neutrals are useful, I imagine, for working out whether to promote in less clear cases. The implication, really very directly, of a formula is that only the formula matters when it has been said time and again that such is not the case or we could have bots close RfAs. It is a disservice to the community to even suggest that there is a formula on which RfAs are closed: it is enough to indicate that a level of support of about 80% is needed but there is some discretion beginning at around 75%. -Splash^talk 15:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"around 75%"...so...74.1% is rounded up? or maybe 74.5%? or 74.9%? The fact of the matter is, that bueaucrats are treating and debating these percentages, and there is formula for calculating them. Working yourselves into a frenzy because the calculation was included on the page after a bureaucrat used the wrong calculation is absurd. Arguing that the formula shouldn't be on the page so that you can pretend there isn't one is more absurd. I'm done with this. I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so if you want to respnd to me or want me to respond to you, you know where to find my talk page. I still think Cecropia owes me an appology, but somehow given the discussion here I don't expect one to be forthcoming, but I'll withold judgement on that for now. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thats why we have these discussion pages for people to learn about the process on a case by case basis. Read the dozens of archives at WT:RFA and you will become very knowledgable. As Splash points out, it can not be boiled down to a simple formula, although the truly close calls fall into a fairly small range of cases. NoSeptember ^talk 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bell has been especially angered for some reason about the AzaToth nomination. When someone takes as overt action as he did in posting a "rule" (what was the rule? Not the formula, the instruction "After eliminating bogus votes [...])" The RfA standards have evolved and been applied by Bureaucrats for nearly two years since Bureaucracy was established yet Bell thinks that he needs to take bcrats to the woodshed after not quite three months here. Now am I "uncivil"? I would say "blunt," which is called for when one is when the editor has been uncivil, not assuming good faith, and making personal attacks. I will not make the opposite insult of pretending that Bell is a little child who must be guided by the hand because he scribbled crayons on his textbook. He should take the advice to mellow out a bit; next time he may be blocked. -- Cecropia 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at this point this really isn't helping. If I may make a suggestion - some text to the effect of 'while bureaucrats have discretion in evaluating consensus, nominations generally have less chance of success the further they are below 80% and very little chance at below 75%' might help to reduce confusion in the future. Past cases of candidates being approved with less than 75% and the fact that a bureaucrat candidate was recently talking about the possibility of success at 70% caused some to think that the 62% vs 73% difference was potentially determinative of the outcome. That misunderstanding has led to alot of hostility on both sides... AzaToth supporters noting 73% and early closing as problems (because they thought it could pass), bureaucrats rejecting it out of hand (because they knew it would almost certainly have failed anyway), supporters finding this unneccessarily dismissive, bureaucrats finding their continued 'whining' annoying, supporters being offended and making disruptive comments, bureaucrats making threats, et cetera. Enough. Let's stop escalating this thing. --CBDunkerson 15:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Whenever it has become an issue, Wikipedians who follow the RfA page have indicated that they are satisfied that the Bureaucrat system is working and need not be "fixed." An important part of this is that is consistancy, impartiality, and the firmness of decision. There will always be those who will jump on any decision they think unfair. Mr. Bell has been aggressive in begging the question by jumping on Francs2000 for an obvious and innocent error that did not change the results of the RfA. I tried to explain to all interested why the result was not in error but this was either attacked (not by Bell) or ignored. I pointed out to Bell on his talk page that changing a policy page in the way he did (and with the direct insult of "add formula for calculating percentage to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right" is vandalism. My intent was (and is) to discourage him from doing it again. The mention of vandalism is not to hurt his feelings, but to give the required warning before a potential block. -- Cecropia 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you do, then you'd better block me in the process. There's PLENTY of heat to go around in this fracas. Mr. Bell's edit summary was certainly inflammatory because of the use of two words, "math-impaired". But, if he had had more care in his wording of that edit summary, then his position has considerable merit (it does even with that). I've made changes to this project page, and not been called a vandal for doing it. So, if you're going to block him for making possibly well intentioned changes to this project page, then you'd better block me too.
• ALL policy pages may be changed by anyone, at any time. Policy pages are not protected from editing by someone until specified criteria have been met. Mr. Bell was entirely within his rights to make the edits he did.
• Nobody has any more standing here than the brand new editor making their first edit. Attitudes in opposition to this are decidedly anti-wiki. Mr. Bell rightfully felt intimidated because of precisely this sort of attitude. It is hard for an editor who has been working as he has, trying very hard to improve this project, to find himself being accused of vandalism. I find some sympathy with his position in this regard. When Kelly Martin and I first got into our debate back last fall, I felt very much that I was on a slippery slope, faced with a person with considerably more standing than myself. It is not at all surprising that he should be as contentious as he has been, trying very hard to justify his position with as much gusto as he could to stand up to a person who he perceived (wrongfully, though encouraged by you) as having more standing than himself.
• If you are affronted by the heated concerns of a user and are incapable of separating the heat from the core concerns, you need to step back and re-evaluate your position. You need to be responding to the core concerns, and not to the heat. All of us from time to time make this error, but it is a fundamental attribution error. We're all human, we all do it, but it needs to be recognized for what it is and when it happens amends made. This has not happened.
• Mr. Bell isn't taking anyone "to the woodshed", or in the very least if he has then so have you. Again, note the fundamental attribution error...he verabally antagonizes you, and it's taking you to the woodshed whereas you do it to him and you're acting within your rights to warn him of an impending block. He has legitimate concerns here because of multiple errors that have been made by bureaucrats over the last several months as they apply to AzaToth's RfA. He has justifiable reason to have the concerns he has. You've made a claim that DB has violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA There may be merits to this. But, to run all of this out into this debate is indeed taking Mr. Bell to the woodshed. You are ratcheting this debate up just as much as any claim you're making that he might have done so. As noted, plenty enough heat to go around, Cecropia. Plenty. --Durin 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that. I also am not quite sure why you are so upset about the comment he added about discarding bogus votes. Bureaucrats are doing it currently and rightfully so (i.e., with sockpuppet votes). To read more into the sentence is not warranted. Therefore he has done nothing but clarified existing policy. And contrary to what many may think, the rules are not clear to everyone who comes to this page to check and find out for themselves. There was nothing even remotely resembling vandalism to Doug Bell's edits to the instructions and your reaction was troublesome for that reason. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Bell's use of "math-impaired" was inflammatory. That changed the character of the edit entirely. If instead he had used an edit summary that said "clarifying this portion of the policy for the benefit of potential nominees", there would be considerably less debate on this point. As I noted, there's plenty enough heat to go around. Don't presume from the above that I'm jumping on Mr. Bell's wagon either. Rather, I'm rising to his defense because few are pointing out the heat that is coming from the b'cat side of the debate and he feels rightfully intimidated. --Durin 17:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, rest assured. I agree that he could have summarized his edit better. But I also think that the reaction he received from a bureaucrat who should hold him/herself to a very high standard was not warranted especially since the 'crat should have been aware of the heat that was going around from all sides. It certainly didn't help to explain things or calm them down. And I still maintain that the formula that is used to arrive at the percentage used to determine whether to automatically promote or not promote (you say it's above 80% and below 75% but you don't want to divulge how you come up with these numbers?), or that determines whether a candidate is in the bubble that warrants a closer look, and consideration, that formula should be clearly stated. The fact that "bogus", and I admint that term probably should be explained with an example ("e.g., sockpuppets"), should also be clearly stated. To not do so and to deny that the formula exists is plain wrong and breeds mistrust. This process should be as clear to anyone as it can possibly be. By pulling explanations on the basis that they are "insulting" (I can only presume that means to those who have been around for a while) is insulting itself as it does not assume good faith. --Mmounties (Talk) 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify something; the reasons there is no specific formula is because RfA is not a vote. There is no hard and fast, inviolable rule as to what is and is not a passing RfA. There is an allowance for variables that can and sometimes do exist. It's a balancing act between the community's desire for transparency to the process and the project's need to have maneuver room in the case of highly contentious RfAs. It is accepted that above 80% is automatic promote, and below 75% is automatic fail. But, it is not an absolute and can not be so. A bureaucrat's job isn't vote counting; it's reading through RfAs that are in the contentious range and weighing the various merits of different viewpoints, diffs, histories, and more. Thus, the figures are deliberately unclear to allow for room to make judgement calls. If it was precise and inviolable, then we might as well have bots for bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are a shield against gaming of the system, manipulation of votes, undermining of consensus, and more. They are not a sword. --Durin 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. But fact remains the numbers are being thrown out. you again quote 80% and 75% in your explanation. What is so bad about stating how you arrive at those numbers? The page should probably also state how they are used, i.e, as guidelines or as a means to determine candidacies that are contested. But as long as the percentages are being used at all, to determine which candidacies are considered in the contested range or any other way, and you yourself just used them in your explanation on how the process works - so as long as they are being used at all the formula should be stated on the page and there should be no doubt about how they are being calculated. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• If there was no doubt about how they are calculated, we would not need humans to do it. We could use bots instead. Bureaucrats can and do ignore some votes on a regular basis. There is no transparency to this process because of the fact that every close of a contentious RfA would be hotly debated, as this case shows. Again, this is NOT a vote. --Durin 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say that I really like the way you handled the continued exchanges between cecropia and Doug Bell. But I'm a little disappointed that you didn't do as well here. I will be taking this page off my watchlist as well, the reason being that I don't care to talked to in a way that insults my intelligence.

I therefore only have the following to say before I cut this page from my list:

• You say that this is not a vote. Except you and several of the 'crats also say that at 80% (generally regarded as consensus) and below 75% (pursuant to rule, except for rare exceptions) it is pretty much a vote. This makes these numbers very important to the process, indeed. Yet, your answer to my question of how they are computed and why it is so bad to post that formula for everyone to see is that this is not a vote. Come on. I'm not THAT dumb! That's a lot of bologna and you're skirting the question.
• I fully recognize that there should be an element of human evaluation in the range that falls between the two benchmarks. I have never disputed that. As a matter of fact, and I have said this before, I believe the human element is not nearly significant enough right now.
• You say that clearly posting the rules and specifics would cause lots of arguments like the argument over AzaToth's RfA. I, and history, beg to differ. Fact is, clarity prevents such arguments. The "heat" only develops and developed here because people were kept in the dark and not given the courtesy of a clear explanation, and because the answers they were given were seriously lacking in respect and substance. It is important that the rules are transparent to the extent they can be. Otherwise people will not trust the system. This does not mean that the clearly stated rule shouldn't say that between 75 and 80% (with the way those numbers are arrived at also clearly stated) a determination is made by the bureaucrat based on all sorts of criteria (with a list of "such as's" provided). That would go a looooooong way towards preventing these sort of arguments. It would also eliminate the need/opportunity to speak in a condescending manner to other contributors simply because we want to know and you may not want to answer. It would show accountability on the part of beaurocrats. And accountability, even if it is just the perception of it, increases trust.
• The way beaurocrats and you (I'm sorry to say) have attempted to elude such clarification has made me hugely suspicious. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the club of the bureaucrats (and I don't mean to say that I don't respect their effort and dedication) is way too small and elite. This impression has been reinforced by the answers we have received to our questions, and the reasons some of the beaurocrats have given in the RfBs, as they smell a lot like someone trying to protect his turf. And that doesn't smell good. I will therefore do what I can to further all candidates that I could live with so that the circle of beaurocrats be made larger, because it needs to be a LOT larger. And that is another fallout of the secrecy about the process.
• I have made valid comments and raised valid questions. When you ask questions I'm sure you would like to see them addressed in a respectful and informative fashion. I expect the same. It would therefore be really nice if all of the beaurocrats (not just some of them) could see their way to treating others the same way they want to be treated themselves. That principle hasn't hurt anyone yet in real life. It shouldn't be such a foreign concept around here either. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• deindenting Forgive me for failing to properply communicate a complex issue. I would ask that rather than attribute malicious intent on my part that you would please grant the benefit of the doubt. In no respect did I ever make any conscious attempt to talk down to you. That would be very much anti-thetical to precisely one of the points I raised in opposition to Cecropia's stance.

  I thought I'd check to see if you had anything good to say. Regarding my giving you all the benefit of the doubt, I've done that for a long, long time. In return, my questions and concerns were not answered despite multiple attempts that I made to change that (you only have to look at the discussion up to this point). Instead, you made statements that were distracting, skirted the issue and answered questions that were not asked/addressed statements that were not made, in other words, you gave me "oh-shut-already-up" answers. After several rounds of that, please forgive me, but I have to consider that a way to waste my time. And I cannot in good conscience allow you to continue to do. I also agree with your statement just now that I believe it is entirely anti-wiki to do and it was your comment regarding Cecropia's attitude that encouraged me to talk to you in the first place.

• As for whether heat would be generated by more transparency; if a bureaucrat had to explain why each vote was included or excluded as part of his process in determining consensus, there would be considerable heat generated by the people whose votes are excluded. I know for a fact that an oppose vote of mine was rejected once and I was rather offended by the way in which it was rejected. I chose not to say anything, but I am quite certain that many people would choose to say something and cause considerable grief for bureaucrats.

  The point is exactly that the crat would not need to explain anything if it was properly explained in the instructions. But instead of agreeing to place the necessary clarifications and guidelines there in a clear - to everyone - manner, crats have removed such clarifications. This leaves me with only two possible conclusions: (1) that those who did don't want or care for others to understand the process (i.e., protect their turf) or (2) they need to hide something. Neither inspires trust in the crat NOR the process. This is especially so, when I consider the attitude with which it was done. Again, the heated discussion we just had this weekend was unnecessary and would likely not have been that hot had the process instructions been clearly posted for everyone to see.

• There is no attempt at "not answering" you by anyone here. There has been multiple attempts to communicate a complex issue. Apparently we have failed to be successful in properly communicating this issue with you. We've made no attempt to elude clarification. Any conclusion that we have done so should only be drawn from our inability to properly outline and describe this complex issue rather than any willful attempt at obfuscation.

  Well, you fooled me, if that's the case because from my vantage point it sure looks like it. Please put yourself in my position and re-read the exchange above. I've properly described and outlined plenty. And I've been very patient throughout and please don't make the mistake of assuming that I don't understand the process by now. That is NOT the point.

• The fact of the matter is that 75-80% is not a hard and fast rule as I've said before. I don't know how I could be clearer than that. That fact is why that standard is not written into the guidelines for bureaucrats. It is most decidedly not a vote, but a consensus building mechanism. I know this has been repeated several times already, without any further light being shed on the subject. It is perhaps true that I've understood this difference for long enough that I no longer have your perspective on why this appears to be a vote when it is not a vote, and thus lack the ability to fully explain to you the difference.

  My point again, and I made that perfectly clear, was not to suggest that it is a hard and fast rule but to properly outline the rules generally followed (including definitions) and state in no uncertain terms (1) how the benchmarks 75% and 80% are calculated (that includes the formula and a statement as to what votes are considered for that calculation), and all those things you explained above to me one on one. I've written plenty of instructions for users and no one has had the difficulty understanding them that you apparently have. I don't know how I could possibly be any clearer than I've already been. (2) Again, as stated above and as you again have not read or care to/are able to comprehend - at this point I really do not know anymore which it is - the entire process should be properly described on the instruction page, including the fact that it is not a hard and fast rule. I'm not going to repeat myself again for the umpf time. If you carefully read my previous posts above this should be very clear to just about anyone. The point is exactly the one you made just now, namely that you all have known the process for so long, that you can no longer properly gauge what new users need to get a clear picture. I say it again, just because you all know how it's done does NOT mean that it's clear to newcomers. And in light of that, the attitude that was displayed by those performing the reverts and refusing to leave the clarifications on the page (calling them "insulting") was downright insulting to new users and condescending. That's right, and very un-wiki-like to boot. Again, please don't confuse me wanting to get something up on the instructions describing the process with me not comprehending the process. I think we all got a crash course in that this weekend. One that could and would have been a lot less painful if the process had been properly described. But when the attempt was made to do so, Doug was shouted down and and threatened as you well know and new users in general were plain insulted. What, prey tell, does that say about the crats? (Me thinks, you know.)

• If you want to take part in clarifying this matter to the satisfaction of people who are relatively new to this process, that input would be most welcome. But, that can't happen if you don't allow yourself to contribute to this talk page. --Durin 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  I am and was perfectly willing to help get clarity for new users. - Reposting Doug Bells elaborations would be a good start (perhaps with some clarification on what he meant with "bogus", but that would certainly be a good starting point. As for your mistaken assumption that I don't permit myself to post to this page, the issue is more one of that I cannot, in good conscience, permit you all any longer to waste my time. When you do want to discuss in earnest (and careful reading of my previous statements would be by me considered a prerequisite) and collaborate in a productive manner, you know where to find me. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Above you state that my attempts at communicating with you can be summed up as "'oh-shut-already-up' answers". Since it's obvious to me that despite my efforts at communicating with you on this subject I have been categorically incapable of satisfactorily explaining things with you, any further efforts on my part will most likely fail. Sorry for taking your time, and please accept my apologies for any insults you feel I have given you, however inadvertent. --Durin 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I slept it over and I'll grant you that you honestly tried to discuss my proposal and didn't intend to give me "oh-shut up" answers. However, during this entire discussion your answers were based on an apparent error in attribution. While I was proposing to make the process instructions (I don't like that word at all in this context) clearer for newbies to learn and understand the process, you read into that that I don't understand the process. Your answers were therefore giving me explanations of how the process works when I was perfectly clear on that after this weekend. As I was trying to discuss clarifying the process on the page and at one point was told in response to my statement that "this in NOT a vote", perhaps you can understand why I got frustrated. In my frustration I did go a bit overboard and I apologize for that.

I will now start a new section to take what I wish to propose and discuss outside of this so frustrating and by now way too convoluted section. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed language to better explain the "Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone" to replace the currently posted "instructions"

First off, I don't think "Instructions for sysopping someone" is a good section title because, whether intended or not, the section is not just a help to bureaucrats but also a resource for interested editors who want to get clarification on how the process of sysopping someone works. To come up with this proposed language I've taken the text currently on the project page under "Instructions for sysoping someone" and (1) rephrased it to not read like a recipe from a cookbook but like an explanation of the process that can be read both as a help to the attending bureaucrat and as an explanation to inquiring editor minds, (2) clarified (and indicated where I think more clarity is still needed) the issue of "bogus" votes and sockpuppetry, and (3) clarified the percentage benchmarks and their implications. I believe, I have in no way changed the spirit of the process that is followed today, only clarified it.

As stated before the benefit of a clearer stated description is, among others, reduced stress and frustration for both bureaucrats closing the vote and interested editors. Fact is, clarity prevents the kind of heated argument we had this past weekend. It is important that the rules are transparent to the extent they can be. Otherwise people will not trust the system. It would show the willingness on the part of bureaucrats to be accountable for their actions. And accountability, even if it is just the perception of it, increases trust.

Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone

1. The bureaucrat waits at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship before closing the RfA.
2. If it is not a self-request, the bureaucrat checks to makes sure that the user has accepted the nomination. If it hasn't been accepted the bureaucrat contacts the nominated user via a post on his/her talk page to make sure he/she is aware of the nomination. If the user then does not accept within [fill in a reasonable period - I suggest 24 hours] the nomination is pulled from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and nullified. In such a case the nomination is considered neither succeeded, nor failed, but simply removed from the page and the nominating user is informed in a supporting manner.
3. At the end of the seven day "open" period, the closing bureaucrat makes a determination that the vote did not suffer obvious undue influence from the use of sockpuppets or otherwise bogus votes [need to give an example for what other factors might make a vote "bogus"]. If there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence and the suspicion is confirmed (by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser in the case of sockpuppets), the tally is updated to reflect only valid votes.
4. Then the closing bureaucrat checks if there is a "general consensus" that the person should be sysopped. The rule of thumb is that

   • nominees with less than a 75% of support are not promoted without extenuating circumstances. Consequently, it is very rare indeed that a nominee is promoted with less than 75% of support.
   • nominees with 80% or more support are generally promoted. Similarly, it is very rare that a nominee is not promoted with this level of support.
   • nominees with a support ratio between 75% and 80% are promoted at the bureaucrat's discretion taking into consideration the comments made and discussion conducted on the nomination page, including comments made by "neutral" votes.
   • For purposes of determining the above percentage benchmarks, "neutral" votes are disregarded entirely and the following formula is applied:

   ${\begin{matrix}{\frac {support}{support+oppose}}\end{matrix}}$

5. Important: For bureaucrat nominations a support ratio of at least 90% is generally considered necessary for promotion. Consequently, in a year and a half, no-one has become a bureaucrat with less than 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes.
6. If a sysop promotion is made or denied outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, the bureaucrat explains the reasoning behind the decision on that nomination's talk page for interested editors to see.
7. If the here outlined conditions for promotions are met for a particular nomination, the bureaucrat makes the nominee an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop and adds his/her name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
8. Then the bureaucrat uses {{subst:rfap}}-{{subst:rfab}} as a header and footer, respectively, when closing a successful nomination and, similarly, {{subst:rfaf}}-{{subst:rfab}} for a failed nomination. The "Vote here" link is then removed and the word "Final" is placed before the parenthetic voting results, "ending" is changed to "ended" and the ending time and date are updated to reflect the current time and date.
9. For successful nominations, the bureaucrat moves the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats. For unsuccessful administrator nominations, the listing is moved to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and for unsuccessful bureaucrat nominations, the transclusion from requests for adminship is simply removed.
10. If the nomination has succeeded, the bureaucrat informs the user that he or she is now a sysop or bureaucrat. If the nomination has failed, the user is informed of this in a supportive manner.

--Mmounties (Talk) 02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think the wording of extenuating circumstances for admin nominations of less than 75% support is vague a bit. I believe that the Bcrats are in their positions due to them being regarded as the best available to make judgement calls when we vote them in to these positions. I respect that if they have promoted someone with less than a 75% margin, then they did so only after careful review. We must remember that some voters have opposition for reasons that have little to do with whether they will be good admins...be it politics or personal biases. Though the numbers of 75-80%, etc are good and help to set standards, I fear instruction creep. Admins can be desysopped, so I am not worried that a Bcrat may promote amarginal candidate that ends up doing a lousy job...in fact, I can think of this happening only once or twice in my 14 months of involvement with this project. But the "rule of thumb" I suppose means that there is leeway still in the decision making process.--MONGO 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That wording is taken verbatum from the current language. I didn't see the need to restrict or expand it as it is apparent from current practice that the circumstances must be quite extreme before someone with less than 75% is promoted. (that is also why I added the additional sentence following that phrase.) --Mmounties (Talk) 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that.--MONGO 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not arguing with the reasonableness of this proposal, but I must point out that the Bureaucrat instructions are supposed to reflect the current state of practice rather than our ideas of what the best practice might be. The rules for sysoping have been hashed out over many discussions in the last two years. The most controversial part of the proposal is that which would have bureaucrats, on their own initiative, routing out socks and "bogus" votes on every nomination. One person's valid vote is another's trash vote. Policy has been that any logged-in editors can vote any way they want for any reason at all, but that Bureaucrats are allowed to cancel votes for demonstrable fraud when the vote is close, or when the fraud has been pointed out and satisfactorily demonstrated by the 'crat or any other complaining party. I would point out here that, through all this, I have been arguing for bcrats, including myself, to have less power than some seem interested in granting us. -- Cecropia 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the fraud or sockpuppetry must be obvious either to the bureaucrat or to at least one or more editors that must have pointed their suspicions out. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the bureaucrat to do research on the off-chance that there may be fraud in every RfA but I do think that there is an obligation to follow up on obvious or suspected fraud prior to finalizing the tally. I don't think that obligation should apply only in close votes because sockpuppets can be used quite extensively. One recent example reduced Oppose votes on a page move from 11 to 5. On an RfA that could mean the difference between 80% and a clear pass and 72 and a clear fail. --Mmounties (Talk) 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the beginning of the "If there is a suspicion of..." sentence to "If a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence has been voiced or if fraud is otherwise suspected by the bureaucrat and the suspicion is confirmed..."? I think that wording would make it clear that there is no expectation for the bureaucrat to rule out fraud in every RfA, whether suspected or not. Do you agree? --Mmounties (Talk) 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This looks a lot like instruction creep. If the instructions are going to be changed, they should be simplified, not expanded. We already the guide to RfA for explaining this, so the I don't see a reason that the instructions on this page can't be aimed just at bureaucrats. Angela. 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This page is mainly about bureaucrats and their responsibilities, with some basic non-exhaustive procedures mentioned. This looks to me like trying to include the full details on how arbitration works on WP:AC/C. Johnleemk | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument we had this past weekend made clear that people do not sufficiently understand how bureaucrats go about the RfAs. The above is not saying anything that isn't already done today. It's just making it clear to those who have questions. By adding clarity it will help avoid the heat and fury that was thrown around this weekend from all sides in the future. This is not instruction creep but rather clarification of existing procedure. There is really nothing added that good bureaucrats don't already do (thereby adding nothing to their load). Instead it relieves them because it adds to the understanding of others and thereby reduces possible confrontation and that helps everyone. Regarding Angela's point, fact is that people look to the bureaucrats' instructions because that's the horse's mouth. It would be wrong to ignore that behavior. It would be wise to write them so that both groups can take away what they need. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One point seems to be submerged in all of this. Unlike a number of other Wikipedia activities, there is nothing permanent in failing an RfA nomination. Nominees are encouraged to return in as little as a month. Related to that, it seems that every time someone disagrees with a Bureaucrat decision, we have calls for "fixing the process." When Wikipedians were asked whether they trust the current system in regard to the way Bureaucrats are handling it, they overwhelming affirmedWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_27#Poll:_Is_Bureaucracy_in_Need_of_Reform. IOW, if the process ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Cecropia 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this comment is all about. You know this proposal doesn't intend to change the process. It merely aims to provide clarity to those who have questions about how it works by explaining what process is currently being followed. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I can see that this is a well intentioned proposal by Mmounties and, no doubt, born out of the aftermath of AzaToth's failed RfA. Unfortunately, I see no need to modify the "instructions" as they stand. This proposal adds nothing substantive to them, other than more words and the explicit addition of the mathematical formula to calculate the relevant percentage. The necessary procedures are already adequately documented. Mistakes are made by humans, but adding this information would probably not have averted the miscalculation made in AzaToth's RfA. Regardless of any miscalculation, it was still below 75%, but that is another debate that has been played out elsewhere. Please, let's not revive it here. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Cactus.man. Just to make it clear though, and I have stated this before, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that AzaToth's candidacy failed. I think he would have deserved it but I respect the rules. This proposal has, however, everything to do with trying to avoid the same sort of aftermath and painful fallout we had over this failed candidacy when the next close, "AzaToth 1"-type of candidacy comes around. Because it will come. And the "aftermath" is entirely avoidable. What's more, it is easily avoidable. It makes absolutely no sense to have "instructions" for the bureaucrats here and different instructions/explanations for the general public elsewhere. The "instructions" to the bureaucrats should be written in a way that is sufficient for both (i.e., similar to the proposed text) and the other page should point to here for this part of the RfA process. Currently neither instructions or explanations satisfy this very basic requirement. That, and only that, is what this proposal is about. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(copied here from User talk:Mmounties) --Mmounties (Talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC):"...I understand that you are after a wider clarification for the avoidance of further mistakes. I can support that aim, but your proposal on the page does not address that issue in my opinion. It adds nothing of substance to, or clarification of, the intended process, other than the mathematical formula. I really don't think that's necessary, I'm sure all WP bureaucrats know how to calculate the relevant percentage. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See response below. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The minor clerical error at the heart of all this was caused by the clocks in the UK going forward by one hour and thus no longer being aligned with UTC. Nothing in the proposed instructions (which I don't think are necessary) would have avoided that, or will avoid it in future. -Splash^talk 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Cactus.man and Splash mistakenly deduct from what I have previously said that this language is intended to eliminate mistakes on the part of bureaucrats. This is an erroneous deduction. Not only do I believe bureaucrats know the process, but I think they know it so well that they do not see that their "instructions" do not clearly explain it to others who come to this page to help gain an understanding of the process. The proposed language is not intended for the benefit of bureaucrats, except to the extent that it will help eliminate some of their stress by clarifying the process to everyone else who comes here to get clarification. I agree that the proposed language would not have avoided the innocent error (yes, I firmly believe it was accidental and not intended). What it would have avoided is a lot of pain and stress by helping everyone understand the process that is followed by bureaucrats. For that reason the clarification provided in this language is very much necessary. Again, the aim is not to eliminate innocent mistakes (that would be futile as mistakes are a necessary by-product of just about any human activity). The aim is to give a better explanation of the existing process to everyone else in the community. I have written too many user guides and software instructions and taken too many support calls from users who misunderstood what everyone in the know thought were clear instructions, to not know that the language that's currently on this page does not suffice for that purpose. It is therefore in the interest of everyone, bureaucrats in particular, to modify it so that it does provide clarity to all those in the community who don't already know. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are not going to get anyone to agree to this if you are to insist on including a formula in it. It's more or less out of the question. With that gone, the new wording you propose doesn't add anything apart from a lot of words, so, given the desire to actively avoid m:Instruction creep, why bother? If people don't understand from the instructions that candidacies with less than about 75% support fail, those with more than about 80% support succeed and those in between are subject to a non-explicit bureaucrat determination, then well, I don't think we can help them. And if the use of the word "about" is the problem, then they just need some time to get used to how Wikipedia works. -Splash^talk 14:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. IMHO this latest statement of Splash is incredibly arrogant. First off, there is nothing "instruction creepy" about any of the proposed language as it adds nothing to the process that is already followed. It just makes it clearer to the uninitiated. But it is quite apparent now that it is YOU who cannot see past the AzaToth candidacy, let's get that part straight. It is also becoming quite clear that you really don't respect the community (how else could you so non-chalantly insult new users?) and that you don't care whether others can take away from this page how the process works. What's more, after this last statement I must come to the conclusion that you don't consider it in your best interest that they do. Let it be stated that this is very unwiki-like. I've tried my best to help eliminate misunderstandings and conflict but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that perhaps those misunderstandings serve a hidden purpose of some of the involved here. But you really don't want to eliminate them, do you?! Heck, if nothing else, it gives you a chance to feel superior and tell others off from time to time because "they don't know what the process is, anyway?!" I suppose it's not surprising then that you would flat-out refuse to remove or even honestly consider to remove the obstacles to such a clearer understanding. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to misunderstand in the instructions as they stand. They're simply written, and comprehensive. So they don't include a formula. It makes no difference to the fact that they are right. What do you suspect my hidden purpose might be, especially since I can't promote users to admins anyway? But, since you're no longer on the Azatoth thing, what is that you think could be misunderstood from the current instructions? It seems that the only difference would be the handling of "neutrals". Though honestly, if we're about to start muttering about conspiracy theories, then... -Splash^talk 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The information on sysoping should really be on an RfA page or somewhere else where the general community should be able to readily access it, not the Bureaucrats page. When you set down these procedures step-by-step like this, it can have the effect of giving people something new to parse, and nitpick, and argue about. This is not like Admin instructions; there are eight Bureaucrats currently performing promotions. They are supposed to know all this before even applying for the position. When a new bcrat makes an error, they hear about it big time (in fact, even if they don't make an error--look at Francs). If they have made an error, then a more seasoned bcrat (usually me) explains to them what was wrong, and why, and what procedure is. If the day comes when we start adding bcrats like cannon fodder in wartime, so that these instructions would really be needed, I think RfA will have become such a mess that the instructions won't much matter. Anyway, Angela says we already have this information posted for the general community, so duplication is not a good idea. There should be one definitive place where the curious can have their questions answered. -- Your Cecropia 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that it should be posted only in one place. But if it is placed on the guide to RfAs page, then the above proposed language really should not be stated again, in ANY form on the bureaucrat page but perhaps rather have a referral to the guide to RfAs. That would be perfectly acceptable. Having said that though, I've read over the applicable sections on guide to RfAs page and they don't explain the process of determining whether to promote or not to promote either. The proposed language would therefore need to be added almost in it's entirety to that page. But I agree with you, that it would probably be better to have it there so not to give the impression that bureaucrats don't know how to go about the process. --Mmounties (Talk) 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack! When I saw the long Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... o I was afraid I died but didn't know it, like in Ghost. But I see it's just because I resigned. I feel better now. -- Cecropia 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" looks like talk page vandalism to me. We must block Jeffrey ;). NoSeptember ^talk 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

100 actions

We now have had more than 100 name changes in the past 30 days. I just removed Warofdreams from the active name change list because his last action was February 22nd. Rdsmith4 will shortly be removed for having his last change on March 3rd. Perhaps doing it by the last 100 changes makes for too short a time period. We could do it by "last 3 months" or "last 2 months" or whatever. Thoughts? NoSeptember ^talk 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to follow the last 100 because the ability to display the last 100 changes is built into the software. There is no special disability in being on the "less active" list and it encourages bureaucrats to be more active. So why make it more complex? -- Cecropia 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but with name changes, sometimes they can do 20 at one sitting. We could set it for the last 250. For that matter, one can edit the Url to "limit=X" and get a list of any X length long. NoSeptember ^talk 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an upper limit of 5000 on all such limit parameters. This comes from the software. Rob Church (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also - not every name change is valid/required - this is encouraging people to do unneccessary name changes. Secretlondon 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Activity lists

I have merged these because I don't see any particular value in maintaining three different "degrees" of activitiy. I think that it is worthwhile to separate out those bureaucrats who have never participated in any bureaucrat-related duties in order to give the reader an idea of the number of 'crats who are actively partcipating. Further subdivisions seem unhelpful, particularly when the logs are readily available for those who are interested in exact details. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Activity reports

I was just noticing, as I was discussing the new bot flagging responsibilities with someone, that quite a few of the individuals listed as "active" haven't done anything since the beginning of the year. Would anyone object to moving bureaucrats who have not done anything since the beginning of the year into the "inactive" category? It seems a bit deceptive to list someone who hasn't done anything since March, June, or September 2005 as "active." Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I updated the lists and changed the scheme to read active in the last three months. --Durin 16:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

revert history?

Are bureaucrats able to revert confusing and unclear (due to high-frequency editing) history pages? If not, who is? -- dreadlady 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can revert history pages; some revisions can be deleted, either with deletion and selective restoration by an administrator, by hiding revisions by an oversight, or direct database manipulation by a developer, but this is only done to remove personal information or libelous content. Every version of every article (excluding those removed for personal information or libel) must be available via the history page in order to comply with the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More information is available at Wikipedia:Oversight by the way. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Check History

The instructions for sysoping curently read Check the history for the transcluded page to be reasonably sure that the votes are genuine. but that makes no sense as transcluded pages aren't included in histories. Surely the bureaucrat should check the history of the transcluded page where the "votes" are made. I was bold and changed the wording, calling it a typo, but was reverted, so I'm asking here if the wording has another meaning that is simply opaque to me. Eluchil404 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it tells us to check "the history for the transcluded page". This means the history of the page that is being transcluded. The history of the transcluded pages (all the specific RfAs) are not included in the history of the RfA main page, so we must check each RfA's own history when closing. It seems clear enough to me, but then again this is such a basic wiki-structure knowledge that it really goes without saying. In any case, it doesn't seem to be too important, really, since we would still check the history, regardless of how exactly this sentence is worded. If you are closing a discussion on Wikipedia, you check the history of the page you're closing, it's Admin procedure 101 — and it applies to closing RfAs and (if it's the case) sysoping a user. Redux 11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right as to procedure but at least to my ear "check the history for the transcluded page" doesn't mean that. It means check the main pages history to see the transcluded page. As you say one should check the history of the transcluded page itself. Eluchil404 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(This is purely a question of semantics not of actual policy which is why I described my change of "for" to "of" as fixing a typo. Eluchil404 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

I believe the original sentence was worded as in something like "for that particular case, the steps taken were(...)". Since the history of each RfA is not included in the history of the main RfA page, we must check the history for the transcluded page (the history of that specific RfA), as opposed to checking the history of the main RfA page for the history of each RfA, which will not be there. Redux 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A slight modification

During a recent event in RfA, a [known, but often left-aside] situation caused me to think about a detail in the structuring of this page. I'd do it myself right away, but I thought it would be interesting to get a little feedback here first.
I propose we move the account Dannyisme to a sui generis line, removing it from the "inactive" list. That's because Dannyisme really is a sui generis account: it belongs to Danny and it exists (and holds admin and Bureaucrat status) solely for the purposes of WP:OFFICE. As such, it is not really supposed to be active in the common assertion of the term. I'm thinking it's somewhat misleading to have it listed as an "inactive Bureaucrat". Thoughts? Redux 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, Dannyisme sure isn't inactive. Oh, while you're at it, I added some pics to Commons. Check out (Image:special.makesysop.png) (Image:special.makebot.png) and (Image:special.renameuser.png). ~Kylu (u|t) 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note:Does it seem logical to have "inactive bureaucrats" under "Curently Active bureaucrats"? New Babylon

Not terribly so, no. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A more significant modification

While writing on the Bureaucracy of the English-language Wikipedia, specifically about the active Bureaucrats, I came to think that the list on this page is not really reflecting the actual state of affairs. So, based on recent activity (Bureaucrat logs) and inspired in the list of Administrators, I would like to propose the following rearrangement of the list:

• Active Bureaucrats: in reality, there are 4 Bureaucrats performing the duties with a degree of regularity (which should define "active"): myself (Redux), Essjay, Taxman and Nichalp.
• Semi-active Bureaucrats: that would be new for this page. I propose we list there the Bureaucrats who are not inactive, but who have been using the tools only sporadically. According to my assessment, at this point in time those would be: Angela, Danny, Ilyanep, Linuxbeak, Pakaran, UninvitedCompany and Warofdreams.
• Inactive Bureaucrats: that would be everyone else, except for Dannyisme, which is a sui generis account (and should stay in a separated place).

Thoughts? Redux 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Noticing that the present active/inactive distinction is already based on use of the specific tools, and not on general activity (editing namespaces or using Administrator tools). Redux 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such a fine gradation of meaning is significant. I originally broke the list into "active" and "inactive" segements to make it clearer to the community that there were only a handful of people actually performing promotions at all. Many of the "first wave" bureaucrats have had no ongoing interest in RFA. There are more bureaucrats now, and although a distinction between active and inactive is still relevant, I don't believe we need a sorted list updated quarterly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, Danny's "sui generis" role is that of a steward; the fact that his Dannyisme account has the 'crat flag set may be an oversight. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Semi-active" is a good midway description, in my view. Right now, we are considering as "active" Bureaucrats that have been mostly inactive as of recently. At the same time, it would be too much to name as "inactive" users who have, even if occasionaly, been using the tools. This method of listing would also have the advantage of requiring less updating. Right now, the list of "active" Bureaucrats uses the reference of activity in a given period of time (the past three months as of X), which, in actuality, is already in need of updating (which would result in moving some of the Bureaucrats currently described as "active" to the "inactive" list). This new method would already recognize that some Bureaucrats are not inactive, but they only use their tools sporadically.
About the other point, Danny is a Steward of the Wikimedia Foundation, not of the English-language Wikipedia per se. He holds this status on the Meta-Wiki (that is, his account over there does), not on Wikipedia itself. But more importantly, Dannyisme is a sui generis account in the sense that it was set up for a unique purpose: to be used in the WP:OFFICE actions. As such, it is not going to be active in the common assertion of the term: Danny doesn't use it to perform regular Bureaucrat functions, which means that it is always going to be an "inactive Bureaucrat". Besides, it is not a separate individual, but rather it is opperated by Danny, a condition unique amidst all the accounts with Bureaucrat access. Redux 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i got married in june and then moved from california to new york. but i am now ready to become active again as a bureaucrat. Kingturtle 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)