Misplaced Pages

:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:17, 1 November 2009 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Chzz (Moved from Talk:RfA)← Previous edit Revision as of 00:19, 1 November 2009 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Chzz (Moved from Talk:RfA): strong evNext edit →
Line 108: Line 108:
CheckUser {{confirmed}} Chzz = 龗. What I can say on wiki is the evidence is very convincing. Also found the "new user testing" account he mentioned. I am blocking 龗 and the new user test account. Will await community input on what to do with Chzz since an RFA is involved. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC) CheckUser {{confirmed}} Chzz = 龗. What I can say on wiki is the evidence is very convincing. Also found the "new user testing" account he mentioned. I am blocking 龗 and the new user test account. Will await community input on what to do with Chzz since an RFA is involved. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:Do the other rights (accountcreator, rollback etc) need to be removed? --] (] ]) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC) :Do the other rights (accountcreator, rollback etc) need to be removed? --] (] ]) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::This CU evidence is so strong, I wouldn't have a problem doing that. That 龗 was created when Chzz went on break makes it even more suspicious.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:19, 1 November 2009

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Centralized discussion
    Bureaucrat tasks
    Archiving icon
    Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50



    This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats. Click here to add a new section Shortcuts

    The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

    This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

    If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

    To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 0
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 18
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 13:39:42 on January 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.



    Removal of sysop status - Mattinbgn

    For the information of local bureaucrats, I have requested removal of my sysop status here. Thanks, Mattinbgn\ 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    Noted, thank you for your contributions. MBisanz 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    Notice given to KWW

    I made this change to Andre's statement. I think this is what Andre meant, but it is critical that it be clear. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    I think you're splitting hairs but I don't object to the clarification. Andre (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    Arbitration Committee Elections 2009 - Invitation for Questions

    Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.

    The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    What does this have to do with crats? — RlevseTalk15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps UltraExactZZ was under the impression that this is a major Misplaced Pages noticeboard that many users will have on their watchlists, and that it would be a good means of disseminating an important message. ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Surely if one wants to achieve maximum global awareness for an internal Misplaced Pages election, the simplest method is to start a thread at Misplaced Pages Review? Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    True. It would also probably generate more interesting questions too. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    I have to say, having faced the inquisistion last year, that the idea of these questions (both group and individual ones) accumulating from now to 1 December (i.e. more than month!) sends a shiver down my spine. I wonder if we are putting off those who would make good arbitrators but don't have the stomach for answering such a volume of questions. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    I agree with you in principle, but it's to be noted that an ability to answer questions and justify views is critical to the role. In other words, the arbs need to have the stomach for it. —Anonymous Dissident 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Arbcom is one of those things that unless you've actually been on it, you have no idea how bad it really is. — RlevseTalk10:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Is there any way to improve conditions? RxS (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Given that no matter what arbs/arbcom decides lots of users will howl at the moon, probably not--there are simply too many divergent views on how to handle any given situation, but it's not arbcom's job to make everyone happy, their job is to handle non-content cases that the community can't or hasn't been able to handle. Nonarbs simply do not understand how big the workload is either. It's enough to be a full time job, but it doesn't pay anyone's bills. Then throw in trying to get enough of the sitting arbs to argee on what to do, and I'm amazed anything gets done at all. AUSC and BASC were good moves, they took a lot of investigatory work off the arbs work load. Then consider arbs a top targets of trolls, banned users, outers, etc, and maybe you start to see the picture better. — RlevseTalk15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    A profusion of candidate questions can serve at least one useful screening function: any candidate who burns out on the question phase definitely isn't equipped for what the arbitrators actually deal with. It's a sample of what's to come. Durova 02:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. If you consider the volume of questions (some of them of very questionable relevance) and the time frame in which responses are expected, I don't think that does reflect what we ask of arbitrators. Arbitrators are expected to show sound judgment and to explain their actions and decisions quickly and clearly. We don't expect them to provide their stance on various points of wiki-philosophy and wiki-factionalism in detail and at length whenever someone cares to ask...
    I am sure there are good arbitrator candidates who could handle the workload and explain their decision making process rationally and concisely, but who have little stomach for the Spanish Inquisition the election process is bound to become. WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    There probably isn't any way to remove all the chaff without discarding wheat. That's a bit like reading evidence, after all: separating signal from noise is essential to good arbitrating. Durova 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    (ec - also) Well, separating signal from noise is definitely a skill a good arb should have. I am not sure however that the best way to find out who has those skills is to just bombard candidates with questions. I have to say that if I listed the qualities I would like an arbitrator to have, "not being stupid enough to undergo this whole election process" would be one. Which is a self-defeating requirement (I guess I'd have to vote against anyone who stands). And also rules me out!
    Seriously though, I do think both of us could easily come up with people who, through our experience of interacting with them on this project, we think would do a good job on the committee but who would be willing to run given the nature of the current selection process. WJBscribe (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    The selection process is the least of it. Durova 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Oh I don't know, we're stuck with the candidates the selection process produces - until they're forced to resign that is... WJBscribe (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict, in which I independently used the wheat/chaff line) Well, I was never an arbitrator, but having observed it for a long time, I would be inclined to agree that a necessary trait for an effective one is a tolerance for explaining oneself at length even in the face of questionably relevant concerns, and a level-headedness that can reassure even some of the more radical elements in the Wiki political sphere. And the workload is definitely a significant part of it, so a lot of tedious questions should be an effective way to cull out the wheat from the chaff. Andre (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    By the same taken, the real point of the exercise has to be examined if its main function is not to extract meaningful information by way of well-considered questions, but rather to drown the unworthy in a sea of questions not useful to anyone. I see merit in the argument that the ability to handle the number of questions can be an indicator of a candidate's mettle – in fact, I touched on it above – but I'm more inclined to think I'd rather sort the wheat from the chaff on the basis of the quality of answers to penetrating questions. —Anonymous Dissident 07:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    BAG and bot flags -request for explanation for reasoning for this bot's flag

    Moved from WT:CRAT. MBisanz 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    The Bureaucrats project page says, "In like fashion, Bureacrats are expected to exercise judgment ... in granting or removing bot flags on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. ... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner."

    I would like to know the reasoning for granting CyberBot a flag in this BRFA. I do not see any community consensus for this task. In fact, I can find a lack of community consensus for the task.

    Please elaborate. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please stop forum shopping this has been explained to you before. this appeared to be a non-controversial issue filling in a template. β 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the move, MBisanz.
    Please stop commenting about me, Betacommand. This is a question, and I am asking the question of bureacrats, not of you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Mmm, looking at the request I think a fair criticism would be the speed with which the BRFA was closed. Less than 36 hours of discussion took place before approval and flagging. I think the closing BAG member - and flagging bureaucrat - could have given more though to whether any objections to the task might arise with a longer discussion. It seems odd to bother with a trial run and not wait to see if it generates feedback from those editing the affected articles. Perhaps less haste in future? WJBscribe (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    It appears to me that bureaucrats may be approving the bots without looking over the discussions. It's clear there is no community consensus for this task mentioned in the discussion, the bot was speedied through, yet the bot adds thousands of links to wikipedia via filling in a template parameter. The system, as it currently stands, requires community consensus, but bots are approved by BAG members without community consensus, possibly on the belief that no disagreement can constitute consensus. I think that there should be a number of places where a bot could be questioned for community consensus. Is the bureaucrat flagging one of them? I don't know, but I am curious about the flagging of this particular bot. The RFBA does not indicate the bot meets the bot policy requirements for a bot, and, imo, it should not have been flagged. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    "It appears to me that bureaucrats may be approving the bots without looking over the discussions". That's quite a strong claim - what bit of the discussion you linked to do you think wasn't considered by the bureaucrat who flagged the bot? I can see an issue with the discussion not having lasted longer (meaning that opposition was not voiced), but I do not see what part of the discussion you think was not read.
    "No disagreeement can constitute consensus". Isn't this self-evidently true? WJBscribe (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't intend it to be that strong, that's why I said "may," but in relation to this task and bot there is no community discussion whatsoever. The BRFA doesn't indicate that there was a request for the bot or a discussion about the bot anywhere. The operator merely proposes the bot, discusses his test edits, then it's approved. So, from this discussion it appears that a bureaucrat flagged this bot without looking over the discussion. If a bureaucrat had looked over the discussion while considering bot policy, he/she might have asked where the community request/input/discussion for the bot was and noted the entire BRFA process took less than 48 hours.
    So, in that light, no comment by bot operator about request, no community input links, no discussion of the desirability of the task, and rapid approval with input from only the approving BAG member in less than 48 hours might indicate that the bureaucrat flagging the bot did not review the discussion at all.
    No, it's not self-evidently true. In particular in a case where the post was up and approved in less than 48 hours. Or when there has been no agreement, either. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    In terms on moving forward, what exactly is the problem with this bot? How many users are unhappy with the task it is performing? WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    I would refer this to WP:RFC/BOT to answer those very valid questions. MBisanz 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) There was discussion of CobraBot's Task 1 at AN/I and the Village Pump which sparked a discussion regarding possibly modifying the involved template at Template_talk:Infobox_book#Worldcat_Weblink (which fizzled out without any decisive action). Primary objectors included User:Gavin.collins and User:Phil Bridger. However, no one appealed Task 1 to BAG until IP69 did just now. For CobraBot Task 2, only IP69 has objected; Phil Bridger even approved of Task 2. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    (e/c)I would typically agree with Matt here, except that CobraBot task 1 is basically finished, and the account has been approved for other, less controversial tasks. The unhappiness was caused because the template links to an external site when a field is filled in - there is no consensus for such a link, but the bot isn't, strictly speaking, adding a link, i.e. it's no more got consensus than if Cobra went through and added the fields manually. The BAG approver appears to have made the assumption that the construct of the template would have consensus, and that it wasn't directly related to the bot task. On that basis, filling in the fields was uncontroversial - and arguably still is. The discussion should be on the template's talk page, but in my opinion there is no benefit to removing the flag from this account Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    There is a discussion about the template and OCLC usage here. And discussions about community consensus here.
    However, here I would like understand how and why this bot was flagged considering the nature of its RFBA which includes no community input and no discusion of community consensus. So, my question is who flagged this bot and why? According to the instructions at the bureaucrats board that indicates "Bureaucrats are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." Thank you. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for, or why you have again quoted that particular sentence. The discussion you've linked to shows no disagreement whatsoever to the flagging of this bot. The bureaucrat who flagged the bot did judge the consensus correctly based on the available information - the BRFA. Now, as I said above, I agree that the BRFA should have run longer. Had it done so, a different discussion might have resulted and a bureacrat evaluating that discussion might well have decided not to flag the bot. I am not sure what you mean but the fact that it includes "no community input". Every participant in this project is part of the community. For something to have no community input, it would therefore need no one to comment on it. In this case, community input was limited but not non-existent.
    In any event, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we seem to be getting a bit carried away with the fine points of this particular approval. Is there something very wrong with what the bot is doing? Can you point to a discussion that shows that the community has rejected the changes it has made? If so, then of course they should be reversed. If not, then I'm not sure what positive result this discussion can have... WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Not broken don't fix? Agree with WJB. We have any number of essays, guidelines and policies on this kind of stuff - specifically WP:BOLD comes to mind. Pedro :  Chat  23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    I bolded it again for your benefit. It appears that others think that a bureaucrat may be asked their reasoning, and it's listed as an option on Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats: ask the bureaucrat what their reasoning was. So I have asked. I would like the bureaucrat who flagged the bot to explain why he/she flagged it. I linked to this discussion on their talk page, also. It's a question. It's supposed to be answered in a civil manner. It's not supposed to be answered by wikilawyer-bludgeoning the asker to death-this is not the least civil. So, I'd appreciate being able to ask my question here, about flagging the bot, of the bureaucrat who flagged it. Thank you all.
    I've posted links to discussions about other issues. Please feel free to participate there if you have questions. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well, this isn't User talk:Anonymous Dissident. If you want him to explain something to you, that should be your first port of call... WJBscribe (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't realize I could find the specific bureaucrat. When I did I posted on his talk page. This, however, is the place for the question to be answered, as it's not a user talk page issue. It's about his decision as a bureaucrat. So, I'd like to ask my question and have it answered without any further wikilawyering and commenting about my asking. Thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Your entire approach to this discussion has been rude and confrontational and I don't appreciate your accusation of "wikilawyering". If you want to know why a bureaucrat did something, the place to ask is his talkpage. If you want to discuss the process by which bureaucrats make decisions, then this is the place. But I strongly advise you to adopt a more collegial approach in further discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    No, the place to ask about this matter is here. The invitation to ask is on the WP:Bureaucrat page-if you don't like the policy you're welcome to propose changing it with the community, of course. It's a question that I wanted answered in the broader perspective of the issue with bots and bureaucratic flagging. The place to ask a question that may lead to discussion about broader issues is on a public notice board where other editors can see the question, not on a user talk page. The bureaucrat involved had no problem answering the question directly. I come here to ask an appropriate question about a bureaucratic matter. That's all. The other issues have plenty of links if you want to discuss them. Your continuing to go at me is can be taken elsewhere. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I did review the Brfa for this bot. It certainly struck me as strange at the time that only 2 users had reviewed the bot, but since the pair seemed to have systematically worked through the outstanding issues and the task seemed relatively uncontroversial, I saw no reason to question the approval. In addition to that, Kingpin13 is a much-respected member of the BAG, and his judgement has always seemed sound to me. That's it. It seemed simple and watertight, so the time element didn't worry me and I flagged. I hope that answers your question. —Anonymous Dissident 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Soxbot and CHU

    Why is Soxbot no longer checking rename requests at CHU pages? It's been non active for weeks now. — RlevseTalk20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    no responses, lovely. — RlevseTalk00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    X! is on Wikibreak at the moment. I doubt you'll get a reply until he's back. I suppose we could ask someone to write a replacement bot... WJBscribe (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, sounds like an indef length for X!. I'll ask BAG. — RlevseTalk01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Chzz (Moved from Talk:RfA)

    It has already been identified by others, but User:Chzz appears to have some pretty obvious sock issues. I went to his RfA specifically to support him, and saw some some strange things that concerned me enough to oppose. I honestly believe that if we don't get an extremly convincing explanation, then a 'crat should shut this thing down. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Shouldn't you mention this at WP:BN instead then? Regards SoWhy 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well... yes. Good point. Moving it there now. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Do we really need intercession from the crats? I think the voters will probably react appropriately, and also, it may be helpful to the candidate to hear what they're going to need in a future RfA; I think opinions will probably be all over the place. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Although I only skimmed over the page, could you point out the Sockness please? All i'm seeing is the part about his use of a IP, His approved bot account and the two accounts he is using for the newbie treatment project which several people are participating in by the looks of the mailing list and he has informed the Arbcom of their user names. Peachey88 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    See questions 19-22 in the RfA. Specifically, I'm looking at User:龗 who it should be noted votes frequently, and appeared on the same day that Chzz declared a wikibreak back in June. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    In this edit at 8:15 31 Oct, User:龗 posts an answer to a question at the RFA. In this edit at 8:18 31 Oct, User:Chzz changes the sig on the response to his signature, but in the answer to question 5, he does not dislose the 龗 account. — RlevseTalk00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    CheckUser  Confirmed Chzz = 龗. What I can say on wiki is the evidence is very convincing. Also found the "new user testing" account he mentioned. I am blocking 龗 and the new user test account. Will await community input on what to do with Chzz since an RFA is involved. — RlevseTalk00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Do the other rights (accountcreator, rollback etc) need to be removed? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    This CU evidence is so strong, I wouldn't have a problem doing that. That 龗 was created when Chzz went on break makes it even more suspicious. — RlevseTalk00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    Categories: