Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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	2
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
EggRoll97	62	16	8	79	Open	15:07, 19 April 2025	4 days, 10 hours	no	report
LaundryPizza03	67	71	23	49	Open	03:18, 17 April 2025	1 day, 22 hours	no	report

It is 05:02:36 on April 15, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Concern about actions of an admin

Where is it appropriate to raise concerns about the actions of administrators? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrative action review. See its archives for examples. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes WP:AN or WP:ANI are also appropriate places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But before anywhere else, on the admin in question's talk page, both as a courtesy and to attempt to resolve the problem without any wider dispute resolution. Acalamari 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE has advice for handling conduct disputes with any editor, including admins, and has a subsection on admins with additional information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions is a useful resource for this (although not brilliantly named). Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove copyviobot rights from EranBot

EranBot (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

User:EranBot has been replaced by User:CopyPatrolBot and thus no longer needs to be in the "copyright violation bot" user group. Please feel free to remove it. Thanks to @1AmNobody24 for alerting me to this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done copyviobot flag removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LP03's RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03

I've kind of "paused" it, for reasons I expand on in my note there. There is obviously a disconnect here - LP03 edited earlier today, but not the RFA, and things are probably to go even more pear-shaped if this just continues. I wanted to make you guys aware I'm pseudo-cratting, in case you want to yell at me, and (more) to encourage one of you to just shut it down as unsuccessful. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the candidate is active, and this isn't WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW? So what is the reason this candidate shouldn't be allowed to have their RFA running? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year - the general outcome for poorly performing RFA's is that the candidate withdraws. There is a 2020 precedent for "early closure", but that had the element of the candidate being consistently offline as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have revisited the RfA since it started heading south, which has caused more opposes. They should have an opportunity to confirm that they want to proceed before events get ahead of them. If they indicate that they want to proceed then it should if course be reopened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That how the candidate behaves while they have an RFA open is having an effect on their request is to be expected. Similarly, their decision to withdraw or not could influence future such requests. This "pausing" may be disruptive to the rest of the community should this request be resumed. Do we start a new full review period (as some editors may have only been available during the pause)? Does the review period get extended? Is there just lost time? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HJ Mitchell. I'll also add that this seems like a reasonable (if bold!) use of WP:IAR based on the unusual circumstances. We can always convert this to an early closure later. Floquenbeam has already reached out to LaundryPizza03 so let's give them a chance to respond. I'd also understand if it takes a bit of time because reengaging in this type of situation can be daunting. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think users should never be forced to withdraw their applications. If you run, you have the rights to have that run to completion.

I don't see a particularly strong reason to go against this. It would be nice if the user was to state they wish to continue, but they are clearly active and are aware that the RfA is in progress. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't about taking away anyone's rights. The pause seems to have been intended to be a proactive step to prevent a situation from escalating further, allowing the candidate a chance to reengage thoughtfully, or at least explain what happened. Pausing the RFA, in this case, helped prevent unnecessary disruption. WP:NOTBURO applies here too. We should be more concerned about retaining and helping a member of the community than enforcing the letter of the law so they can be subjected to... whatever you would call what was happening today. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commented about this here, and would welcome discussion about possibly standardising this act of kindness for bureaucrat action. - jc37 20:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that this request is approaching a snow situation, of the requesters own doing. But that can just be called out for what it is. I'd certainly consider other options if the requester was suddenly inactive (perhaps a real life emergency came up) - but I don't think we need to codify something like that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the candidate stopped editing for 24 hours without any notice, we would pause an arbcom case (and have, if I remember correctly), so why shouldn't we do that for RfA? Closing seems like overkill, when we don't know (yet) what's going on. And if the editor returns and re-transcludes the RfA, no harm, no foul. And if they don't within the 7 days, then just close it as abandoned, and life goes on. - jc37 20:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This candidate was active ~12 hours ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but until then, this could have been paused. And we still don't know what may have been going on. If we had a formal process to pause, then when they returned they now had the choice to let it go or to re-open. I doubt that it would look like it does now, if it had been paused at the 24 hour mark.

All that aside, I was thinking in general, not necessarily about this specific situation, though this situation does shine a light on it. - jc37 20:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, as a candidate, you don't really have anything other to do than to answer the questions (and worry constantly in my case).

I don't know why we'd pause it because the candidate didn't visit the site in one day. As there's no deadline on answering questions (or indeed, any requirement to do so at all), even a successful RfA can go on without the candidate for a few days. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to agree with you, however, there were plenty of opposes which apparently disagree. So I'm trying to look at what the current situation "is", rather than what we might wish it were. - jc37 21:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crats are under no obligation to give those weight. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Our policies are based upon common practice and consensus. so it's not a bad idea as an initial step, to find out what the community's expectations are and address them. Even if they are a minority's mistaken expectations, it's important to know that too. We tend to want to help and guide, rather than merely policing the area, blindly following written rules. And sometimes those "rules" are unwritten - jc37 02:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors cannot turn something the community has said is optional (on more than one occasion) into something that is required. I would certainly support efforts to clarify if that consensus still holds, but doing so in the middle of a specific RfA does not follow policy, practice, or consensus in my experience and view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:IAR exists for a reason.

Second, that aside, what I was saying is that we should identify these things as a start of a discussion, not the end of it. If you read what I wrote above, I was talking about the possibility of creating a formal process. - jc37 04:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am largely away, as I have been for the last couple of days and indeed multiple comments have come in as I've tried to write this comment. So I'm in no position to examine past practice. On a basic level I agree with Xaos that this pausing is not a good state for this RfA. I also agree with Floq that I'm not sure this RfA should remain open. It has nothing to do with not answering questions - they are labeled optional and that reflects community consensus about them - or activity of the candidate and is purely about the performance. I think this pause is not a stable state and thus not an appropriate invocation of IAR. But also I am not sure it should remain open given either (this is where I'd need to examine past practice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

trying to catch up to the comments, but since I read the last one first: this is certainly not intended to be a stable state. It's intended to be a "pause", until either (a) LP03 states that they want this open (and then someone unpauses), or (b) someone (IMHO preferably a crat) closes this (and then replaces the pause with a close). Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I don't think it's stable at this moment and not just on waiting for the two possible next states you've identified; put more clearly I'd supoort the pause being reversed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to reply to most comments above in one reply; please let me know if there's something I don't address. My main thought process is, there is some kind of serious disconnect here, beyond a mere miscommunication. If this was a noob trying to run an RFA way too early, and just didn't know what was going on, we'd snow close it. If it was an experienced editor who saw that things were going poorly, they'd withdraw (or, alternately, state that they want it to stay open, maybe to get more feedback or something). There has literally never been a case of an experienced editor, who very well could maybe have passed if this was handled differently, just never responding to anything in the RFA at all, nor to messages on their talk page; logging in a half a day later, editing a few pages that have nothing to do with the RFA, and then logging off while ignoring the RFA, and still ignoring the messages on their talk page. So no, it's not just that they haven't logged in since it was opened. If you're a crat, or anyone really, who thinks this should be re-opened, go for it (maybe check the comments on the RFA talk page and my talk page). If you're a crat, or anyone really, who thinks this should be snow-closed, then go for it (I only avoided it because in my experience this gets shouted down if done by non-crats in a situation that isn't 1/34/1). But something pretty weird is happening here, that I have never seen before, and saying "this isn't what we usually do" isn't really useful information. I'm trying to save us from losing an editor because they feel poorly treated, while also not letting a guaranteed unsuccessful RFA fester and cause more bad feelings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I typed all that in a rush, I meant to add: the other reason I "paused" it is because I generally don't think it's clear whether leaving it alone is better, or snow closing it is better, so allowing the candidate to come back and say "I didn't realize how it worked, I've got answers to all the questions" is still a possibility. It keeps the most options open. If it does reopen, the crats can decide how to handle extending the clock, that's a relatively easy decision. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't want to lose an editor but I'm 100% unconvinced this novel action is the way to not lose that editor; not the least because now we're having this conversation at a somewhat prominent venue. I'm not convinced we should have crats and I'm incredibly sympathetic to the situation where the crats are so hidebound that admins feel the need to invoke IAR. Thats what I read the messages, minus one, on your talk page as being about rather than plaudits for deciding to invent a new RfA mechanism that has now left the candidate confused about how to proceed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, you are correct that I ran too early, particularly concerning the lack of understanding regarding Question 2 and expectations of participation. I've always felt averse to checking upon responses to dubious actions of myself. I would particularly need help on Question 2. Where should I post answers to questions raised in the RfA? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to carry on with the RFA, then I'll unpause it, and you would answer the questions in the RFA iteself, under each question. Where the "A" is. That's what you want to do? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 you wish to continue the rfa? Based on this I'm assuming the answer is yes and so I'm going to do my best on mobile to reopen your rfa so you can answer there. But if you've decided you ran too early we can also close this as withdrawn and you can work on the answers for a future rfa. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaundryPizza03. You might want to consider withdrawing your RFA for the time being. That will give you time to participate in some RFAs in the coming months to get more familiar with how the process works and what people expect. Based on the comments, it also seems like there might be some "resume building" areas. Another option would be signing up for the next administrator election. I'd also encourage you to seek out one or two mentors who have recently succeeded at whichever process you decide to pursue in the future. If you do decide to continue with this RFA, please respond in depth to the questions and be ready for a bit of an WP:UPHILLBATTLE. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I echo this. Withdrawing may be the best option since at this point, getting into the "crat chat" threshold is dependent on 1) the answers being sufficient and 2) the content being compelling enough for some of "opposes" to change their stance (which is never guaranteed since there's no guarantee for editors to be required to reexamine their comments.) The only way I can see my 2nd point being invalid is if like 100-ish new participants comment in the RfA as "support" without additional "oppose" votes, and the odds of that are very low. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this does nothing to undermine the advice offered, I will point out that there are two ways to get to crat chat: an influx of new supports or opposes being struck (or perhaps even changed to support). We don't normally see large changes in that direction but we also don't normally have so many opposes based on something addressable at RfA. I hope @LaundryPizza03 considers this when deciding whether to answer the questions or to withdraw (and of course answering the questions doesn't stop a later withdrawal or SNOW close). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ...Yeah, because I swear I just said that, but in different wording. 😀 Anyways, me signing off BN since I ain't a bureaucrat. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at unsuccessful RfAs as far back as 2017, RfAs below 50% were allowed to continue until either the 7 days ran out or a candidate withdrew, unless it was closed very early (much earlier than this) as a NOTNOW or SNOW. I have personal feelings about the wisdom of this (which I noted above). As a crat I enact the will of the community and I am not aware of anything that would suggest the community wants a change from past practice. I do have thoughts about the role of crats in RfAs and especially RfAs like this but I think that discussion is better outside the middle of an RfA. So I reluctantly find myself supporting the skepticism shown by my colleagues Xaosflux and Lee Vilenski above about closing this RfA at this time. However, I do think if an RfA is well attended and is well into the 30s, we have precedent to close regardless of the time open. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(non-crat comment) Generally agreed with what Lee said. The fact of the matter is that RfA conventions are primarily procedural. I don't necessarily think it was a bad usage of IAR, but probably imperfect. --qedk (t 愛 c) 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]