impersonating an admin |
|||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
Barring something I don't know about, like a rename, [[User:Suspected%20Drunk%20Driver]] is impersonating an admin. see |
Barring something I don't know about, like a rename, [[User:Suspected%20Drunk%20Driver]] is impersonating an admin. see |
||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Suspected%20Drunk%20Driver no admin rights showing on rights], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suspected_Drunk_Driver contribs], and [[User:Suspected_Drunk_Driver|user page where he claims he's an admin]]. He's also performing admin actions like disapproving unblock requests. The knowledge he shows is way beyong that of a brand new user. I'm only notifying here, not blocking, in case there's something I don't know about. I'm also notifying CU [[User:Alison]] and arbcom.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Suspected%20Drunk%20Driver no admin rights showing on rights], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suspected_Drunk_Driver contribs], and [[User:Suspected_Drunk_Driver|user page where he claims he's an admin]]. He's also performing admin actions like disapproving unblock requests. The knowledge he shows is way beyong that of a brand new user. I'm only notifying here, not blocking, in case there's something I don't know about. I'm also notifying CU [[User:Alison]] and arbcom.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Ali isnt a CU anymore. Try Lar. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:13, 20 March 2008
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elli | 174 | 5 | 2 | 97 | Open | 16:53, 7 June 2024 | 2 days, 11 hours | no | report |
It is 05:39:49 on June 5, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Cobi's RfA
It's overdue, which is no big deal, but how do 'Crats normally deal with !votes that come in past closing time? I think 6 have already been recorded. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- They usually still count I think. Rudget. 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is not a strict procedure for closure. Voices of support and opposition will be counted as long as it is open, even if they occur minutes or hours after the exact week has ended. Under the Closure section of Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship it states:
- "Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a bureaucrat will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date. Do not remove your own RfA from WP:RFA unless you are intentionally withdrawing your nomination from consideration." Kingturtle (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is no rush. However there are four bureaucrats who have edited since this was due to close so it's suprising it's not been done yet. (Rambling Man, WarOfDreams and obviously Kingturtle as well as Stan Shebs who admittedly doesn't perfrom a lot of 'crat actions) Pedro : Chat 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pedro, I recused myself from closing it because I took a position in the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, to be sure, once a Bureaucrat begins checking and reviewing comments, they usually put the whole thing on hold, right? Similar to AfDs and the {{closing}} template, or the recent Riana RfB? !votes added after that closing process begins probably wouldn't count under that system, yes? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Negligible. A single !vote isn't going to be the deciding factor once a 'crat starts looking at an open RfA to be closed, unless that !vote shows that the candidate did something horrible, like blatantly vandalize a page, made a legal threat, punched a baby, etc. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, it is more likely that the longer an RfA stays open, the less likely it is to pass, as one oppose counts for anywhere between 2 and 4 supports. So someone who already is on the bubble is less likely to pass from a purely mathematical standpoint if it stays open longer, which is why I hope the 'crats will use the judgment we selected them for instead of a purely arithmetic decision algorithm. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ultra, I don't think any bureaucrat has started to check and review the RfA - and that's why it is still open. Kingturtle (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was sort of my point, discussion and votes can continue so long as it is open, but would stop once the closing began. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "On the other hand, it is more likely that the longer an RfA stays open, the less likely it is to pass, as one oppose counts for anywhere between 2 and 4 supports. So someone who already is on the bubble is less likely to pass from a purely mathematical standpoint if it stays open longer, which is why I hope the 'crats will use the judgment we selected them for instead of a purely arithmetic decision algorithm. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)" I fail to see the math behind this argument.(and yes, one of my degrees is math based). Thright (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright
- Assuming that people who have not commented on an RfA during the proscribed time are more or less evenly distributed between Support and Oppose. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be glad to be proven wrong; I was basing my assumption on a non-rigourous observation of RfA over time--is there somewhere where I can see DF's analysis? -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "On the other hand, it is more likely that the longer an RfA stays open, the less likely it is to pass, as one oppose counts for anywhere between 2 and 4 supports. So someone who already is on the bubble is less likely to pass from a purely mathematical standpoint if it stays open longer, which is why I hope the 'crats will use the judgment we selected them for instead of a purely arithmetic decision algorithm. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)" I fail to see the math behind this argument.(and yes, one of my degrees is math based). Thright (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright
It has been closed [2] Tiptoety talk 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say when I got up this morning I assumed the Cobi RfA would be long closed and didn't check Wikipedia before I left home. While I would really prefer it if candidates weren't kept waiting this long for closes, the fact that this waiting period was seen a exceptional is encouraging - waits of up to a day used not to be unheard of. WjBscribe 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
New Idea
Here is an idea. Have all positions elected with terms. After the term is finished the user can seek re-election. This does several things, first it creates an exit for admin and crats who cannot perform, second it adds accountability, and third, a good user who once was able but now due to burnout is performing below par is subject to his present status. I would purpose that the number of admin and crats be equal to a percentage of users, for example, 5% of users are admins and 1% are crats - this can be debated-. In any case the above will solve several of the on going conversations and will re-focus the attention on the goals of wiki, which is to build the best source of knowledge ever.Thright (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright
- I reckon that would result in lots and lots of !voting all the time. And I don't think this is the right place to put this discussion, WT:RFA would probably be better. Useight (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Admins can retire any time they want; they just post a request on Meta for their sysop bit to be removed, and it is.
As for your "term" concept, I don't like it; with 855 administrators, we could be spending all our time in re-electing everyone. I dunno about you, but I've got better things to do with my time... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a new idea, Thright. Please see WP:PEREN, especially this section. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really think that voting all the time would distract us even more from article writing than the present process. In any case, I see no reason to stop a productive admin from doing their job just because their term is over. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree if you could point to an effective process that could remove an unproductive admin, without all of the presently attendant drama. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please close per WP:SNOW. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Has anyone bothered to ask Highfields to withdraw? It's only been open for a few hours, though I do agree it isn't going to pass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Untranscluded two malformed RfA's
I have untranscluded two malformed RfA's that were transcluded by someone other than the Nominator's or the candidates. One was not accepted. Both look like early drafts not yet finished. Dlohcierekim 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Untranscluded_two_malformed_RfA.27s on what to do with at least one of them as a WP:SNOW "fail" seems unfair when the candidate didn't transclude. Pedro : Chat 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, this isn't something that requires bureaucratic attention; discussion at WT:RFA is plenty sufficient (not trying to sound snooty, just observing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why has this been marked as historical aka invalid, unimportant, no consensus whatsoever. Any bureaucrat comments highly appreciated. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:23, March 19, 2008
- My take is that it has not been deemed unimportant, but insufferably longwinded, with !votes spread thin among multiple positions thus resulting in a no clear consensus. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Read Kingturtle's statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar#Next step. I think you might be misinterpreting the template... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks EVula. Dorftrottel, please join in on the conversation regarding the next step. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but no thanks. I think I've made my take on things very clear in and around the poll. I'd appreciate more bureaucrat response regarding the poll & how to interpret it, and ideally some discussion about future implementation of changes. Dorftrottel (canvass) 23:50, March 19, 2008
- I think the {{historical}} tag is being misinterpreted. I have replaced it with {{archive}} which probably better reflects the status of the page. WjBscribe 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's no strong consensus for any single one of the options, but that was bound to happen. However, by my reckoning, there's not even a firm consensus, using the standard applied in the past to other polls of this type (80%), for lowering the "bar" at all. I'm counting the "no change" lobby as 40 people, and the "change, please" lobby as 110 people (22+1+71+15+1), which means 73% of those participating favor some amount of change. I'm not sure where to put the last two groups, so I've left them aside.
- However, this fact doesn't worry me terribly much. It's clear enough that a lot of folks want to see us judge RFBs more leniently, so I will begin to do so, and I hope the other bureaucrats will do the same. 85% sounds like a fair place to start. This should not be taken as a permanent policy, nor as a guarantee that the number will grow lower in time: I make no long-term commitments. I would rather ask the community again in a while.
- Dorftrottel -- with regard to the note of protest on your userpage, I should mention, with all due respect to you and Riana, that this result in no way changes my conviction in re Riana's recent request. Even now that the poll has completed, it is not nearly strong enough a mandate to justify applying changes to the mechanics of a process to requests that opened before the changes were implemented. The only conscionable policy is to apply the standard that was in force when the request was opened. Only in the face of the strongest opposition from the community would I consider, to use a tired analogy (forgive me: I am tired), changing the rules while the game is in progress. Furthermore, when Riana's request was closed, the poll had not even completed. To use the same analogy, modified to account for this fact: you would have me, the umpire, change the rules to the game, not only while the game was in progress, but before the rules committee had even finished deliberating. I consider this positively out of the question. — Dan | talk 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I guess, for the explanation. I know Riana's RfB and the poll, although causally related, are seperate issues. Yet I believe she should have been promoted and I continue to do so, that's not affected in any way by the outcome the bureaucrats decided on. Dorftrottel (canvass) 04:26, March 20, 2008
I agree with Dan that no one position won the day, but I think one can still distill a lot of userful information from the comments made. Seeing as the discussion has spread to here from the talkpage, I will restate how I interpret what the community has said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar#Next step:
- I would have preferred a bit more discussion and a little less polling. Reading the discussion as a whole, I don't think its a simple case of suggesting 80% as the new bar - there seems to be a very significant input from people who want to see more discretion based on the strength of opposition argument. Ideally I would look to trying to factor in as much of the opinions expressed into our decision making - not just the one that received most support, or the average figure - even within each section, people's response are quite individual an nuanced. I would propose a fairly loose formulation as a response to this:
- "Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment."
- I wonder if that is a good way to have an approach which factors in as many of the positions expressed as possible? Effectively I'm using what I interpret as the consensus on RfA closing, but acknowledging that the community expectations seem to be about 10% higher if one takes a numerical assessment.
I'm not excluding any groups or trying to determine numerically the results of the poll, just trying to formulate something that validly reflects the opinions expressed there. WjBscribe 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned there, I think your formulation represents an accurate distillation of the discussion. In a nutshell, no one wanted 80% as a sure pass; rather, perhaps it should no longer be the sure fail that it was. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Impersonating an admin
Barring something I don't know about, like a rename, User:Suspected Drunk Driver is impersonating an admin. see no admin rights showing on rights, contribs, and user page where he claims he's an admin. He's also performing admin actions like disapproving unblock requests. The knowledge he shows is way beyong that of a brand new user. I'm only notifying here, not blocking, in case there's something I don't know about. I'm also notifying CU User:Alison and arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)