Cannabis Ruderalis

    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

    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 13
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 21:44:38 on May 11, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

    I don't understand why the 'crats appear to be letting non-crats (and non-admins) make decisions about closing the RfA. The latest thing is it's now supposedly closed by a non-crat and another editor blanked the entire RfA as a "courtesy". Courtesy to whom? As far as I can tell, the candidate has never withdrawn; indeed, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. And even if they had withdrawn, say e-mail a 'crat to express their view, why wouldn't a 'crat then close it as withdrawn? And since when do we blank RfAs? I know 'crats often take a hands-off approach to "regulating" RfAs, but this goes way beyond that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted per above, and to put my onetime bureaucrat hat on, I see no reason to blank it. People are having panic attacks over how mean it is, but actually reading through it, if anything it was pretty tame with a lot of encouragement passed on to the user. It won't be the last one like this with the new rfa reform proposals in place either. Wizardman 23:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoing a courtesy blanking, crat or not, even if you don't think it was needed, is seldom helpful. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as the "another editor" who blanked the RFA after it was closed, I will agree on one point: crats really need to step in here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crats: you need to nip this in the bud with a polite but clear statement that non-Crats should never be doing this. If not, this will happen again, and frankly, this isn't fair to the candidate, who might have logged in only to see it "closed" when it wasn't closed. This is clearly disruptive and needs addressing, for the sake of the candidates. This is WP:RFA, not WP:ANI, the margin of error is a bigger deal. Dennis Brown - 05:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you guys talking about? You don't need a crat to close an RfA early and it's usually not crats that do it. Just like AfDs only need admins when the outcome could plausibly be deletion, RfAs only need crats when the outcome could plausibly be successful. Otherwise it's just a discussion like any other and you don't need a special hat to see which way the wind is blowing. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so personally I'd rather all RfAs were closed either by the user who initiated them or by a crat. However, our exact wording says that any user in good standing can close these discussions.
    I think any RfA that is closed by a non-crat without a withdrawal will always be contentious, so perhaps it is worth changing that to avoid these sorts of conversations in future (as well as the closure revertions and associated drama). Nothing untoward has happened here, but we do have enough crats to be able to monitor and close SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs.
    It's worth noting that we have asked the editor if they wished to withdraw, which would have been my primary reason not to let the RfA run it's course. Personally, if I ran for RfA in good faith, I wouldn't want someone closing it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, lots of SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs have been closed by non-crats without any issues. If crats want to close these discussions, they can certainly do so, but I would oppose any "you have to wait for a crat" rule as a prescriptive measure, given how common it is that the non-bureaucrat closes work perfectly fine. If crats become more active in this regard over the next couple of years and it turns out that 99% of the time, crats are closing these discussions, we can go and descriptively write that into the policy, but that isn't what current practice looks like. —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to an example of a contentious early close before this one? – Joe (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Vilenski Of the 7 unsuccessful RfAs last year, only 2 were closed by crats. In 2022 there were 6 unsuccessful RfAs and none were closed by crats. We have to go back to the 4 unsuccessful runs in 2021 to find a majority of failed RfAs closed by crats. I think any RfA that is closed by a non-crat without a withdrawal will always be contentious, What are you talking about? we do have enough crats to be able to monitor and close SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs. Then why has it been years since any of you have routinely done it? I've come to expect that crats won't step in when NPA and CIV are violated, but now we can't even trust the corps to not get into revert wars when the community does something it always has and is explicitly allowed by the policy you all claim to follow to the letter? The solution you propose is perhaps it is worth changing that to avoid these sorts of conversations in future, but why should we trust in the corps enough to give you more control over the RfA process? Unless the policy change you intend is to remove crats from closing unsuccessful RfAs, given the track record regarding enforcing NPA and CIV (examples from just this year: 1, 2, 3), I don't see why the community should trust the crats with more authority on deciding when an RfA has moved from helpful feedback to demoralizing pile-on. Wug·a·po·des 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as the rules are that anyone CAN close RfAs, then inevitably they will be closed by them. There are a lot more editors who feel that they would be suitable to close the RfA than crats, but I don't think we have too few to be able to handle closing them, if there was a feeling that crats should do the job (as some of the comments here were).
    As a community we either agree that as it is written, it's as it should be and not reopen the discussion as done here. The other option is that we reserve such discussions to be closed by either crats or the nominee. The issue here is people suggesting crats should intervene but in this case it could be closed by any user in good standing per policy. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a difference between closing an RFA and courtesy blanking it. Of course, as this was the first RFA under a new system the action is entirely arguably unprecedented (because there can be no precedent for a first example) so that may make a difference too.
    I'm not sure where is best to discuss it, but coming to some sort of consensus about when RFAs may be snow closed and by who, and the same questions for courtesy blanking would be useful going forwards. Personally I think courtesy blanking should be exclusively for cases where the subject has asked for it, but I have no way of knowing at present how this view aligns or does not align with community consensus - and that's the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You (collectively) were elected to close RfAs if there was a feeling that crats should do the job (as some of the comments here were) of course there is it's pretty much the only thing in your job description. in this case it could be closed by any user in good standing per policy you are "any user". Every crat falls under any user, and more importantly you (collectively) are the only members of that set who have an actual assigned duty to do so. Allowing others to do it is a safety valve, a way to handle situations that move too quickly for crats to be expected to handle. This went on for hours and included a statement from the candidate that made me genuinely concerned for their mental health. The crat response was "is this a withdraw?" Come on. The problem isn't "who is allowed to close SNOW/NOTNOW RFAs". I'd believe that if the most recent archive didn't have examples of crats defending potential religious discrimination in an interview context, being slow to respond to someone allegations that were legitimately considered for OS (might have been I haven't checked), and letting lesser unsupported allegations of inappropriate conduct sit there. The problem here isn't the policy. If crats were proactive in handling this situation (or the prior) we wouldn't be discussing the propriety of non-crat closures. The controversy happened because after waiting around for any of you to do something, someone finally decided that our human sacrifice to the RfA reform god needed to end. And that's how it goes nearly every time, and it's how it will keep going if you all continue to sit on your hands and pretend the problem is everyone else who hasn't been elected to manage the RfA process. The conflict arises because you (collectively) let it, not because of a lack of clarity in the policy of who can do NOTNOW/SNOW closes. Wug·a·po·des 20:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as I participated in the RfA, I was never going to take part in its closure. As such, I'd prefer for other bureaucrats to speak up but none have yet. But speaking in a general sense: As Joe Roe says, the process allows for non-bureaucrats to close obvious SNOW failures. While ToadetteEdit said they weren't withdrawing yet, the outcome of the RfA was not in doubt given the feedback presented and RfAs have been closed early in the past even when the candidate hasn't yet wanted to withdraw. Eventually, people start opposing because the candidate hasn't yet withdrawn.

    Once this particular RfA had been closed, there was no need to re-open. The reopen, plus the addition and subsequent revert of the courtesy blank without consulting ToadetteEdit either way, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Why everyone skipped the discussion phase before reverting each other is beyond me. ProcrastinatingReader wrote this kind message after closing the RfA, whereas everyone else reverted or added to the RfA post-revert without discussing anything. Acalamari 07:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have seen non-Crats do SNOW closes (not optimal but acceptable), but this was something different, particularly given the new rules on when voting would start. It seemed everyone was clustering to handle it, except the Crats. RFA is the domain of Crats, after all, and recent RFCs have indicated that the community wants Crats to be a little more proactive in clerking in general. Dennis Brown - 08:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of potential note, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_17:_Have_named_Admins/crats_to_monitor_infractions will be seeking additional feedback in Phase II of that RFC. — xaosflux Talk 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Said Phase II is currently open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Designated_RfA_monitors. This Phase II should be able to resolve most questions raised here Soni (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is probably worth asking the question in the context of the RFA reform phase 2 of whether early closes (either of the SNOW or the NOTYET kind) are appropriate in the 2-3 day question/discussion only period. Izno (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's been long established that an editor doesn't have to be a bureaucrat to close an RFA per SNOW/NOTNOW. It's also quite clear that the general comments on the RFA in question did not leave passing looking promising. It does look kind of weird, having an early close with a tally of 0/0/0, but the RFC (at least in the closing comment) explicitly states that this trial is for the next five RFAs that aren't closed per SNOW/NOTNOW. Which means that early closures during the trial are acceptable. Useight (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't follow that because early closures are acceptable that this early closure was acceptable. It may or may not have been, but it cannot be inferred. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. As far as I can tell, nothing was explicitly written regarding whether trial period RFAs are subject to the same or different yardstick for early closes. On one hand, the discussion was not favorable. On the other hand, nobody had opposed. Operating under the assumption that early closures exist, at least in part, as a measure to keep the candidate from getting discouraged, I would posit that that discouragement could come from the discussion section just as easily as it could from the oppose section. Useight (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence my suggestion. Izno (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was absolutely NO basis for closing this as "not now" when not a single vote had been registered. This was absolutely brutal and masochistic treatment of the naive candidate, basically slamming the door in their face and essentially telling them that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY supports you. If they decide to withdraw their candidacy, then fine, but this "not now" was beyond the pale. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to close RFAs this way, then just abandon this misguided two-day "discussion", which serves no useful purpose. wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can't just abandon this new discussion system quite yet, but yes, I saw this as rather brutal to the candidate. This is why I was complaining that Crats didn't get involved. Maybe it's time to consider limiting RFA closures to Crats only. This is particularly true with the new discussion system, where consistency is needed. Since only Crats can action the RFA, and they can action the RFA opposite of a non-Crat closure, this makes sense to me. I don't want to prevent NAC of other discussions, but RFA is unique. Dennis Brown - 01:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dennis, I assume your statement re: Crats didn't get involved refers to re-opening the RFA after it had been closed by a non-crat. Speaking personally, I already knew they were going to withdraw, so I did not see a great need to re-open the discussion just for them to withdraw likely later that same day (I will also note that I was asleep when the close was enacted, so I am coming at this from a "the next morning" perspective as well). I make no apologies for that decision, and if faced with an identical one in the future I would likely do the same (assuming no new "rules" are introduced). If I have misread your statement please let me know. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think my frustration is that you have multiple people doing things, and it was a mess. I don't think anyone intentionally did anything "bad" and I'm not upset at any individual (who all technically acted within policy), but I think collectively, we failed the candidate, even while the individuals had the best of intentions. From my perspective, one of the things that people expect from Bureaucrats is order, as they typically did/do the boring but necessary things that just required emotionally detached and unbiased judgement. One of those is handing RFA, reading consensus in what is sometimes the most contentious discussions. Crats are the only group of people specifically selected to handle RFA, and let's be honest, if a Crat makes a call, the community has been good about accepting it due to the higher standards of getting the bit. I am not saying you should have reopened, I'm not sure what could have been done once it started. I'm saying what I said above, maybe we should discuss having only Crats close RFAs, so this doesn't happen in the future. It's hard enough to endure RFA, I know because mine was a mess. I just think a little more order would be helpful for all concerned, and it is worth discussing. Dennis Brown - 10:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This candidate passed the bar for minimum required experience set by Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed. So, again, there was no basis for unilaterally closing this as "not now" when the vote was 0–0. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This new two-day discussion scheme opened the door to allow bullies to bully candidates away from running without ever needing to personally go on record as opposing them, thus keeping their own hands clean. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Hysterics aren't helpful here. "Bullies keeping their hands clean" is probably better suited for Wikipediocracy. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Especially the first half of the RfA was quite friendly, much more so than the usual NOTNOW RfAs where we jump straight into voting. There is also nothing at all bad about opposing NOTNOW RfAs; the only option other than some people opposing them is to close the RfA before voting begins. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Feedback on the "new RFA process". – wbm1058 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave a Reply