| Revision as of 06:22, 29 December 2007 view sourceRdsmith4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,841 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:55, 29 December 2007 view source Ned Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,901 edits →Bit restoration.Next edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| :(Through two edit conflicts:) I gave weight only to the kerfuffle that attended his cancellation of the process. Had the general reaction been "Very well, that is your prerogative", my decision would have been opposite. I see and respect that he regrets his decision to cancel the recall, and I am strongly inclined to think that he would not do it again, but I make that judgment as a fellow user, not as a bureaucrat. — ] | ] 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | :(Through two edit conflicts:) I gave weight only to the kerfuffle that attended his cancellation of the process. Had the general reaction been "Very well, that is your prerogative", my decision would have been opposite. I see and respect that he regrets his decision to cancel the recall, and I am strongly inclined to think that he would not do it again, but I make that judgment as a fellow user, not as a bureaucrat. — ] | ] 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Dan, I certainly hope another bureaucrat doesn't hesitate to rightfully give Mercury his bit back, regardless of your own personal hesitation. He left out of frustration, not because his admin actions were being called into question. "controversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama". That completely misses the point. He can still be trusted with the tools, despite the immature comments coming from users who want to scold him for not being perfect. -- ] 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:55, 29 December 2007
|
Centralized discussion
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
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.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 | 14 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 14:51:28 on January 22, 2025, according to the server's time and date. |
Snow an RFA that isn't open
(Also posted at WP:AN#Questions but in a different form, regarding conduct)I found Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/LisaTierney and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Simba on my trawls through new pages yesterday. I was wondering what the usual procedure is for these kind of RFAs. Snow close or just plain delete? Woody (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly deletable under CSD G1 or G2. Merry Christmas from Sasha 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I was harassed by my former account
Hi. Could some one here take a look at the endgame of the thread at WP:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old account and advise on the possible and proper sorting of my concern about edits by an impersonator that would appear to a casual user to have been made by me? Thanks. Jack Merridew 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. Please specify a username for the impersonator account to be renamed to — doesn't necessarily have to incorporate the exact original username in it, but it must make it clear that it was an impersonator account that was renamed. You can also post it at this forum, so that any Bureaucrat can carry it out (using the template listed there will make it easier for the Bureaucrats to carry out the change exactly as needed). If you'd prefer, we can recreate the account immediately after renaming it, as it was pointed out on the AN#I. After that, the password can be e-mailed to you (and you must change it immediately upon loggin in); you can choose to leave it dormant or ask that it be blocked indefinitely. You can also recreate the account yourself, which would eliminate the need for any of those last steps I mentioned. You should request that a Bureaucrat do it for you if you have reason to believe that the username could be taken over yet again before you could have a chance to recreate the username yourself. Redux (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will take this to WP:CHU after I have a bit more clarity on this. I'm surprised that you're offering to let me select the name; something like: User:Senang Hati (impersonator) or User:Jack Merridew (impersonator) — I would think there would be a convention and I am fine with anything reasonable. nb: there is another prior impersonator: User:Jack..Merridew although I doubt it is the same person.
- From what I'm seeing on the AN/I page, the contribs would move to the new name and those user/talk pages would get a box that says "naughty blocked user" and User:Senang Hati+talk would look as they do now but with no contribs.
- As for re-creating the User:Senang Hati, ya, please do it for me as this user is still out there and busy; see User talk:71.107.186.223. It would be silly to have to do this all over again. I do not want this account, really, the only thing I would do with it is possibly post an explanatory note on the user page. I am not part of the Senang Hati Foundation; I visited there about a year ago and started the article on them; I simply made a poor choice of username. I would be fine with the account being recreated and me not getting the password; block the thing forever. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- No need to take it to WP:CHU. I have already taken care of everything. Redux (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks much. I'm impressed; the new pages are automatically on my watchlist. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- addendum: I manually edited the signatures on
- to point at the impersonator account.
- --Jack Merridew 14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Request
Could some nice 'crat flip the switch back on me? I resigned after a, um, fit of outrage and despair at goings-on here. Now I am still outraged and despairing but want to help with backlogs. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done as requested. — Dan | talk 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is the second uncontroversial flip. Will it become controversial after further similar iterations? –Pomte 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, we'll just get exasperated and say things like "Make up your mind already". — Dan | talk 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is the second uncontroversial flip. Will it become controversial after further similar iterations? –Pomte 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Some poor newbie
Please, take pity on this newbie, and do something with Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Bass Speaker III before he is bitten. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It already got removed from the main page. I'm going to give him my standard RfA closure notice (I added the edit stats, but I generally don't close RfAs without at least some activity...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn RFA needs closing
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Whiteandnerdy111 was withdrawn 7 hours ago. Can someone please close it properly (last time I tried one I messed it up). Shame on the 6 people, many of them admins or other long time users, who have continued to pile-on, the RFA has received 6 more opposes since it was withdrawn. --After Midnight 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Way to go, guys. :( ~ Riana ⁂ 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Bit restoration.
Please restore the bit on this account. Regards, Mercury 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quick question, will you be restarting the recall process (you ended it early) or would you be willing to go through an RFA before getting the bit back? Thanks. RxS (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not restarting. Those who wished recall can use dispute resolution. Regards, Mercury 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can't see what recall has to do with it. It isn't policy and no-one is obliged. The only question from the 'crats is whether he left in controversial circumstances (=controversy where he might have been desysopped). Since there was no RfArb, and not even any talk of it, I personally would say, that isn't the case. But not my call.--Doc 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is clearly controversial, he stormed off after a failed arbcom bid, then he got embroiled in a bunch of controversy in a recall, then stormed off. He resigned under controversial circumstances, IMHO, and I respectfully ask the bit be not restored to the account. Maxim(talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Never said he was obliged to. Never even hinted at it. It's a voluntary process. I take it you (Mercury) won't be adding yourself to the recall cat if the bit comes? RxS (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can't see what recall has to do with it. It isn't policy and no-one is obliged. The only question from the 'crats is whether he left in controversial circumstances (=controversy where he might have been desysopped). Since there was no RfArb, and not even any talk of it, I personally would say, that isn't the case. But not my call.--Doc 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not restarting. Those who wished recall can use dispute resolution. Regards, Mercury 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The circumstances of your resignation were plainly controversial. I'm afraid I must turn you down. — Dan | talk 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of stirring the pot, does this mean that bureaucrats assign some weight to the recall process? Mackensen (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to speak for the 'crats, but even if there wasn't a recall process itself, it still would have been a voluntarily de-adminship that was under controversial conditions. Compare it with someone that retires with no prompting whatsoever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Our job as bureaucrats is to evaluate if the candidate in question has the support of the community for promotion. If the candidate resigned or relinquished his/her adminship under non-controversial circumstances, and remains non-controversial in the interim period, we flip the switch. If not, we decline. We are given the mandate to gauge community consensus when promoting a suitable user. That is and will be the core part of our job. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would hold that we are empowered to judge consensus in RFA only. That is the point of refusing summary resysopping to users who resigned in any sort of doubt: we are sending them back to RFA. My decision here was not any sort of a judgment of consensus: rather, it was a consequence of my being unable to gauge community sentiment well enough to make a decision. Tradition gives refusal, with implicit referral to RFA, as the default outcome in these situations. (I have just re-read your comment, and I'm not sure we are in disagreement after all, in which case never mind.) — Dan | talk 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Through two edit conflicts:) I gave weight only to the kerfuffle that attended his cancellation of the process. Had the general reaction been "Very well, that is your prerogative", my decision would have been opposite. I see and respect that he regrets his decision to cancel the recall, and I am strongly inclined to think that he would not do it again, but I make that judgment as a fellow user, not as a bureaucrat. — Dan | talk 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dan, I certainly hope another bureaucrat doesn't hesitate to rightfully give Mercury his bit back, regardless of your own personal hesitation. He left out of frustration, not because his admin actions were being called into question. "controversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama". That completely misses the point. He can still be trusted with the tools, despite the immature comments coming from users who want to scold him for not being perfect. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)