| Revision as of 22:52, 13 October 2008 editBalloonman (talk | contribs)25,417 edits →No need for this to remain on front page of an RfA← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:11, 13 October 2008 edit undoWJBscribe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits →No need for this to remain on front page of an RfA: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| :::Yes well, I ''was'' well out of order for moving off-topic discussion to the talk page. Nevermind; I'm not going to cry over this. I'll leave it up to a Bcrat. Sigh. -- ] 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | :::Yes well, I ''was'' well out of order for moving off-topic discussion to the talk page. Nevermind; I'm not going to cry over this. I'll leave it up to a Bcrat. Sigh. -- ] 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| PS. Both HDYTTO and I approached Caspian in an effort to work through this, his response was to our comments calling them oppression.''']''' '']'' 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | PS. Both HDYTTO and I approached Caspian in an effort to work through this, his response was to our comments calling them oppression.''']''' '']'' 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over says little for the RfA process as it stands. I linked to the discussion on the talkpage from the RfA discussion - I agree it adds little to the consideration of the candidate's merits. It also goes without saying that vandal warnings should not be issued for good faithed edits, however much someone may disagree with a particular edit. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:11, 13 October 2008
 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 | 15 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 01:35:04 on December 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Request to rename account
I request to rename my account ("Reino Helismaa") in the "IAS1987". Thanks.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Suggets posting at WP:CHU since this is just a general noticeboard Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Update to a closed RfA
I updated Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez because the count was 83/20/4 and should have been 83/22/4 (two opposes were missed at the top due to formatting errors in the oppose section). Did this quite absent mindedly, so wanted to apologise for mucking around with the archive. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch. Actually, it's 83/22/3 as a neutral switched to support. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, doesn't make any difference to the outcome (80.5% -> 79%) but it's nice if these things are tidy - at least in my befuddled mind! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know, whilst I truly do appreciate accuracy? There's a teeny little bit of me that says: Iffen ye cannae get ye shizz correct? Thou shizz remaineth unsaid. (Of course, if this wasn't mine own RFA, perhaps I'd be a bit more flexible.) Seriously? Thanks. I'm all about the facts. Gladys J Cortez 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heh - if it means anything, had I not been on holiday, I'd have supported you. I was only looking at it because I wanted to see how you'd got on, and noticed a numerical fudge in the bottom section. Fear not, I doubt they're about to rip the bit from you! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know, whilst I truly do appreciate accuracy? There's a teeny little bit of me that says: Iffen ye cannae get ye shizz correct? Thou shizz remaineth unsaid. (Of course, if this wasn't mine own RFA, perhaps I'd be a bit more flexible.) Seriously? Thanks. I'm all about the facts. Gladys J Cortez 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, doesn't make any difference to the outcome (80.5% -> 79%) but it's nice if these things are tidy - at least in my befuddled mind! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, all!
Hi everyone. Some of you may remember me, some of you may not, but I retired a few months ago, and handed back my administratorship. I was wondering if there was consensus for me to get it back. Thanks in advance, Justin(u) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back, you are once again an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you did not lose it controversially, you can just ask for a bureaucrat to give it back - a consensus isn't needed. (Welcome back, by the way). -- how do you turn this on 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick. Thanks, people. Justin(u) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
SQLBot problem
Please note that SQLBot, which provides the table with RfA vote info at the top of this page, seems to be down or malfunctioning. Its data is more than 24hours out of date. I have sent User:SQL an e-mail and hopefully this will be fixed soon. In the meanwhile, here is a table by tangobot that seems to be up-to-date. Please feel free to remove it once SQLBot is fixed (I think the main RFA difference between the two bots is that SQLBot includes RfB data but Tangobot does not). Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
- If you're including Ironhold's RfA parse failed, it's because of the unique configuration. Wisdom89 (T / ) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- But you are correct, there does seem to be something off regarding the updates. Hmmm. Wisdom89 (T / ) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New proposal - provisional adminship
See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Admin Bot
Could a crat please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/MPUploadBot, thanks --Chris 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Crat review of decision
I'd appreciate it if the other Crats reviewed my response at User talk:Renamed user 19. Happy for someone to decide I was too harsh and apply the rename with or without an unblock. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Not a Bcrat) I think you made the right decision here. Renames are a privilege, not a right. You made a very clear explanation, and I think that will suffice here. -- how do you turn this on 11:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dweller, why did you rename this user to "Renamed user 19" when they requested to be renamed to "A Nobody" ? I would be minded to agree to this rename, as it merely restates the earlier request. Renaming a user to a name not of their choosing seems to create a pretty serious GFDL problem - I can't see where this user has agreed for their edits to be attributed to "Renamed user 19". I won't rename him when it seems two other bureaucrats have declined the request, but I strongly urge you to reconsider. WJBscribe (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the user had earlier requested a rename to "Rename user 19", and now requested a second rename to "A nobody". I can't find any such details in the logs though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I had requested that I be renamed as "A Nobody" on the 26th, but was renamed as "Renamed user 19" instead. This past month has been one of the most bizarre and confusing I've experienced yet. I have been on a rollercoaster of whether I should edit, to what extent I should hide myself, and so on. The harassers have been formally and legally warned to leave me and my family alone and after a lot of hoopla that will hopefully work. I apologize for any vagueness or confusion from me as it has been really difficult to think clearly and know what to do. I experienced some stuff I don't care to repeat and wanted to leave, but it became apparent that there was no sense in it as some editors just kept mentioning me by my old username. I don't plan to edit in any areas in which I ran into conflict in the past. I only wish to be able to add worthwhile mainspace content when I have something worthwhile to add. And I pledge not to do anything that would make anyone who renames me regret doing so. --Renamed user 19 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Our discretion is really under your control at the end. If you are satisfied with your rename, then we can just end this discussion here. bibliomaniac15 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I had requested that I be renamed as "A Nobody" on the 26th, but was renamed as "Renamed user 19" instead. This past month has been one of the most bizarre and confusing I've experienced yet. I have been on a rollercoaster of whether I should edit, to what extent I should hide myself, and so on. The harassers have been formally and legally warned to leave me and my family alone and after a lot of hoopla that will hopefully work. I apologize for any vagueness or confusion from me as it has been really difficult to think clearly and know what to do. I experienced some stuff I don't care to repeat and wanted to leave, but it became apparent that there was no sense in it as some editors just kept mentioning me by my old username. I don't plan to edit in any areas in which I ran into conflict in the past. I only wish to be able to add worthwhile mainspace content when I have something worthwhile to add. And I pledge not to do anything that would make anyone who renames me regret doing so. --Renamed user 19 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No need for this to remain on front page of an RfA
Please fulfill Caspians request and move this lest the debate begin anew.---Balloonman 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed it. It has nothing to do with the candidate, and is simply causing unnecessary drama. I've left him a note as well. -- how do you turn this on 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you... it added no value---especially as the discussion had been archived in an attempt to squelch the belly aching.---Balloonman 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian is now issuing vandalism warnings to HDYTTO for this act.---Balloonman 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes well, I was well out of order for moving off-topic discussion to the talk page. Nevermind; I'm not going to cry over this. I'll leave it up to a Bcrat. Sigh. -- how do you turn this on 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. Both HDYTTO and I approached Caspian in an effort to work through this, his response was to delete our comments calling them oppression.Balloonman 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over says little for the RfA process as it stands. I linked to the discussion on the talkpage from the RfA discussion - I agree it adds little to the consideration of the candidate's merits. It also goes without saying that vandal warnings should not be issued for good faithed edits, however much someone may disagree with a particular edit. WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)