| Revision as of 17:45, 16 March 2007 editNichalp (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers28,407 editsm archv6← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 16 March 2007 edit undoBetacommand (talk | contribs)86,927 edits WP:BAG requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| :Closed ] ] 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | :Closed ] ] 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks, ] 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | ::Thanks, ] 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == ] request == | |||
| I need Shadowbot3 given a bot flag it is a werdnabot cone. It is operated by shadow1, I need this repalacment sice werdnabot malfunctioned and werdna is MIA. and NolBot also need a flag see the ] ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:17, 16 March 2007
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
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 17:25:23 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Applying for Adminship
Shouldnt there be some sort of mechanism set in place to stop editors whose Edit count is less then a 1000 from applying because in the last couple of weeks there has atleast been six such cases..--Cometstyles 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The standards at RfA are ever increasing. They never stop increasing. You put it at 1000 now, and people will go around making random AWB (or other scripted) edits to pump up over 1000. Any time you put in a bar, it's going to go up. Put it in now, and two years from now you'll be seeing complaints about why the bar isn't at 5000. Edit counts are meaningless. --Durin 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The question must be asked: is anyone, anyone at all, harmed or seriously inconvenienced by letting RfA's that are going to snowball anyways stay up for a few hours? No. If 100-edit RfAs are really such a terrible sight, I've got some backlogs for you that can take your mind off of them. Picaroon 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also do not believe that is a good idea, users should always be able to apply. The only formal requirements for an adminship candidate is that said candidate has an account. Cbrown1023 talk 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection of talk page of failed nomination
The talk page of Chacor's failed nomination - Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2 - has been the location of some minor soapboxing this evening. The talk page of a failed RFA is not the place to continue the discussion nor is it an open forum to be used as a soapbox. Would anyone see a problem with removing the thread in question, which was added several days after the RFA was closed, and protecting the page? I'm going to be bold and remove the thread myself ... but I don't want to step out of line on protecting the page. --BigDT 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Protected. Viridae 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! Now I see how you guys just HAPPENED to coordinate the fact that it was blanked and protected within seconds without it LOOKING improper. If you read WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, it in no way constituted "soapboxing"--at least not as represented by the Misplaced Pages page on the matter. I made it clear that all I wanted to be able to do was make my thoughts on the nom--and any future noms--for this user known, which violates no policy whatsoever. It was tag-team blanked, putting me at risk of 3RR had I reverted the inappropriate blanking, while--conveniently--allowing the ones doing the blanking to not be under any similar risk. Oh well. You all have enforced your censorship of a perfectly reasonable comment. Well-played. I'd still be interested to know the specific part of the soapboxing guideline I violated with my comments.K. Scott Bailey 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You violated this. SlimVirgin 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You link to an ESSAY entitled "Don't be a dick", as some kind of "proof"? And you're an admin?!? Wow. that's amazingly boorish behavior, especially for someone who has been entrusted by the community with the tools.K. Scott Bailey 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The title isn't meant to be taken so literally. I know that SlimVirgin wasn't calling you a name. The point is be nice, and your comments on a closed RfA's talk page were hard to construe as constructive. They were essentially kicking a guy while he's down. Please do refrain from similar in the future, and don't take my comments below as an endorsement. It's just that the removing your comments wasn't the best idea either. - Taxman 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You link to an ESSAY entitled "Don't be a dick", as some kind of "proof"? And you're an admin?!? Wow. that's amazingly boorish behavior, especially for someone who has been entrusted by the community with the tools.K. Scott Bailey 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You violated this. SlimVirgin 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! Now I see how you guys just HAPPENED to coordinate the fact that it was blanked and protected within seconds without it LOOKING improper. If you read WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, it in no way constituted "soapboxing"--at least not as represented by the Misplaced Pages page on the matter. I made it clear that all I wanted to be able to do was make my thoughts on the nom--and any future noms--for this user known, which violates no policy whatsoever. It was tag-team blanked, putting me at risk of 3RR had I reverted the inappropriate blanking, while--conveniently--allowing the ones doing the blanking to not be under any similar risk. Oh well. You all have enforced your censorship of a perfectly reasonable comment. Well-played. I'd still be interested to know the specific part of the soapboxing guideline I violated with my comments.K. Scott Bailey 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the talk page of the failed nom is the place to continue conversation about that nom. The talk page should be unprotected and the user's comments replaced. If and when the conversation gets out of hand, turns into personal attacks or worse, then it should be protected. But this did not rise to that level. Just because you disagree with someone's comments does not mean you should remove them and prevent them from being made. I won't revert the protection and blanking of the comments without discussion, but if there is no discussion I will after some time for review. Now Mr. Bailey, you should also work to keep your comments as constructive as possible. - Taxman 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the comments shouldn't have been deleted, but I also don't see how they can be kept "constructive" if the page is unprotected. To be constructive, criticism needs to promote positive development or somehow advance the situation. Since the RfA is closed, there is no further development. There are no further advances to be made. And saying that he'll never support Chacor in a future RfA (the crux of the statement) can't possibly be twisted into anything constructive. He wasn't there to discuss anything; he was there to make a declaration. But he already had his chance to speak his piece, here. Nothing constructive can possibly come from further piling on. Kafziel 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's hardly a chance to "speak my piece", Kafziel. It was simply a one sentence statement of my opposition. After further review, I wished to extend my remarks, but as the RfA was closed, I extended them through the discussion page, as per protocol. I was then tag-teamed (intentionally or not) and put at risk of 3RR if I had simply readded my completely appropriate comments, while those tag-teaming me, conveniently had only one reversion each. Then, the page was reverted once more, immediately protected via a request placed here, disallowing any further discussion on a page DESIGNED for such discussion. Whether you consider it a "declaration" or whatever, it was my right to publish it there. The page protection was inappropriate, given the facts at hand, and should be reversed, even if the famous SlimVirgin thinks I'm a "dick."K. Scott Bailey 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't need to be at risk of violating 3RR. Your position is much stronger if you simply stop and discuss instead of reverting. And don't say you were because you could have not reverted the material in and discussed it's removal there or elsewhere instead. - Taxman 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I could have "discussed" it--or even how--as the thread I would have done so in was being blanked, which was the source of the mini-controversy. They reverted it until I had no reversions remaining before I would have stood in violation of 3RR.K. Scott Bailey 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This page or WT:RFA could have been a place to discuss it. Still, the comments were hardly constuctive imo. I'm sure Chacor saw them, was no doubt upset at the result of the request and I don't think it really matters so much it needs to be discussed. Majorly (o rly?) 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're simply wrong. The discussion page is the place that an RfA is discussed after the RfA is closed. My comments were not inflammatory, but were simply expanding on my initial one sentence statement in opposition to the RfA of Chacor, a completely appropriate thread topic for a RfA discussion page, your opinion notwithstanding.K. Scott Bailey 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could have put the comment in whilst it was running, or left a note with Chacor. Either way, it's hardly anything to worry about, I don't suppose he'll be running again anytime soon. Majorly (o rly?) 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're simply wrong. The discussion page is the place that an RfA is discussed after the RfA is closed. My comments were not inflammatory, but were simply expanding on my initial one sentence statement in opposition to the RfA of Chacor, a completely appropriate thread topic for a RfA discussion page, your opinion notwithstanding.K. Scott Bailey 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- "I'm not sure where I could have "discussed" it". To avoid any revert war, go to the talk page. To avoid one on a talk page, discuss the reverting in a calm manner, not the original issue. If that doesn't work, take it to someone's talk page. - Taxman 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tried those things. I tried asking them not to delete it on their talk pages. They simply ignored it, and someone else conveniently blanked it. At that point, I should have realized I was up against a group that was bigger than me, and simply walked away. That's what I've chose to do now. You all win. I lose. People can blank legit threads to their heart's content.K. Scott Bailey 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This page or WT:RFA could have been a place to discuss it. Still, the comments were hardly constuctive imo. I'm sure Chacor saw them, was no doubt upset at the result of the request and I don't think it really matters so much it needs to be discussed. Majorly (o rly?) 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I could have "discussed" it--or even how--as the thread I would have done so in was being blanked, which was the source of the mini-controversy. They reverted it until I had no reversions remaining before I would have stood in violation of 3RR.K. Scott Bailey 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't need to be at risk of violating 3RR. Your position is much stronger if you simply stop and discuss instead of reverting. And don't say you were because you could have not reverted the material in and discussed it's removal there or elsewhere instead. - Taxman 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's hardly a chance to "speak my piece", Kafziel. It was simply a one sentence statement of my opposition. After further review, I wished to extend my remarks, but as the RfA was closed, I extended them through the discussion page, as per protocol. I was then tag-teamed (intentionally or not) and put at risk of 3RR if I had simply readded my completely appropriate comments, while those tag-teaming me, conveniently had only one reversion each. Then, the page was reverted once more, immediately protected via a request placed here, disallowing any further discussion on a page DESIGNED for such discussion. Whether you consider it a "declaration" or whatever, it was my right to publish it there. The page protection was inappropriate, given the facts at hand, and should be reversed, even if the famous SlimVirgin thinks I'm a "dick."K. Scott Bailey 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the comments shouldn't have been deleted, but I also don't see how they can be kept "constructive" if the page is unprotected. To be constructive, criticism needs to promote positive development or somehow advance the situation. Since the RfA is closed, there is no further development. There are no further advances to be made. And saying that he'll never support Chacor in a future RfA (the crux of the statement) can't possibly be twisted into anything constructive. He wasn't there to discuss anything; he was there to make a declaration. But he already had his chance to speak his piece, here. Nothing constructive can possibly come from further piling on. Kafziel 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two things, in response
- I was NOT "kicking someone while they were down." I was explaining further my opposition, and detailing why I would not be supporting any future nominations. The discussion page is the place for that type of thing.
- How can you defend SV's one sentence potshot, while accusing me of "kicking a guy while he was down"? SV's driveby was completely inappropriate for this discussion, and his accusation that I was "being a dick" (per the text of the linked essay, nothing less can be concluded), was out of line for a high-profile admin.K. Scott Bailey 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it wasn't a potshot. - Taxman 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is posting a one sentence reply saying I "violated" an ESSAY (which is impossible to do, as Wiki's have no bearing on anything WP, other than the author's views) entitled "Don't be a dick" not a pot shot? As I am getting the distinct sense that I'm up against a pretty well-organized clique here, I'll withdraw my complaint, for fear of being venge-banned by one of the admins in the apparent clique. I'd be interested in hearing what was so patently offensive about my initial thread that it merited deletion, but if no one chooses to respond, that's fine. I back down. You all win. Blank legitimate threads that you disagree with to your hearts content.K. Scott Bailey 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:TINC. Viridae 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Post all the internal links you want. There ARE cliques on WP, and everyone knows that. Clearly I pissed off the wrong one, which is why I've conceded the debate to the group currently piling on. It's interesting to me that such a benign thread, simply expressing my views about potential future Chacor RfAs has inspired such a firestorm. Interesting.K. Scott Bailey 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief, there's no vast conspiracy against you. I didn't !vote in the RFA, because it was closed by the time I got around to it and if I would have, I would have opposed for the same obvious reasons that you opposed and 40-something other people opposed. Nobody reverting you was working together ... nobody is a part of a clique. I can't speak for any of the others involved, but I noticed your comment because the RFA was on my watchlist. There was no conspiracy - we all independently felt your comments were inappropriate. After reverting, I was inclined to protect the talkpage, but I posted a message here asking for a second set of eyes to validate that decision. The RFA is over - further posturing serves no purpose. If you would like to be sure to be able to oppose any future RFAs, add Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Chacor 3 to your watchlist. (You can watch pages that don't exist yet.) That way, if this page is ever created, you will be notified and will be able to offer your opinions. But as of right now, there is no RFA. There is no controversey over the manner in which this one was closed. In short, there's nothing to discuss. With all due respect to Taxman, I disagree with his view that discussion on talk pages of closed RFAs is appropriate. Unless there is some kind of meta-RFA issue to discuss (improper closure, sockpuppets, whatever), it's just a bad idea. Once an RFA is over, it's over. Rehashing the arguments serves no purpose except to create unneeded drama and get people upset. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. --BigDT 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Post all the internal links you want. There ARE cliques on WP, and everyone knows that. Clearly I pissed off the wrong one, which is why I've conceded the debate to the group currently piling on. It's interesting to me that such a benign thread, simply expressing my views about potential future Chacor RfAs has inspired such a firestorm. Interesting.K. Scott Bailey 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:TINC. Viridae 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is posting a one sentence reply saying I "violated" an ESSAY (which is impossible to do, as Wiki's have no bearing on anything WP, other than the author's views) entitled "Don't be a dick" not a pot shot? As I am getting the distinct sense that I'm up against a pretty well-organized clique here, I'll withdraw my complaint, for fear of being venge-banned by one of the admins in the apparent clique. I'd be interested in hearing what was so patently offensive about my initial thread that it merited deletion, but if no one chooses to respond, that's fine. I back down. You all win. Blank legitimate threads that you disagree with to your hearts content.K. Scott Bailey 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MiddleEastern
This RfA should probably be closed early. Thanks for taking a look, Gwernol 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Closed =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gwernol 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BAG request
I need Shadowbot3 given a bot flag it is a werdnabot cone. It is operated by shadow1, I need this repalacment sice werdnabot malfunctioned and werdna is MIA. and NolBot also need a flag see the WP:BRFA Betacommand 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: