Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 28 November 2006 (→Two more in the red: correct Titoxd's link to wrong RfA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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.

It is 18:15:55 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

My RfA

There is what I think is a troll vote on my RfA by Auroranorth (talk · contribs). The vote is: Oppose, coona. Auroranorth 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC). I think it is a troll vote due to the contributions (specifically the page moves and redirects) from the 21st of november . Judging by prior contrubutions I suspect the account may be compromised, and possibly used by someone else, not the actual account holder. I was wondering what to do about the vote on my RfA and wanted an opinion on the possobility of the account being compromised. 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's just a kid (he identifies on his userpage as a primary school student). He just seems to like opposing people for any old reason. He opposed my RfA as well, on the grounds that I (according to him) hadn't contributed to the article space, even though there were links in the nom to articles I'd written. After my RfA was over, I discussed it with him and he claimed his real reason for opposing was he knows someone called "Sarah Ewart" IRL and he thought I was the same person...I think he's just a kid playing wiki-games. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Viridae 05:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's been blocked; I checked into the matter a bit deeper, and I don't see any evidence of a compromise in the account. I'll do an official strike-out on the vote. Essjay (Talk) 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ST47 2

has been withdrawn and needs closing. Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Closed. --Durin 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Username changes for users who have left

I just posted this: on Jimbo's talk page. In the case of Bhouston, I think it was a simple admin error to delete a page that consisted of a redirect. In the case of Homeontherange, apparently someone changed his username after his user page had already been deleted. Because of that, hundreds of Homey signatures linked to a page which had no "User contributions" link at the side. I think it has to be explained to people who have left or are planning to leave that they can have their name changed, or they can have their previous user page deleted, but not both. Kla'quot 20:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Or am I out to lunch here? Is it ever a standard practice to delete user pages that consist of redirects to new usernames? Kla'quot 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard (as in, done automatically in every case), no. However, no user is required to have a userpage, and those who have had renames and don't wish their new names to be associated with thier old ones are not required to do so. Anyone sufficiently interested in the history of a given user will figure it out. Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm not sure what to do with xxx and xxx. Kla'quot 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "do with"? Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there should be a redirect page from one to the other. Based on this discussion, the answer is obviously no. Thanks Essjay and Thatcher131 for explaining this. I'll post a quick note on Jimbo's talk page to clear up whatever confusion I may have caused there. Kla'quot 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A former user who left under unfortunate circumstances asked to have his accounts renamed and his user and talk pages deleted for privacy reasons. Jimbo agrees (per e-mail) and Angela applied the name change. It is true that old talk page comments will now direct to a user with a blank user page and no contributions, but how often would someone need to contact an editor about 9-24month-old talk page comments? I don't see an issue here. Thatcher131 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of contacting the editor. It's a question of making the record of community decisions transparent. The community has an interest in knowing what kinds of contributors have been granted sysop status, what kinds of contributors have been sanctioned, etc. People reading through comments in old article talk pages, and user talk pages also click the links in signatures to evalute what the person's biases may be. You lose some of that transparency when you break links to the list of user contributions. However if we feel that privacy concerns take priority over the loss of transparency, I have no problem with that. Kla'quot 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regaining sysop after resigning

I opened an RFC on Admin PMA for misuse of blocking; he has decided to voluntarily resign the sysop bit. It turns out he has twice before resigned and then regained his sysop bit (once reflected in the meta log and once here. Arbcom established in the Giano case that admins who resign their mop "under controversial circumstances" must go through RFA to get it back. Would you consider this RFC to be "controversial circumstances?" If so, please note this somewhere. If not, I guess we have to file an arbitration request to clarify his status? Thatcher131 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would, yes. Normally, we only forgo a new RfA if the user resigned for personal reasons, without any kind of incident (burnout, wikibreak, etc.) or, at the very, very least, if the user resigned the status without anyone even complaining about anything (although that would still depend heavily on the circumstances immediately before the resignation). In a case such as this, however, I would only contemplate reinstating sysophood without a new RfA if the RfC turned out to be completely bogus. But that happens when trolls start the procedure, and that is not the case here, so the existence of a RfC for misuse of the tools definitely makes this a controversial circumstance, precluding the regaining of sysophood without a new RfA. It's not a question of opinion, there is no legitimacy for reinstating without the community's sayso. Redux 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

Would someone please close this RfA? Thx! - crz crztalk 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... is something the matter? - crz crztalk 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Publiscising an RfA

One of the current Rfa requests has been publiscised by its nominator : . Not sure what should be done with this, as I was under the impression that canvassing for votes/publiscising your RfA is very frowned upon or against policy (not sure which) but it isnt the person under consideration that added that ntoice, but the nominator. Opinions? Viridae 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not against policy to "advertise", although we discourage it because it is really frowned upon. Normally, doing it will attract more opposition than it will support. Making a public announcement in an open forum is not the same as rallying people to vote any specific way by going to their talk pages and "drafting" them personally. The latter is not tolerated; the first is, at the most, a potentially harmful, albeit "legal", strategy. Redux 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for the new buttons :) Viridae 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect implementation of the extension of an RfA

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#24_hour_extension_incorrectly_implemented. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. Carcharoth 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Since it's been corrected with time to spare in relation to the new deadline (about 14 hours), and I would assume everyone undestood that a 24-hour extension from my edit meant 3:45 UTC on the 29th, especially since the RfA was left open, it would appear that no damage has been done. Redux 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two more in the red

HighInBC and Renesis13 are past their closing times now. Titoxd 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Both attended to. Thanks. Redux 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship