Hans Adler (talk | contribs) →Idly wondering: tentatively marking as resolved |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →RFA canvassing: new section |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
*'''Seconded.''' If no-one has anything startlingly new and useful to add, perhaps we can now close this thread. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Seconded.''' If no-one has anything startlingly new and useful to add, perhaps we can now close this thread. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
**'''Thirded''' I think it's time we let our [[User:Rlevse|dear friend]] retire in peace. It's over, until next time. '''<span style="font-family:garamond;white-space:nowrap;">[[User talk:Thesevenseas|<span style="color:MediumTurquoise">Set Sail For The Seven Seas</span>]] [[New Earth Time|<span style="color:MediumTurquoise">332° 10' 15" NET</span>]]</span>''' 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
**'''Thirded''' I think it's time we let our [[User:Rlevse|dear friend]] retire in peace. It's over, until next time. '''<span style="font-family:garamond;white-space:nowrap;">[[User talk:Thesevenseas|<span style="color:MediumTurquoise">Set Sail For The Seven Seas</span>]] [[New Earth Time|<span style="color:MediumTurquoise">332° 10' 15" NET</span>]]</span>''' 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== RFA canvassing == |
|||
Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=394462750&oldid=394461919 this] count as canvassing for a particular result in an RFA? I supported the RFA (which is due to close in a few hours), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:50, 3 November 2010
|
|
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.
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.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:35, 15 June 2024 | 6 days, 5 hours | no | report |
It is 18:48:50 on June 8, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
RFA closures and scheduled ending time
- Moved from WT:RFA
I would like to discuss the nature of end times for voting. In general, bureaucrats have taken some liberty with the end times, often closing the matter a little early or late, especially when the consensus is clear. It seems to me that it may be best to wait until the end time for the nomination has actually passed before promoting or removing a nomination. Given the number of bureaucrats who follow RFA, the likelihood that a new admin will have to wait more than a day or two for promotion seems low. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's currently what happens at the moment; crats typically only close RfAs after !voting time has passed. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at 46 successful nominations over the last six months (May to Oct),
tennine were closed or placed on hold before the scheduled ending time. (+2h +2m +11m +25m -44m -32m +1h +1h +12m +2h +5m +54m -49m-2h24+2h24 -4m +2h +24m +1m +0m -12m -12m +44m +4m -6m +1h +5m +31m +11m +4h +3h +15m +2h +26m +4h +1h +0m -1h15 +6h +0m +5h +1h30m -5h07 +0m -2m +6h) –xenotalk 18:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)- I don't think half an hour makes much difference, but I don't think it would be best practice to close as successful with much more than that left on the clock. It doesn't look like a big issue, though—the majority seem to be closed a little while after their scheduled end time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a guilty party for some of those, I will say that it's all common sense. Many of the 30m+ ones above are usually 95% support or better, where the chance of failure is getting very close to 0. Think of it as an early present. Is 30m really worth waiting for, when the consensus is clear? (X! · talk) · @980 · 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think half an hour makes much difference, but I don't think it would be best practice to close as successful with much more than that left on the clock. It doesn't look like a big issue, though—the majority seem to be closed a little while after their scheduled end time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- An exception is clearly this close by User:Nihonjoe as sucessful in the discretionary zone at 78.6 percent nearly 2.5 hours before time was up. This obviously should not happen. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm reading things wrong, but that one appears to have been closed 2.5 hours late. That diff clearly shows the close time to be 10:01 am, and it was closed at 12:25 pm. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I was going by xeno's timings. Should always learn to check these things. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm reading things wrong, but that one appears to have been closed 2.5 hours late. That diff clearly shows the close time to be 10:01 am, and it was closed at 12:25 pm. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- An exception is clearly this close by User:Nihonjoe as sucessful in the discretionary zone at 78.6 percent nearly 2.5 hours before time was up. This obviously should not happen. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Idly wondering
Whether the weather of Rlevse's departure would be classified as cloudy. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. No doubt in my mind he was generally an ok bureaucrat, but this departure was cloudy without a doubt. Aiken (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not read everything that happened (hence I was surprised to read this) but was there any real effort to remove his flags that was foiled by his resignation? Iirc, "cloudy" means that someone resigned to avoid flag-removal sanctions that would have happened otherwise. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Cloudy" means MZMcBride seems to wish to stir things up. I would suggest he lays it on the table in the proper manner, not silly hints here there and everywhere, or just leaves it. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not read everything that happened (hence I was surprised to read this) but was there any real effort to remove his flags that was foiled by his resignation? Iirc, "cloudy" means that someone resigned to avoid flag-removal sanctions that would have happened otherwise. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say generally sunny with a few clouds here and there. Also, the odd shower here and there, but mainly dry. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 262° 40' 45" NET 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If MZMcBride wishes to grave dance it will only reflect badly on himself. Starting this thread in this way here already looks poor to me. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh God. You're back?
- It isn't grave dancing to wonder whether someone who storms out will be allowed back in. Everyone, do try to not feed the diva. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If MZMcBride wishes to grave dance it will only reflect badly on himself. Starting this thread in this way here already looks poor to me. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the mainspace concerns would have lead to sanctions resulting in the removal of his bureaucrat privileges. –xenotalk 13:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting that you say that given, e.g., the FlyingToaster RFA. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall, the problems there were more widespread and were used in direct support of the RFA in question; in the present case, that remains to be seen. Note that I am in no way excusing plagiarism, but my thoughts are that unless there was much more to it, the one or two cases would not have lead to the removal of sysop/bureaucrat privileges. This is, of course, just my humble opinion and in light of the procedures in place, views of multiple bureaucrats would be taken into account before determining whether to re-grant userrights on request. –xenotalk 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting that you say that given, e.g., the FlyingToaster RFA. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am completely uncomfortable with the idea of an arbitrator who violates copyright and plagiarises, and would have supported any attempt (i.e. arbcom) to have the user rights removed. These positions come with trust - how can we trust him after this? RFA candidates have failed over minor paraphrasing concerns in single DYK entries - this is a FA we're talking about, in addition to at least one DYK. His rude and dismissive response was completely unbecoming of any editor. He stormed off in a huff when the copyvios were brought to light and threw his toys out of the pram along the way. If this wasn't cloudy, I don't know what could possibly be. Aiken (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to be self righteous on this. Anyway this is not the place to have this debate, please if you must take it elsewhere. This should be a community decision not a crat decision. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "Arbitrator" is a non sequitur since we are discussing bureaucrat privilege. Do note that the term "cloudy" has been largely deprecated from the information page in favour of the current verbiage ("...may have resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions.") I don't think an extended debate on this at this point is a productive use of time, since Rlevse (talk · contribs) is not currently re-requesting privileges; rest assured that they wouldn't be re-granted without discussion. –xenotalk 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware any particular user rights were being discussed. He held a number of positions. I'm happy that you would allow a discussion, but I'm sure there are some bureaucrats who aren't so careful. This should surely be noted on the former admins page. Aiken (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only privileges bureaucrats can re-grant are admin & bureaucrat - so discussion of the advanced privileges is off-topic and lies in the province of the Arbitration Committee. WP:RESYSOP #3 "strongly recommend[s] ... allow[ing] time for multiple bureaucrats to comment after the request was made before resysopping" and for-the-most--part this advice is followed except in uncontroversial situations. –xenotalk 14:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, it really shouldn't. It is obviously clear that there were a number of stressors were affecting Rlevse's judgement (to the point where I had actually considered asking a CU to double check that Rlevse hadn't lost control of his account, given how out-of-character his outbursts aimed at me were), and whatever those stressors were, he left Wikipedia of his own volition. Whether or not the problems related to copyvio would have led to sanctions, up to and including revocation of admin and other privileges, is quite simply an unknown quantity. If Rlevse elects to return, and if upon such return he wishes to regain his user privileges, at that time the crats can have a discussion (as granting +sysop is in their remit, as is regranting it after voluntary resignation), which may or may not include community input. It doesn't need to include community input because, as I said, it is the crat role to regrant, or not, admin rights which have been voluntarily resigned. I am not sure about how crat rights would be re-granted (though at a guess I would suspect that should crats and/or the community decline to regrant admin rights the crat flag would be similarly declined), and to my understanding the checkuser and oversight permissions were granted to Rlevse's account in his capacity as Arbitrator, which he resigned and I would guess cannot reassume by fiat; he would need to be re-elected. This entire thread is unseemly and rude. What all of this means is: there is absolutely no need to discuss this at this time, and there is no need to figuratively slam the door after Rlevse has walked out of it and paste a sign saying "NO RLEVSE ALOUD!!11!1111!." → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think people have kicked Rlevse while he's down enough; I wish they'd stop. <--what Roux said, in handy template form. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. If no-one has anything startlingly new and useful to add, perhaps we can now close this thread. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thirded I think it's time we let our dear friend retire in peace. It's over, until next time. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 332° 10' 15" NET 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
RFA canvassing
Does this count as canvassing for a particular result in an RFA? I supported the RFA (which is due to close in a few hours), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)