Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
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

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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 20:00:06 on June 13, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Reattribution issue

I was renaming Marlith today and the rename timed out and his edits were not transferred to the new account name. I have seen this happen a fair number of times in the past with Brandon's userpage, Xeno's userrights, and Jayvdb's edits not being re-attributed to their new accounts. In casual conversations with technical people, it seems the issue has something to do with the job queue being high at the moment of renaming and failing to re-attribute. I wonder if this is something we should establish some rules of thumb for such as: "If user has more than 10,000 edits, then only rename when the job queue is under 50,000 and you are on a high speed, high quality connection." Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question: if it fails, is there a way to restart the process? I had the same issue :) -- Luk ^talk 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not for bureaucrats at present, I suppose it might be achievable were Extension:User Merge and Delete enabled. I see it's now described as "stable" but there are a lot of implications of account merges for GFDL etc (and I presume it's non reversible) so crats would need to now exactly what they were doing... WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A developer like Werdna can usually fix it on the backend of the database, but relying on the devs for simple name changes seems like a waste of resources if we can find a workaround. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this happen on renames with as few edits as 5,000. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a bug open on this? WJBscribe (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reattributing edits - from my alt account. Majorly talk 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing the actual reason, I would hypothesize that the merge accounts feature is not turned on either because of SUL issues or because the devs are afraid that rogue users would trick crats into merging with accounts that weren't their own (say by claiming to be a returning retired user) and that the feature would therefore lead to license violations. MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind what a rogue crat could do with it... It might be worth asking the devs to comment on whether, if there was a consensus for the feature being enabled on enwiki, they would be willing to do it. Then we could see whether people think the benefit is worth the risk. Much as I realise it must be a little frustrating, edits being split between several accounts isn't a massive problem. WJBscribe (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drat, WP:Developers' noticeboard is a redlink. I'll try to scare one up later. I suppose one concern is that an account merge, unlike any other actions done with userrights, is irreversible. Even histmerges can be undone with selective deletion/undeletion and renames can always be undone by moving accounts around, but that is probably something for the community to debate. I suppose WT:CHU is too small of a venue to hold the discussion, would WP:VPR or a dedicated RFC subpage be a better place to hold it, assuming the devs say it is possible? MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Account merges would be extremely useful, e.g. for those who don't understand that CHU exists and merely create new usernames. One question I'd have (not knowing the backstage intricacies): would account merges muff up CU data? → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a merge would be an interesting endeavor, but it must be completely reversible in order to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my view that the potential dangers would override the costs. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at mw:Extension:User Merge and Delete and mw:Extension:Deleteuser seem to indicate that the existing software only performs irreversible merges. Given that such major re-codings tend to take forever, we are back at my original point of how to handle renames of users with a large number of edits, do we warn them and try to time the job queue/connection speed or just leave it the way it is? MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From a technical point of view it would be pretty hard and require some database structure changes to make user merges reversible and even then it might be possible to make it irreversible by doing multiple merges/deletions. --Chris 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I can think immediately of how to do it: a single extra table that maps one userid to another. Whenever the software gets a userid, it runs it through that table to see if it gets mapped to another id. "Merging" a user then becomes trivial - add a row to that table - and unmerging is as simple as deleting the same row. Now I think about it, you could even have different maps for different items: you could merge the watchlists or preferences only, for instance, and thereby make alternate accounts more convenient. AFAIK, however, there isn't anything written that works in this fashion, and the cache structure would need a huge amount of optimisation to allow it to run on the big WMF wikis. But it's definitely doable without any changes to the existing database schema. (also)Happy‑melon 11:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That would basically be adding one hack onto another and would likely be only slightly more appealing to the sysadmins/lead developers than an irreversible merge. The proper fix would be to make it so that user names are only stored in the user table, rather than in the revision, archive, image, logging, and recentchanges tables. This is why renames are so broken, because it has to update thousands of rows in half a dozen tables rather than just switching the user_name. Mr.Z-man 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with that thought for renames, but how does that facilitate user merging? (also)Happy‑melon 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really, but this discussion was started because renaming is broken and edits are not being re-attributed. If that were fixed, there would be little need for merging. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"User Merge and Delete" will never be enabled until it has an undo function. And even then, even if an undo function were implemented, I think it's pretty doubtful to see it enabled on WMF wikis. I see parallels to the discussion about deleting unused accounts; the entire concept of deleting accounts is anathema to most of the older developers / sysadmins, at least that's my impression from the comments I've read. (And of course there's nothing to say that the current problems with Renameuser don't extend to User Merge and Delete.)

WJB: There are a number of bugs filed about various specific rename failures on specific wikis. I don't believe there is a generic bug about Renameuser sucking, but I haven't looked thoroughly.

Happy-melon: You say you wouldn't need to change the existing database schema, but you also talk about adding an extra table. You've lost me. Maybe you meant you that you wouldn't have to change any of the current tables? --MZMcBride (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, and that generally qualifies as "not a blocker to deployment on WMF wikis". We've added (IIRC) four new tables this year alone, and that's to core software. As I expect this would be implemented as an extension (if at all), it makes even less sense to require changes to core tables. Having extensions create their own database tables is very common, as you know. (also)Happy‑melon 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

Just happened again, and the job queue was only 3,000 when I did the rename on a highspeed connection for someone with 12,000 edits. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does being on a 'high speed, high quality connection' have anything to do with this? The user is renamed and the edits reattributed server side, not client side. — neuro^(talk) 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I think it does, to the extent that a failed rename times out and gets a blue screen or another message. I don't know how I could test it, but it does seem that the crat maintaining a connection with the WMF server is a critical part of the rename working. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kegel exercise

Law got adminship back per request; nothing more to do. @harej 02:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A reference tool for Roux from the The More You Know! series I need my tools back. This article is fucked. Law type! snype? 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I'm serious it's fucked. No really it's fucked bad. OK it's not for me it's for a friend. OK it's for me. OK, not directly for me, but for my girlfriend. Let's go Crat Pack. Toolz Please. Law type! snype? 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (not objecting, but) What tool did you need to unfuck it? –xenotalk 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm, if an editor has a girlfriend but is requesting access to their own tool so something can get unfucked, sounds like there's a breakup coming on. :) (Oh, and my use of the <small> tag is purely in relation to formatting of text! :) </blue cmt>:) Franamax (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)  Done Per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request, and m:Steward requests/Permissions/2009-08#Law@enwiki, there is no issue with restoring admin access, so I have done so. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)  Bureaucrat note: Note that the reason is unimportant; as long as the admin in question gave up the tools in good standing, we restore them if said admin changes his or her mind. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, as I said, I have no objection at all, he resigned the tools in clear weather... but my curiousity lingers. –xenotalk 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Your guess is as good as mine, I just work here -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) me too ... and I still haven't found the payroll department. ;P — Ched :  ?  23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (unresolving) Gentlemen, do you suppose the tenor of this conversation makes this website or its administration more or less welcoming to women? Imagine a female editor of 4000 edits and one GA, who does not know many Wikipedians yet but reads this board because she is contemplating a request for adminship. Was this line of discussion necessary? Is it decorous? Is it productive? Durova306 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about? I don't see anything wrong with the conversation, and I don't see myself as being chauvinistic for saying so, simply because I don't understand which bit you are talking about (because there is nothing there that I can see that appears to be sexist or chauvinistic like you appear to be implying). Am I missing something? — neuro(talk) 00:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Men do Kegels too, Durova. Some for enhancement of sex, some due to leakage problems in old age. You're seeing sexism where there is none. → ROUX ₪ 01:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC) If someone is intelligent enough to (a) have 4000 edits and a GA with no problems, (b) consult somewhere like this before running for adminship, I'd expect them to be intelligent enough to be able to understand humour without a flashing sign. I don't see a problem here. But in the interests of gender equality; can I have the tools as well? Our article on the prostate is awful and my boyfriend needs to know where to aim. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Honey, I know where to aim, don't worry. → ROUX ₪ 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) No dear, my boyfriend. You count as "occasional sexual liason", which is one step below "boyfriend", and directly above "casual hump". I'll send you a flowchart. Ironholds (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Okay then, this perspective is unwelcome. Just go ahead and salt it. Durova306 02:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What exactly do you mean? @harej 02:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Exactly what it says. Direct further questions here. Durova306 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I would like everyone to keep this into perspective, because frankly this is really fucked up. I was watching Daniel Tosh with my girlfriend and he mentioned that he could Kegel 75 lbs (not sure what that is in stones). She laughed. I had no idea what a kegel was. So she had me google it and the article came about. It was so poorly written, so arbitrary, and so fucked up. It ended up in me requesting the tools again. This chick, who I adore more that anything, was sitting beside me the entire time. If you read the request again with different eyes, anyone who knows my persona will get that it was either a non sequitur or just sublime. As a female, I wasn't bothered by this the slightest, but I admit that it's very difficult to offend me. :) hmwitht 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC) On a personal note to Durova, I have had, and anticipate a great rapport with you. We have had great communication. While I find you the great mentor of those who have gone astray, where am I in this open mind of yours? While I advocated for my tools to return, my girlfriend had a huge laugh at the fact that I would assert that the article need be cleaned up because I made it quite clear it was for her. Essentially, I was saying her vagina was so wrecked that I was disappointed that Wikipedia did nothing to help the situation. It may be hard to believe, but I can take this, as well as my relationship seriously, and at the same time, some females are so comfortable in their existence that a play on the muscular ability of their vagina is laughable. Give me a fucking break. She's a former Marine. If she thought that I did this alone, and as a cry for vaginal tightness, I'd get a swift kick to the throat. The chick is five foot nine, and could probably drop me if she tried. Fortunately she shares the same sense of humor that most do. By virtue of the fact that she found it amusing as she was sitting here and since we looked up the entry together, I would say this is one drama you need to let go. There is truly nothing to see here. I'm saddened. I was truly hoping to start the first San Diego meetup, but shit, this is more about you than us. Keep on fighting the good fight, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Law type! snype? 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) That you and your girlfriend are not offended by the topic, or it's irrelevant insertion into a noticeboard that is unrelated, does not automatically mean that no one else will be. I'll state that there isn't anything anyone can write on the internet that will offend me, but that's not what matters. While Wikipedia isn't censored, some people have taken that to mean that no one should bother to make any effort to take other people's sensitivities into account. That is not the case. Wikipedia not being censored just means sensitive people shouldn't go searching for things they might be offended by. However, public noticeboards are a different issue and making some effort not to be possibly offensive could be a benefit to the project in attracting or retaining editors with a viewpoint other than that of the teens or 20s white male that tends to dominate the project currently. Our ability to attain NPOV is aided by having people from a wide variety of viewpoints and backgrounds. Just a thought. Make of it what you will. - Taxman Talk 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC) If you want to attract disillusioned old retirees, having a "Taxman" in charge is probably a bad idea --NE2 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with Durova, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I'm not offended by rude words, but I do use them to judge the people that use them. In his original request, and also in his response, Law has taken great pains to show that he is immature. Lucky for him, he got the tools back automatically, because (while I don't much care about a candidate's chronological age) I prefer admins with some modicum of maturity, demonstrating judgement and tact. If he had an RFA now, I'd oppose. I would have been thrilled to have a Crat respond "yes, you can have them back, when you learn to ask for them like a grownup." --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) There's a minimal level of decorum for open public discourse and this falls well below the line. Between a boyfriend and girlfriend, ain't a problem. On a private chat in IRC between buddies? If the group is all cool with it it no trouble there either. This is one of the formal noticeboards of the world's largest encyclopedia, and it's public. Anyone who's worked professionally with the public knows where the lines are. Decades ago when women first entered formerly all-male fields they were ridiculed for being 'too sensitive' or lacking humor when they objected to locker room wisecracks in the workplace. "Oh, but it wasn't directed at you" the excuses ran, plus claims that the sexual theme wasn't specifically degrading to women and examples of other much more private settings where the same dirty jokes had gone over fine. None of which addressed the plain fact that this was a bunch of men who didn't know the woman in their company well enough to tell sexual jokes in her presence. Some of them lacked the social skills to recognize the difference; others were attempting to provoke a response and then ostracize her for it because they didn't want her there. BN is not Wikipedia's locker room. That's not prudery; it's maturity. And why did I just catch athlete's foot? Durova306 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I also find the tone here unhelpful for a noticeboard. To mitigate the situation to some extent, would there be any objection to archiving this section? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a screwup in WP:USURP

Not sure what's happening, but the daily sections are not being created in WP:USURP, and the bot has not checked a whole bunch of requests from August 26 on. I think it may have something to do with the edit I fixed here. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is blocked - "21:28, August 26, 2009 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) blocked ClueBot VI (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Bot malfunctioning) (unblock | change block)" --Chris 08:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Will posted this note on ClueBot's talkpage. The note was archived by ClueBot III before Cobi could respond. --Chris 08:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride RFA

Heads up to bureaucrats that this RFA may be a bit of a challenge to close. While most of the discussion is sensible, the current ratios fall clearly in the discretionary zone. In my opinion, at least one of the opposes is inappropriate. However, also close to 10 of the supports not only provide little commentary (which is pretty typical and is usually taken to mean per nom) but are sufficiently frivolous that it's hard to judge the opinion behind them and whether or not they can be interpreted to indicate thoughtful support of the nomination. Raising it here and now since whle one option is that some bureaucrat just does his/her best to divine intent when closing in a day's time, another option could involve bureaucrats proactively announcing concerns and/or requesting clarification of certain comments before the clock runs out. Martinp (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (who has participated)

Well I have commented already at the RFA in support, so these comments here are distinctly made without my crat hat, as it would be improper to support and act as a crat. Right now my math points at the RFA having 77% support, and historically the highest percentage to ever be found not successful was a 76% RFA in 2005, while there are two failed 75% RFAs in 2004 and 2006 respectively and one failed RFA at 74% in 2007, so I'm not sure how far this RFA in question falls into the discretionary zone since if it was closed as a failure, it would be the highest supported failure ever, which would tend to indicate it isn't within a previously defined zone. That said, if the comments attached to the opinions do indicate a greater weight should be given to certain issues, there might be some room for the closing crat to adjust the result, however, I would suggest that such an adjustment has generally occurred further into the discretionary zone (the 72%-75% range by my research) than is shown by the current position. MBisanz ^talk 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not like bureaucrats have never closed controversial RFAs before. If it weren't for such RFAs, we wouldn't need crats at all. I think the bureaucrats are perfectly capable of determining consensus on their own without being told how many votes to ignore from a non-neutral party. Mr.Z-man 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Martinp, you absolutely shouldn't be the person raising such concerns given that you have commented twice to Oppose the RfA in question, the wording of your initial comment is deeply worrying, given than you're effectively arguing that the numbers should be adjusted downwards by 10 support and 1 oppose. It's also wholly inappropriate to be raising any points concerning the RfA a full 26 hours before the closure when your comments could influence the outcome of the RfA in either direction. The absolute most you should have done this early is to ask that you be permitted to make a representation to the closing crat just after the RfA is closed to new comments and before a decision is made either way. There's no real problem leaving the decision in limbo for 24-48 hours whilst clarification of any support or oppose comments is sought. I'm also concerned at the number crunching Matt has provided, which provides a useful target for people wanting to canvass support or oppose comments to work towards, so I'm going to ask that a bureaucrat removes this section until the RfA is due to close before reinstating after the RfA is closed but before a decision is made (if it's not a straight forward decision to close either way). Nick (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. One of the challenges of contentious discussions is that everyone supposes as default that the goal of any comment is to try to sway the process in the support of one's point of view. Believe it or not, my motivation was that I reread the RFA and found myself asking "are these really supports or not - I pity the closing bureaucrat. Would be a lot easier if there were some way to just ask the folks what they meant". A quite likely outcome of any probing would be to "firm up" some of the bizarrely worded supports and thus perhaps more clearly or firmly establish a consensus which happens to go counter to the point of view I expressed myself. Furthermore, to Nick's objection, I think it is fully appropriate to be raising these issues at the time when the discussion is still ongoing and people have the opportunity to react. It would be less appropriate for anyone to be making representations to the closing bureaucrat after the fact when discussion is limited. I assume that any bureaucrat will explore strengths of arguments as well as numbers and so will be grappling with this anyway. That being said, I recognize that if one assumes a spirit of partisanship rather than of consensus building, my comments could be viewed as troubling given my prior participation, and do not object if a bureaucrat wishes to remove them. However, I hope they will not, since both open discussion, as well as alignment behind the consensus established even by those whose initial point of view was different, is an important part of WP governance. Martinp (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have no fear about the RfA; situations like this are why we get such fat paychecks... though I'm assuming mine is lost in the mail. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.paypal.com. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is clearly in the discretionary zone, near the upper end of it, but it's not an obvious close in either direction. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My old name re-created

The name under which I edited during my first couple years as a Wikipedian has been re-created. No edits have been made yet. I am a bit discomfited by this news, and I would appreciate it if someone could contact me privately to discuss my options. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you call it your name. Didn't you clearly forfeit it in favor of a different name years ago? I suppose one option you have is to usurp the account (assuming it really has no edits). A lot of users re-register their previous names to avoid confusion or impersonation. Though, by not doing so previously, it seems rather mean to try to usurp after the fact (this of course depends on how the obscure the old name is, though). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the rename tool now automatically recreates the old username, to prevent impersonation. At least, it worked that way for me. I can understand why he would be disturbed by having someone using his previous (and relatively distinctive) username, which he used for some time and by which some people might still recognize him. Nathan ^T 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a checkbox the bureaucrats can use to re-register it, I'm not sure if they normally leave it checked or not. but it is disabled. –xeno^talk 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...this is news to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. There is only one checkbox in general, and that is "Move user and talk pages (and their subpages) to new name". If the name is already in SUL, you get another about that. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will have to look into this. Maybe I'm misremembering and this was a bugzilla that's not fulfilled yet. –xeno^talk 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I wasn't losing my mind: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12#New rename feature: "Block the old username from future use" (now disabled).

Well, as you can see, it worked at some point! I certainly didn't re-register this username myself, with the identical password... Avruch (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you suffer from re-attribution lag? Because Xenocidic got recreated automatically with the same password too. –xeno^talk 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'm sure I had far fewer edits than you. It could be SUL related, this might have come up before and I vaguely recall that as a possible explanation. Nathan ^T 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a well known issue I was grousing about in a recently archived thread. I wanted to make a rule of thumb for how to rename large accounts like you, but no one seemed interested. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Waiting for times of light job queue would certainly be a good idea. –xeno^talk 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, this is what the screen currently looks like File:Rename-2009-09-02.png. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MZ, you are correct that re-registering the previous name right away would have been a good idea. I wish it had been done, but clearly I didn't think of it and it wasn't done automatically at the time of my rename. Nathan correctly gives a primary reason for my discomfort. There are others besides.

It may be worth noting that the user page and talk page of the old name have been redirects to my pages ever since the rename, and that is still the case even though the old name has been re-created.

If a usurp would not be deemed out of line at this point, I would be interested. The account still has no edits. I guess I would have to create a new account with a dummy name and then apply to usurp from there? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've put in the request. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Resysopping

Just a note for the record that steward M7 accidentally desysopped Dominic (talk · contribs) [1] when removing his CU/OS flags per [2], so I have restored the admin flag as a local crat. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride

Just a note for any crat still out there that this RfA needs to be closed! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Patience, young Jedi. There is no need for panic, RFAs can run past their closing time without trouble. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Though the less deviation from the norm the less pointless discussion after the fact is a good general rule! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's not exactly a hard call. Look at the neutrals and weak opposes. Clearly a resysop (And although I supported I really am not fussed - just saying consensus is pretty easy to read in this case). Many valid oppose reasons but many very strongly advanced supports. In addition supports / opposes after the "minimum" end time are still weighed (or should be) Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Regardless of my !vote (FTR, I was oppose), my heart goes out to MZMcBride. Being on the receiving end of one of these knife-edge RFAs (mine was close as well) can lead to a week with very little sleep. Ronnotel (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I admit it, I am a bit curious about who closes, and what (if anything) is said in the closers statement. I'm probably more anxious about it as the nom than MZM is as the candidate .. lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And five hours on... guess no 'crats want to close this. — neuro^(talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They were just giving him time to hit 200. Ok guys, jig is up! –xeno^talk 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WJB is on a break. EVula has edited just once today. Matt is around so I'm suprised he hasn't jumped in, but maybe as the "newbie" he doesn't want to. Ditto Rlevse for that. Deskana hasn't edited in a week. Biblio is on the wrong time zone. Dweller and Dan are both inactive > 2 weeks. Avi was around but again bad time zone. Maybe someone wants to prod Raul and see if he fancies using his extra buttons for once? Don't get your hopes up though ! Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz was support #7 so that's probably why he hasn't closed it. –xeno^talk 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah - a fair and wise point! Still - darn the conflict of interest and vote for consensus.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Lar can do a NBC. –xeno^talk 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Or a CNN. I don't know what an NBC is, so. — neuro^(talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, as I said above, my hands are tied. Besides supporting this RFA, I also filed an Arbitration case against MZM last year and opposed his desysopping at a different case this year, and I also supported his Meta RFA and OTRS request, so there is really no way I could ever claim to be uninvolved. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You do too much. -_- — neuro^(talk) 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

← Non-Bureaucrat Closure, of course. aka Peacock close. –xeno^talk 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you than me. I don't know about you, but I'm not writing an essay tonight. :P — neuro^(talk) 23:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will finally disprove the myth that we don't need any more 'crats. :) Granted, it's only been a few hours. Worst comes to worst (days without a closure) I suppose we could just get an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and post at SRP or something. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here ... but I'd imagine that if I just closed it as: "promote per nom" ... that it wouldn't go over so well. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to ask an uninvolved IP to close. — neuro^(talk) 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr IP maybe? –xeno^talk 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

He's too involved. He's edited Wikipedia before. — neuro^(talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain stewards don't recognize the concept of uninvolved at a local level, but I suspect if we really need to we could always rouse Tim Starling, a local crat who was the main crat for over a year in 2003 or some of our less process oriented crats like Stan Shebs, Kingturtle, and Infrogmation. Bcorr has also shown a willingness to use his crat flag when needed. MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

<quote>This RFA passed because although there was significant and valid opposition focused around

1. The duration between the candidates request for desysop (as distinct from an involuntary desysop)
2. The concern over misuse of scripts
3. The lack of communication when requested

There was also significant support rebutting these opposes, some opposes were regretful or "not at this time" and a number of neurtals indicated the same feeling. Whilst marginal, the strength of feeling in the support column and the widespread awareness (and as demonstrated participation) of this RFA clearly indicates a consenus to re-add the sysop flag".</quote>

Crats - feel free to copy paste:) Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• We need more bureaucrats. iMatthew ^talk at 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• In case anyone is wondering, I haven't been added to the crats-l list yet (Dweller is on vacation I think), so I can't spend out a "calling all crats" email. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  Couldn't you just Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats ? –xeno^talk 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  "CALLING ALL CRATS CALLING ALL CRATS THERE IS A CRISIS AT WIKI AN RFA HAS RUN OVER FOR A FEW HOURS OH NO IT IS ALL GOING TO END IN DEATH AND DESTRUCTION" — neuro^(talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• What's the record for most stale RFA? –xeno^talk 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• OMG pitchforks and angry villagers inc. Looks like neuro beat me to it! Protonk (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• This RFA is really weird. I've never seen any RFA to have delayed this much long (4 ours and 30 minuets past). What's up with our B'crats? I don't think they all take a break yesterday and today since some of them are active. If they are reluctant to make a decision, they can consult with them with hold.--Caspian blue 00:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Back before we had bureaucrats, and sysopping required shell access, I just use to close them off in batches once every couple of weeks. So I don't think 5 hours is any kind of record. Note that the bureaucrat feature was introduced specifically so that sysadmins like myself didn't have to do this task anymore. I'll tell you what, if it's still not closed this time tomorrow, then I'll consider it. -- Tim Starling (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)