Meta talk:Requests for bureaucratship/WizardOfOz

Active discussions

Why is this locked? I want to vote.--Sokac121 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was closed as successful. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that voting is "successfully" concluded. But how long voting lasted, 28 hours?--Sokac121 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a time for RfBs on Meta, it is simply a request made which will be accepted quite quickly unless anyone objects. --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For more information see Meta:Bureaucrats. Regards. mickit 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


  • 06:17, 20. 11. 2010. WizardOfOz request
  • 16:00, 20. studenog 2010. Barras first vote
  • 09:29, 21. studenog 2010. Quentinv57 last vote
  • 09:52, 21. studenog 2010 Dungodung concluded --Sokac121 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Two hrwiki users, just like this one, confronted me on IRC complaining that I didn't follow the procedure. This is getting rather tiresome. :( --FiliP ██ 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Meta just isn't like other wiki and the RfB thing here is a bit of a one off. Originally the proposal was simply to ask and that was it. Nothing has been done wrong here in my opinion. Quite a few of the folk who are actually active here agreed with the rights being granted and that is all that is really required. --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the requirements: user was endorsed by 2 bureaucrats (Barras and Mardetanha) and the vote lasted even more than 24 hours & no opposing views were raised. I see nothing wrong here & the promotion was done correctly IMHO. Thanks, --dferg ☎ talk 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Sokac121: I promise to inform you when next voting is running on meta so you can give your vote, btw one voting is still open, so feel free to vote. --WizardOfOz talk 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Twilight zone

6 months and the nomination processEdit

The primary concern here is procedure.

The 6 months issue
Let us first deal with the main prerequisite, that being administrative activity for at least the past 6 months.

The candidate has been active as an administrator (only) prior being promoted to bureaucrat for 202 days in total, but in the last 6 months we can see that the candidate has not been active from May 30, 2010 to September 11, 2010 (which is a period of 101 days).

The candidate was promoted on 21st of November 2010. When we count the activity for the past 6 months we see that the 6 months period starts on 20th of May 2010. This shows that in the past 6 months the candidate was active 10 days in May and 70 days from 2010-09-11 to 2010-11-21. This amounts to less than 3 months activity in the 6 months span.

(Note: Why only up to 2010-11-21? This day is important because on that day the candidate gained the status, hence this is a cut-off point.)

The requirements issue
WM:B is ambiguous, but even those rules show us the way to go.

(1) Nomination, then request
The Requirements are not policies on the promotion to the status of bureaucrat, but policies on the process of nomination. These are the prerequisites to a process of requesting a status.

This means that a request for a status must not occur until all the prerequisites for the mere nomination are met. The requirements must be met in full together with the main prerequisite – that being the administrator activity in the last 6 months. (see: The 6 months issue).

The candidate nominated himself before obtaining the support of two and he has even declared this as being the starting point of the formal request for the status. The candidate should have followed procedure and only (first) declared a nomination.

(2) Cumulative prerequisites
The nomination phase could be considered as concluded only when the second and third requirement is met. This means that the support of two bureaucrats is the main formal prerequisite for the nomination to be proceeded into the stage of a formal request.

This main formal prerequisite (listed as second among the requirements) must be obtained in the period of 24 hours or the nomination fails. Why? The third requirement clearly says that the process of nomination is still running 24 hours after the nomination, and the two bureaucrats (the second requirement) is a must.

Then, and only then we could consider the nomination phase as over and the candidate can declare the request.

(Note: We should not be bothered with the fact that all the stages (phases) are led on the same page, that being Meta:Requests for adminship (redirect: Meta:Requests for bureaucratship))

(3) The Request
Quote from Meta:Requests for bureaucratship: "Requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after this minimum time."

Even if some would not consider the seven days period as pertaining to the promotion to the status of bureaucrat, this is still a valuable piece of information. Because users should have the right to warn about certain facts before the matter is closed as mute.

The sentence can also relate with the process of nomination and the process of the request because the 24 hours period relates to the nomination stage. Then we can vote on the request, if and when the requirements are met.

If objections occur during the nomination stage, it is prolonged to an additional 48 hours when the uninvolved administrator should close it and decide if the nomination is good to go (and build to a request).

The entire story about 24 hours and 48 hours relates only to the nomination phase.

The request (although invalid by virtue of non-existing 6 months active administratorship, and also because the deadlines were not met)…

The request could be considered as "launched" on the 2010-11-20T22:17:49 (CEST), e.g. when Mardetanha voted for the nomination. Mardetanha voted in 21:17:49 (time zone).

Then and only then the beginning of the vote could have been considered as "started" (going), and should have lasted up to 2010-11-21T22:17:49 (CEST) in minimum, or by the correct interpretation of the rules, for at least 7 days.

Even if we use New York (-5) time, or we use the time zone from where Mardetanha voted in 21:17. This shows that the vote should not have been closed 24+ after the nomination, but 24+ hours after the requirements were met (and not before).


(4) 24 hours / 7 days
Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/MaxSem for instance shows a span of 7 days. Such examples could be found in the archives as well.

We should consider the implications, because bureaucrat has even more authority over the consensus issues.

Is it good for Wikimedia to have such discrepancies, allowing that the status of a bureaucrat be considered as "no big deal"?

Bureaucratship is more than just changing user names.

The request needs a full 7 days to be considered as available to the interested users.

Ok, we might not agree on everything, but the issue is clear, the requirements are not met.

(5) Betterment of Wikimedia
This should be the main objective for us all. The current rules can be interpreted differently, and they should be amended.

It might be confusing for users to see different terminology used on the two different pages (WM:RFA and WM:B). The request is filled on RFA (which is also a redirect for the Meta:Requests for bureaucratship), but also the nomination (as a requirement for filling the request) should also be placed there.

And as a separate note, I do not understand why the candidate filled this summary: do not feed them…?

(6) In conclusion
The candidate should not be promoted to the status. For more failed requirements than one.

Yours truly, -- Bugoslav 00:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


So for you and others: I am the 7th most active admin on meta in last year [1], have 608 loged actions here, promoted on 11th January 2010, has resigned trough the RfC just because of you and such like yours and not to give you a reason to say "he is acting as admin and not as user" in this RfC (from 03-07-2010 till 03-14-2010). Have close this RfC and resigned on own wish 29. Mai 2010, and reactivate on 11. September 2010 as i have cool down and forgott all of the trolls around [2]. So, i have paused 113 days, but have been active 203 days or near 7 months. In those 7 months, i´m the 7th most active admin here (or do you count the days wihout flag where someone can´t perform an loged action?!?). The next point is my request, which is based on:

An admin can request Bureaucrat status on Meta if they:

  1. Are active on Meta with over 150 edits/log actions (after getting adminship and not including own userspace) in the last six months.
  2. User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:RfA.
  3. No objections are raised in 24 hours after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:Requests for adminship. If objections are raised, a short discussion should ensue, at which point after 48 hours an uninvolved bureaucrat will close it and analyse whether consensus believes the concerns are valid or not. If the concerns are considered valid by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.

For first: I am, and have been a active sysop for longer than 6 months. Second: two bureaucrats endosred (Barras and Mardethana) and have nominate myself, request has been running for longer than 24 hours. --WizardOfOz talk 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for a rewiev trough Stewards and admins from metaEdit

I will like other Stewards to rewiev this and to comment below. If there are any objections, i´m requesting removing of my ´crat flag by this steward who have objections so we can end this discussion. Admins from meta are also welcome. THX --WizardOfOz talk 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. I don't think dungodung did anything wrong nor that WizardOfOz should resign. --Erwin 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nothing wrong here. I concur the decision (even thought I've a COI). Dungodung just followed our current rules/policies/standards. Two crats endorsed the request within 24 hours (Mard and me) and another crat (dungodung) set the rights. There is absolutely no abuse here. There is no need to remove any right here. Just move on... There is really nothing worth to discuss here. Ah, and Dungo didn't used his steward flag to grant Wizard the permission, he used his crat flag which technically is a difference. -Barras 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. No problems by me. --- @lestaty discuţie 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Requests for bureaucratship/WizardOfOz".