Wikipedia talk:Successful bureaucratship candidacies/Archive 1

Archive 1

I think we should move the successful nominations to sub-pages like that for User:Sarge Baldy, otherwise this page is going to become unmanagable. --Phil | Talk 15:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well I've done about half of them, and the page is now much smaller, so I'm taking a breather. --Phil | Talk 15:17, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I've moved the rest of them to subpages now too. Angela. 18:39, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Rename?

Is the name of this page accurate? Yes, there are recent RfBs here, but there are ones going back to 2004... Perhaps a better name might be along the lines of Wikipedia:Successful requests for bureaucratship? --Majo(rly?) 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree for the admins renaming, but I think it would be fine to change this to Wikipedia:Successful requests for bureaucratship. Nishkid64 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. (Radiant) 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, that's a better name. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. They're so infrequent, anyway.--Chaser T 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved it. --Majorly 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

I noticed this when reading this page, but surely each of the candidates should have the date when they were promoted in a consistent manner? Some of them are formatted like 'July 11, 2007', others have formatting like '17 May, 2006' and a third group are '4 May 2006'. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you reformat them consistently, with links then. Majorly (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RfB Idea

Since crats are trusted with things like interpreting consensus of RfAs, deciding on the propriety of renaming or usurping a username, etc, might it be useful to list RfBs on the watchlist page, as we've done for the Steward and Arbcom elections? Yes an RfB isn't an election since its consensus driven, but it might be nice to get a wider range of opinions. I don't hang around RfA enough, so I didn't know WJBscribe was up for the crat hat. I would've supported him if I had known, but it seems like this is the kind of decision a wider range of inputs might make more useful. If I'm rehashing something already having conensus, feel free to ignore. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Update needed

As apparently the only list around, shouldn't this be updated to note those no longer bureaucrats? Eg User:Essjay. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there is a list - now linked to. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)