Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/W.marsh 2

Propose skipping the 7 day timeframe
This entire procedure seems very silly, there was no need to go thru an RfA in this case and if there's a snowball promote this has to be the case. Move for a motion of promotion w/o waiting the full course.

Support
 * 1) --Tawker 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Alex |  talk  /  review me  | 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * I agree in principle that this RfA should not be necessary (see my Support comment on the main page), but I'm not sure how this would work. If the !vote on this motion is held open for seven days, it's not going to advance the ball. :)  Newyorkbrad 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with Brad on this one - what is the point with this vote - who's going to judge the consensus - I thought maybe we should close at (100/0/0), but then thought it's better to give it the full time to allow any oppose votes to crawl out of the woodwork. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if it gets to 100-to-0 and a bureaucrat closes it as "consensus obvious to promote, especially given that it's questionable whether the RfA was needed to begin with," and no one objects, then no harm done. After all, if everyone agrees on something, let's do it.  But for reasons entirely unrelated to W.Marsh, the last thing we need right now is any unnecessary controversy at all about whether an administrator was properly promoted or not. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure about this whole thing. Some people seem to think admins who resign voluntarilly should still go through RfA, and I respect that. I resigned under the impression that I could just ask and get my privilidges back, and I suppose I could have asked other b'crats until one agreed, but Taxman is the one I'm most familiar with, and he didn't seem comfortable doing the promotion. I think some clarificiation of what process actually is would be helpful (the whole "find a b'crat who will do it" thing is too vague for my tastes, obviously)... I'm sorry if people feel like this was a pointless RfA, but like I say, I want to get back to doing admin work ASAP. --W.marsh 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am more impressed by your willingness to dip your foot back into the (potential) morass of RfA than if you had gone crat-shopping. You're probably right that some sort of procedure would not be amiss here, but that's a discussion for another time... -- nae'blis 08:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about this wKnight? Should we wait until (100/0/0) and then call for bureaucratic intervention or would you be happy waiting it out?--Mcginnly | Natter 17:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a waste of time to wait past the 100/0/0 mark, eh? We can always ask nicely for crat intervention and expect that they'll say "no".  No one has even hinted at objection.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry WKnight - I meant W.marsh - as its his RfA. (Thanks Brad). --Mcginnly | Natter 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it was really just that I was too tired when you asked me to feel like I could properly evaluate what happened. Usually re-sysopping after a voluntary request to de-admin is automatic if there was no controversy. There was just a little so I wanted to see if there was any serious objections, and so far there have been none, and the consensus is clearly that what happened didn't and doesn't outweigh the good you've done. It seems most people feel like I do that even if what you did was a mistake, and even that is disputed, it was in good faith. Since no one has brought any objections I think it's more than appropriate to promote now, considering I could have elected to promote when you asked. Keep up the good work, and if you're ever tempted to explode, just walk away. - Taxman Talk 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, you just wanted to deny W.marsh a record setting vote count ;). NoSeptember  17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, well that too. Cue evil cackle. - Taxman Talk 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

List of those who didn't have a chance to vote discuss:

 * 1)  NoSeptember  17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)