Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 2
CHU reqs 8
RfAs 2
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
Approved BRFAs 0

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Solarra 52 13 2 80 17:56, 5 August 2014 5 days, 20 hours
Armbrust 3 34 31 9 52 16:13, 4 August 2014 4 days, 18 hours
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 21:17:53 on July 30, 2014, according to the server's time and date.

Request re-admin[edit]

Resolved: Boing! said Zebedee's admin right have been restored WormTT(talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish to request the restoration of my admin status solely so that I can revert the unjust blocking of @Eric Corbett:, which was clearly based on the personal feelings of an emotionally involved admin. Should the situation be resolved in the next 24 hours, please disregard this request. Should you decide to restore my admin status, I shall request its subsequent removal immediately after I unblock Eric. Please also note that my admin resignation was not under a cloud, and I do not believe crats have any policy-based reason to refuse my request. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: That user has already been unblocked. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Writ Keeper: — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the intervention by Jimbo at User talk:DangerousPanda#Unfortunate, please continue with my request for the reinstatement of my admin tools after a 24 hour period. If I feel I need to use the tools in this case I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia - either way, I will request their removal again once this issue is concluded. (And again, I do not believe crats have any policy-based reason to refuse my request). — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So first you ask for your tools to so you can undo a valid block. Then when Jimbo shows up and points out it was a valid block you want your tools back for one more action before you leave?
What exactly is this one final admin action is that you want to do? If there is no policy based reason to refuse this request then I hope common sense is available. Chillum 18:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether a block is valid is not for Jimbo or his lackeys to dictate, it is for the community to decide. Do you have a policy-based reason why I cannot have my admin tools back? If so please explain it here, and if not please fuck off and let the crats decide. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.) I disagree with your (Chillum's) summary. You (and others) say it was a valid block. Others (and yet others) say it isn't. That makes it neither a valid nor an invalid block, but a controversial block. Moreover, though I don't agree with your opinion, I neither believe it lacks sense nor do I believe I've cornered the market on common sense. There are disagreements that cannot be resolved by saying you are right and non-you are wrong. (And please don't leave over this dime-a-dozen fuss, Boing!) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not opine on Alan's request for readminship, but I do hope he will reconsider his statement implying that he might leave Wikipedia over the situation he describes. That recurring situation is unfortunate for a host of reasons, but losing an experienced editor over it would only compound the harm that has already occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts appreciated, Newyorkbrad and Sluzzelin, and I will only depart if my request for resysop is declined or if it is granted and I feel the need to actually use it over this issue — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please Decline.Crat discretion needs to be used. Boing! said Zebedee wants to tools to unblock User:Eric Corbett unilaterally if he is blocked again and if he does it will inflame sitution led to more drama ,Ani action and led to Arbcom.(Note the issue is being discussed in ANI and it can resolved no need for tools for him.)Someone else will come and say he wants his tools back to block somebody , unblock somebody,delete pages,block Jimbo or Delete Main Page and leave the project.What would a crat do ? (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you point to any policy that ought to prevent the restoration of tools in this case based on what you think Boing! might do? Eric Corbett 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well nobody here is required to use their tools, same goes with the crats. I don't think policy prevents or requires a response to this request. Chillum 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So how does that work? If all the bureaucrats ignore this request is that not a response? Eric Corbett 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I object to this WP:POINTy request in the strongest possible terms. The requester has made it abundantly clear that he intends to use the admin bit to disrupt and otherwise add to an already unpleasant situation. This is not beneficial to the project.- MrX 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Object to deliberately pointy and disruptive request. Bureaucrats are as well able to understand and act on WP:IAR as anyone else, and this is absolutely a prime case of that. The requester openly indicates his intention to make sure that legitimate actions made by other administrators may not take place, and that he will request his admin rights solely for over-ruling community consensus on that basis. If he genuinely believes there is community consensus for the actions he plans to take, then he should undertake a new RfA on that basis; or open an RfC on the issue. Any crat who panders to this childish nonsense, should retire themselves immediately afterwards. Their credibility will be gone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Even though I'm not a advanced privilege holder, I have to regard the original request for bits back to WP:WHEELWAR was unbelievably in poor taste. Now that there has been a reasonable objection to why B!sZ shouldn't have the tools back we get WP:DIVA like threats and more threats to wheel war. If there was doubt about the suitability of the mop closet key in their hands, there is no longer any doubt. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring who the blocked user in question is, the question the former admin is asking is, at its core "unblock me so I can engage in a wheel war". Suffice to say, no one in their right mind would accept such a rationale. Providing the tools given the environment would cause harm no matter who it was making that kind of request. It doesn't matter to me whether the tools are to block or unblock the user (it's long been accepted by people that Eric's exempt from any rules of decorum), it would at best add fuel to the fire. Whatever stance Boing wishes to make on this situation could easily be done without the tools, which has already been done. Wizardman 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be you who's exempt from any rules of decorum. Eric Corbett 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What's funny is that, for all the bad-mouthing you do against admins, I've never seen admins rally around a user positively like they do with you. You should enjoy it, not many get that level of rallying. Wizardman 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
What bad mouthing? I treat admins no differently from anyone else. Eric Corbett 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
After this request it is clear Boing does not have temperament to be an admin and his threats to leave is clearly WP:DIVA (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
But if he is not under a WP:CLOUD, is there any reason to deny the request? Is a rationale required at all? Couldn't any admin do something wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to go as far as Wizardman does; Boing and Eric are correct when they say that there is no policy-based reason to decline this request altogether, and if another 'crat wants to, they are justified in fulfilling this request after the waiting time is over. However, like Wizardman, and with sincere compliments and respect to both Boing and Eric, I'm not going to do so myself. Boing has explicitly said that he wants the right restored to start a wheel war (no lawyering about whether it would be the second or third move or whatever; it's a wheel war), and I personally will not be party to it. It has nothing to do with Eric; I don't think I can fairly be called an Eric hater, though I doubt he thinks much of me. I haven't followed this case closely enough to form a real opinion about whether the block was justified or not, but on the face of it, I'm not really convinced that the block of Eric was justified. It's irrelevant, though, because wheel warring is not the way to solve it, and Boing, you know it. I don't disagree with your goals, but I do disagree with your prospective methods, and I'll have no part in it.
    As an aside, I haven't discussed this with anyone, 'crat or not, and I haven't seen any discussion of this on any offwiki channels, such as the 'crat mailing list. This decision of mine is purely mine, decided well before now (I had actually typed up something similar to this before Wizardman posted, but got called away before I had finished it). There's no reason why any other 'crat should be bound by either Wizardman's or my decision; as I said, this is a purely personal decision, and there isn't really a policy-based reason to decline this out of hand. If it so happens that the 'crats are all of the same mind--which I kinda doubt--Boing could probably go over our heads to Meta and request his bit of the stewards there, so this isn't an attempt by the 'crats to collectively force a pocket veto. It's just me, as far as I know. I could write more, but I won't: if y'all think that this is conduct unbecoming of a 'crat, you know where my talk page is; the offer I made in question 11 still stands. Peace, Writ Keeper  00:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • With respect to Writ Keeper denying the request is clearly within the discretion of local Burecrats. First, per WP:RESYSOP point 3, the process is essentially a mini-RfA. Second the stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war over a block they felt was unjust which clearly indicates that they were WP:INVOLVED emotionally. Third the request was cancelled once the user was unblocked and re-established when there was danger of the unblock being overturned which indicates a flighty temperment and specific agenda that the regaining of Admin bits was to ensure that the user in/out of block status was protected from unjustified blocks. Fourth, per WP:BURO the stated intent of this resysop was to drop the bits shortly after their wheel warring unblock had been enacted which creates a bunch of busywork in terms of resysoping/desysopping. The action leads to the potential of causing harm to the encyclopedia by pulling many editors who contribute both content and time into a giant drama fest where we again argue "What does civility mean?" including potentially an ArbCom case to stip Boing of their admin bits for cause. For these reasons I suggest that the Buerecrats take an affirmative action in denying the request for Admin bits to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Hasteur, you have repeated the lie that my "stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war" several times now, but it remains a lie — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • So that you're on record contradicting yourself, you assert that you want the tools back to undo a block on a user after one admin blocked (which constitutes a an affirmative action) while at the same time using specifically charged language to indicate that you disagree with the action on a emotional level (thereby making you WP:INVOLVED). Under the strictest definition of wheel war, yes you would not be reinstating a reverted admin action, however your action (had it been completed) would have deliberately violated admin policy (if you are about to revert a administrative action, talk it over with the enacting admin) because you failed to do so prior to going on the warpath for bits. So for these reasons I consider your message of 08:53, 30 July 2014 to be a personal attack thereby rendering you de jure unfit for restoring Admin bits. Whild I'd prefer to not have to, if a Bureaucrat does restore your admin credentials, I intend to file an ArbCom request seeking removal of your admin bits for cause and the removal of burecrat for failure to be ...bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats as there is significantly above the 25% opposition that a RFA would have been subjected to. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          There is significantly below 25% opposition, when you take into account the past strong community consensus for WP:RESYSOP, that unless the administrator resigned under a cloud or has been inactive over 3 years, they should be resysopped. Unless you have evidence that Boing! Said Zebedee was evading scrutiny when he resigned, I intend to resysop him. I will, of course, recuse from any ArbCom case. WormTT(talk) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The contradiction is only in your mind, not in any of my words - and your claim that my "stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war" remains the lie that it has always been. If you think you have any realistic chance of having my admin bit removed by ArbCom without my having done anything wrong, then you're welcome to try - I could do with a laugh! (My intention was to resign the bit again fairly soon, but I'm happy to hang on to it for longer in order to help you in your quest if you like) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Boing, I agree with Writ Keeper and Wizardman. And there's no need for it anyway: apparently the project is full of enabling and corrupt admins who are willing to unblock Eric, Writ Keeper probably being on top of that list. Come on, retract the request--I can't keep track of every single noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Eric Corbett, but I do know that Boing said Zebedee, if that is his real name, can have his sysop bit back if he provides me with diffs showing that he gave it up uncontroversially, or unless someone can provide me with diffs showing some kind of vandalism or disruption. While I applaud the creative thinking going on here with respect to the ability to act unilaterally to protect the encyclopedia at the expense of nonsensical policy, this user did not have to give any reason to get the bit back assuming he did not give it up under a cloud. Andrevan@ 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While it is true he did not have to give a reason, he has done that. Chillum 06:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't change the criteria for resysopping. If he chooses to wheel war with his sysop bit he will probably find himself RFCed or worse. If he decided to go through with the request he will be advised to continue abiding by our policies and guidelines. The bureaucrat resysop task isn't empowered with pre-crime. Andrevan@ 06:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alan asked to be desysopped in a grump here. I've looked at his actions at the time and I can see nothing to imply that the desysop was under a cloud. As such, he meets the criteria for resysopping. It's not up to the 'crats to retroactively declare a cloud because of actions a year later. It's also not up to the 'crats to decide not to re-sysop because the user is making a point. Alan knows this, which is exactly why he's making the ruddy point. Alan, I'm unimpressed - there was no need to make this request in such a pointy way and if you are resysopped (and I see no reason why you shouldn't be), it would not be an endorsement of your statement, nor your future actions. I have no doubt that if you act in the manner you suggest, you would be subject to an Arbcom case. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dave, you should read what I actually said, not what the backstabbers claim I said. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    My comments were specifically on your original request - requesting an resysop solely so you could unblock Eric. That was a pointy statement, an evocative statement in a period of high tensions. You know that, I know that. I don't think you'd wheel war, never did. I do think that you are considering using your tools in a POINTy manner and that's what I'm concerned about. WormTT(talk) 07:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it was indeed a pointy and evocative statement - it was meant to be. But at the time, my stated intention would not have broken any Wikipedia rules (I know we both know that, but I think it needs to be stressed again as some people commenting here don't seem to understand), and I still do not intend to break any rules. There will be no ArbCom case. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    In which case, I have every intention of returning the bit to you once the 24 hour period has passed - unless anyone can point me to a policy based reason why I shouldn't. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Folks, my original request was so that I could unblock Eric, and that *would not* have been a wheel war. Since he has been unblocked, I have *not* specifically said what I would or would not do with the tools and I *have not* said I would engage in a wheel war. My request stands, I want the tools back for a few days in case I feel a need to use them (for a purpose not specified), and as I did not resign the tools under a cloud there are no policy-based reasons to deny it. My earlier desysop request can be found at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 28#Desysop please — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen as much bad faith assumed by the experienced editors as I have in this discussion. Alan made a very pointy statement and so many people jumped to the conclusion that the use of the admin tools would be to wheel war. The only thing he said was that if Eric was reblocked he would use the tools one time and leave. If it was to wheel war, what would that accomplish? Alan would be blocked, lose his bit and Eric would be reblocked. So is that likely the one use of his tools? I don't think so. More likely scenario is that he would ask for his tools to be removed here, at the same time block himself indefinitely and then leave the project. In this scenario we can assume good faith that a long time editor is done with the project and wishes to leave. An assumption of bad faith has to be made to get to the other scenario. I am amazed at the names I see above that assumed that Alan would use the tools to wheel war or disrupt the project, MrX, Demiurge1000, Wizardman, Writ Keeper, Hasteur, Drmies. GB fan 10:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I see no policy-based reason why we can withold Boing's request to regain his tools and if I'm around in a while when the 24hrs expire, I'll restore them. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you - I shall not retain the tools for long. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, someone can hypothetically ask for the tools back to engage in vandalism, and we give them to the user no problem? Yeah, suffice to say that's ridiculous. Sure, policy isn't on the side of those not wanting to restore tools, but anyone that seriously sees no problem with what Boing said is out of their mind. Wizardman 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's so sad to see you descending to personal insults, Wizardman - had Eric told people they were out of their minds, the mob would be baying for his blocking — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I am out of my mind. The only thing Alan said he was going to do was unblock Eric if he was still blocked when his tools were restored. After Eric was unblocked, he never said what he was going to do, just that if Eric was reblocked he would do one last admin action and leave. He never mentioned vandalism, he never mentioned wheel warring, he never said he was going to disrupt the project. You have to assume bad faith in Alan's intentions to get any of those things and that is what you and others have done. GB fan 12:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@GB fan:: You should read more carefully. | never said anything about wheel warring. I said disrupt. Boing's admin resignation occurred during a previous Eric Corbett block/unblock discussion, and now here we are again. While it's clear that 'crats have no policy-based reason not to return the bit, the fact is that the request itself adds to the drama and the erosion of trust that the community has placed in admins. If you're looking for bad faith, read the request again and note that BHG is described as "emotionally involved". Also, does anyone wonder why Jimbo's "intervention" on DangerousPanda's talk page necessitates Boing's urgent request for resysoping?- MrX 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read more carefully, I said, "I am amazed at the names I see above that assumed that Alan would use the tools to wheel war or disrupt the project. Some of the people I listed assumed he wanted to wheel warring and others assumed he would be disruptive. The little word "or" makes all the difference in the world. GB fan 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Alan's request for the tools back came before Jimbo's "intervention" on DangerousPanda's talk page. So it did not necessitate an urgent request for resysoping. GB fan 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Wizardman, I've looked at what Boing said.
  • [1] requested re-adminship to overturn a block he believed was "... based on the personal feelings of an emotionally involved admin." Wheel warring kicks in on the 3rd move, so an overturning a controversial block is within the remit of an administrator. They would need to be able to justify their actions, under WP:ADMINACCT, but it's certainly not against policy. The way he put it was not appropriate for this noticeboard, but there was nothing inherently wrong with the request. If he'd said "I want to be resysopped, solely to clear WP:PERM" we wouldn't have any problem at all, so we're pre-emptively debating his admin action? That's not what 'crats should be doing.
  • [2] requested resysop despite Eric already being unblocked. States that if he uses the tools, it will only be for one use then will leave the project. He hasn't said what it's going to be, but self-block seems the most likely, given the context. He went on to say to me
  • ...I still do not intend to break any rules. There will be no ArbCom case. That's sufficient for me. WormTT(talk) 12:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
GB fan and Worm That Turned So it's your contention that this diff doesn't constitute a threat to disrupt wikipedia to make a point and threaten to WP:WHEELWAR after the first request was semi-retracted? Glad to know who the enablers of the enablers are so that they can also be put on the block when the ArbCom case comes for desysoping Boing and de-crating the bureaucrats who failed to be ...bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. The policy based reason for not re-sysoping is to prevent damage to the project that based on the stated actions are to disrupt the project. Boing can claim all he wants that he won't violate policy and cause an ArbCom case, but the rule of the land is "restrictions should only be done to prevent damage to Wikipedia". This is echoed everywere from Block Policy, to Page Protection Policy, and to Permissions policy. It's a shame that Boing enumerated what his goal was in making the request, but since we now know it, the veil of ignorance is rent and we have no choice to consider the goal in the context of their request as it suggests theyre going to do a "unblock and run". Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
What I think is saddest here is to see a liar continuing their lies. Do you honestly think that repeatedly lying about my stated intention is going to get you anywhere? Especially when everyone can see every word I have said and can clearly see that you are lying? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Imagine a world where there are no policies... Good UNPARLIMENTARY LANGUAGE Boing. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than a lie, Boing!, I think this is a lack of understanding of WP:WHEELWAR. WormTT(talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps originally, yes - but when the same untruth is repeated after having been corrected... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no threat of WHEELWAR, no. This very request was disrupting to make a point (in that he should have just said "can I have the bit back" and we wouldn't have had any of this long conversation) - but I don't see that he's threatening further. As I said above, there was strong community consensus for WP:RESYSOP. Do you have evidence that Boing! Said Zebedee resigned under a cloud or has been inactive over 3 years? WormTT(talk) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not take that as a threat to wheel war or to disrupt. You read it with an assumption of bad faith and I read it with an assumption of good faith GB fan 13:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with others that the wording of this request was ill-advised. Our procedures allow for a return of the tools, but note that if you take up the tools and then relinquish them soon thereafter, any potential future resysop request would necessarily consider the new climate in which you relinquished the tools. –xenotalk 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I appreciate that, thanks - but my intention would be to never request resysop again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Request re-admin (Boing! said Zebedee)[edit]

Please move this discussion to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee or start a new subsection if further bureaucratic intervention is required. –xenotalk 17:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So now we have an admin that has the bit solely for the purpose of unblocking Eric Corbett the next time someone actually attempts to enforce policy against him? I have to say that this is probably the most short-sighted action by a bureaucrat I have witnessed.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Refusing to return the bit would just seem like further brinkmanship, in my opinion. –xenotalk 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you show me where I said "for the purpose of unblocking Eric Corbett the next time someone actually attempts to enforce policy against him" (my emphasis)? I think you'll find you can't, because I did not say that. I'll assume good faith and take it as a misunderstanding this time, but should you repeat your allegation I will consider it a lie. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
While your original request was obviously pointy, I would agree that it did not state an intention of wheel warring. Your second comment, made after the unblock, notably "If I feel I need to use the tools in this case I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia - either way" most certainly did represent a promise to wheel war, however. The implied statement was that if someone re-blocked Eric, you would use the tools to re-unblock and then duck responsibility by quitting the project. Fortunately, the argument is moot as you have promised to resign as an admin (again) once the situation is resolved. Since everyone knows that there is no point in blocking Eric again for this incident, I expect that your next act on Wikipedia will be to follow up on this promise. Resolute 14:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Re "The implied statement was that if someone re-blocked Eric, you would use the tools to re-unblock and then duck responsibility by quitting the project" - the inference is only in your head, and there was absolutely no threat to wheelwar. I would consider using my admin tools in any new dispute that might arise in the near future, that much I will admit - but I would do it as judiciously as I am able, and I would not run away from it. But the "one more action" to which I refer above is *not* anything to do with Eric, and I have yet to decide whether I will go through with it - but if I do, I'm pretty sure you will not be displeased. I will retain the admin bit until I decide whether or not to put it to that use - or long enough to assist Hasteur with his threat to take me to ArbCom, whatever. (But generally, all you people who assume you know what I'm thinking and what I intend to do, and condemn me for what's in your own heads but not in mine - well, you're behaving shamefully) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And PS, yes, I do intend to make good on my promise to request desysop again (for the last time), but I will do it based on *my* judgement as to when currents issues are resolved to my satisfaction, not on *yours*. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I have a hard time buying this. Your request - first comment and second - clearly stated a desire to take an action that relates directly to the current situation involving Eric. Now you are claiming that your requested action has nothing to do with Eric. That may well be true as I obviously won't know until you either take said action or explain what you are considering, but surely you would agree that it is challenging to take such claims at face value when you appear to be moving the goalposts. And if many people come to the same conclusion about your apparent intention, I would argue the fault lies less in the people coming to that conclusion and more with how you presented your intention. Resolute 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think that's fair comment, and I thank you for the first sign of respect I have seen from opponents since I started this. And I admit I have deliberately been opaque. However, I have not moved the goalposts, and when I said "I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia" way above, that intended once-only use was (and still is) an indefinite self-block. I find my time here becoming less and less rewarding and I find the environment becoming more and more poisonous. An attempted remedy earlier this year was to request a 3-month block, but its beneficial effect didn't last long after I returned. There are people I respect who are willing to issue such blocks, but not indefinite - only I can do that, and I think it is the only way I could wean myself away from this pit. So there it is - I was being deliberately pointy above, but now I'm being completely open. Make of that what you will. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. I'm probably fortunate that I can always fall back to editing the low controversy area of hockey articles when the drama becomes annoying. If you do choose to stay, I hope that you have/can find a similar quiet part of the project to enjoy. If not, then I wish you well on future endeavours. Resolute 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and my best wishes go to you too — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The blocking policy says that typically such self-block requests are refused but are not outright forbidden. If you ask me I would be willing to block you for you. Whichever duration you want. Chillum 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you would, but as I suggested above I would only ask "people I respect". Anyway, I don't need you now — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see you have been re-sysoped so I will retract that offer. Please don't do anything an admin should not do. Chillum 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean like being patronizing to someone with almost seven years' experience and more than 60,000 edits including more than 21,000 in main space? I'll try not to. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You know very well that is not what I meant. Re-read what you have written on this page to see what I meant. You started this thread by declaring the intent to reverse a block. Not to discuss it with the admin, not to seek consensus for the unblock, but just to unblock. Admins discuss unblocks first and seek agreement with the blocking admin or seek consensus. I was not patronizing you, I was expressing concern about your judgment.
I have 50k+ edits over about 8 years, but I don't think that makes me immune to concerns about my judgement. Chillum 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I did actually check your contributions before I made that comment, but surely you can understand why I might not welcome advice from someone with little more than a tenth the mainspace contributions as me and who assumed bad faith here right from the start? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't suffer from editcountitis so I don't really see your point. I assumed you were going to do what you were talking about doing. Read what you said with an open mind and perhaps you can see why I was concerned. I am not the only one. It is not assuming bad faith when someone outright says what they are going to do. Chillum 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I really need to apologise, because I did not take into account your apparently undeclared alternative accounts - your Chillum account appears to have only 24,281 edits — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you are confusing your own personal interpretation of what I said with what I actually said - but you are far from alone in that failing, and I am happy to forgive you - as long as you bear in mind your own advice and "Please don't do anything an admin should not do" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.