Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 01:33:39 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Request re-admin

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 ? 205.178.136.76 (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 205.178.136.76 (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)
• 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)