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 14:47:44 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Asking for adminship back

Resolved

 – The bit has been returned. If you wish to discuss the policy, that should be done at WT:BUR. There is nothing further to discuss on this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am a wikipedia user of a little over 5 years and a former admin on meta and en-wiki ~3 years ago and resigned due to taking a long wikibreak. My reasoning was that I didn't want some random user to find my page asking for help, only to not get a response (even with a disclaimer). If deemed reasonable I would like to be an administrator again.

Here's the edit where I asked for de-adminship voluntarily (no controversy involved) - [1].

Here's an little edit graph for wikipedia (english of course) [2].

Thank you for your time.

RN 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you made an effort to catch up on all the changes to policy (and indeed to the sysop bit itself) since 2006? Juliancolton (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read the usual, such as Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators'_reading_list (inc. subpages), CSD policy, etc.. As for the sysop bit question, are you referring to the new umbrella of permissions administrators get now (AWB, etc.)? If not, then please do let me know, as I've read every page I could and don't see much referring to the bit itself.

Generally though, I don't use administrative tools unless I'm confident in my knowledge of the policy and use of the tool, and I think my log reflects that.

original RFA from years ago for reference.

Also, thank you very much for the response. If you have any other questions, please ask; if there is anything else I should know that I missed, please let me know, even if this request isn't granted. RN 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issues which would prevent returning the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While Julian has a valid point asking RN to brush up on current policy, this shouldn't be a requirement for RN to regain their bit. After all, they should not be treated differently than any admin who was simply inactive for three years without resigning their bit. Regards SoWhy 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall this user, but I also agree with Joe and SoWhy. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but Julian makes a reasonable point- admins now have access to revdel, pending changes protection and the abuse filter, most, if not all of which, were unheard of when RN took their wikibreak. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• That adminship is for life is an organisational disgrace, so I think that Julian is perfectly entitled to ask the obvious questions. Not that it will make any difference of course. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Give me a break. I see no one stating that Julian wasn't entitled to ask question. Those of us who commented simply stated we saw nothing which would prevent the bit from being returned. Please stop implying we meant anything more than that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I appreciate any questions, seriously - especially with the new tools admins get now I think discussions like this are a good thing. I do remember revdel (or at least a version of it) and have perused over the text of all the other powers; back then it was restricted to people with oversight (and stewards if I recall?). This new version seems different and I'm not 100% yet what the difference is between the admin version and the oversight version is (if any) yet even after several readings. Generally in a case like this if I still didn't fully understand it I would ask another administrator or similar about it, especially given its potential for abuse. I'm pretty familiar with pending changes protection and the page on that is pretty straightforward.

Again, if anyone has any hesistations, please spell it out and let me know; being an administrator without the confidence of someone is not something I desire. RN 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through your logs and I don't see anything concerning. That said, are you up on the WP:CSD as it is now? I notice several of the categories you used "back then" have since been moved/replaced and one or 2 new criteria have been brought in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current revdel is the same (afaik) that oversighters have, although on a different level. It was enabled basically to make it unnecessary for admins to delete and selectively restore an article to remove one or more revisions. Oversight still exists as a way to remove such revisions from the sight of all users, including admins. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Malleous, the fact that admin status is allegedly for life is a disgrace and unsupportable as an authoritative claim. This returning user has been away longer than he was active and has no lifetime right to any authority here. Ask him to open a RFA and we can see if the community supports users having a lifetime authority here and if the community supports leavers returning after over three years and immediately having automatic authoritative tools here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You and Malleus may very well be right, but denying this user the return of the bit will do nothing to change the policy as you advocate. —DoRD (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not denying it is simply asking him to see if there is community support for his desire. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If RN had simply left or edited only a little during this time but kept the bit, we wouldn't be having this discussion as no abuse whatsoever of the bit has been presented here. If you want a policy change on inactive admins or such, propose a policy change, but this is not the time nor forum for that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ec addition to reply to User:Department of Redundancy Department..your comment is correct also, this case of a long term user returning like this may well be something to take to the community for feedback as per the automatic for life resopping guideline (please provide a link to this part of the policy/guideline please) if the returnee feels he has community support and opens an RFA we will get some feedback on that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ec reply to Rlevse, it is clearly the time to raise the issue, I strongly object to this returnee after such a long period of absence being automatically given administrative authority. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• While Malleus Fatuorum and Off2riorob may decry the "admin for life" culture that is a fact of life here, their objections are moot; the failure of the recent Rfc WP:CDA, which administrator votes helped deep-six, shows there is little hope of even modifying it soon. Term limits have also been rejected by the community as well, and I see little desire among Wikipedians to reopen that issue. I believe there is no precedent for a requirement that former admins must submit to another Rfa, and doing so now would open yet another can of worms. Given these facts, all any of us can do, regardless of what we might wish, is to put a good face on it - so, welcome back to adminship, RN. Jusdafax 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of personalized comment from Justafax that is actually disruptive, he simply objects to anything to do with me nothing actually to do with the issue under discussion at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Malleus and Randy are correct. This is not the correct forum, and inevitably someone will be along shortly to flip the bit back on, irrespective of anything - no offence at all to RN intended (I see no issue with the resysop FWIW). Rob - by arguing the toss over this you're simply adding to the big "WP:DEAL" thing over adminship. If admins are just people with a few buttons on a website that other people on the website don't have (which they are) then it should be "easy come, easy go". I understand concerns about legacy admins regaining the tools (I have in the past being very vocal against legacy admins and in particular bureaucrats) but I've changed my mind to think that if we really want to de-escalate the "them versus us" cancer spreading on WP betweeen admins and non admins then uncontroversial resysops may be a good place to start. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, after the Tbdsy fiasco, I think admins who have been away for a long time and want their bits back should at least be subjected to some scrutiny to make sure they're still up to the job (no offence to RN, who I believe is) since it's so damn hard to get rid of admins like Tbdsy who insist on disrupting the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, @Off2riorob) Sorry, but I have this page watchlisted and comment here often, for what it is worth. AGF, eh? Jusdafax 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because he is still upset because I won a content dispute over a year ago to remove a POV comment from the lede of an article he has ownership issues with, Karl Rove and he repeatedly shows up everywhere and calls for my indefinite blocking from the site, I look forward to his request for extra buttons. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no written policy on this sort of thing. I was using the term more loosely before; something like "standard practice" would have been a better word choice in that posting. This is akin to the difference in common law (standard practice) and statutory law (written policy). Standard practice is what has evolved over time as what is accepted by the general community (obviously not every user, that'll never happen on something like adminship). A written policy will never get accepted in time for RN's case and as others have mentioned there has not been much community support for significant changes in that direction lately; but of course that does not mean someone can't try again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly, Rlevse. Jusdafax 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've granted RD back the mop. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be noted that there were objections to the process as claimed standard practice to automatically re-sopp returnees after three years or periods of such lengthly time. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)#

The system is corrupt, but very few seem to care. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you're seeking to change the system, you're in the wrong place. There's nothing the 'crats can do and, as Rlevse says, if he'd taken a 3-year wikibreak and not resigned the bit, he could pick up exactly where he left off with no 'crats involved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2: Is this going to go anywhere? Resysop on request is policy unless the desysop was "under a cloud". The argument, if there is one, should not be here. It should be at an RFC on the policy, if anywhere; meanwhile, I don't see that the Crats can refuse a resysop request from a former Admin in good standing; this is becoming unproductive and the Crats are within their rights to resist criticism. This should not be here, because it is, as things stand ultra vires. Some realisation of that would be helpful.Rodhullandemu 22:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Great example of Hyperbole by Malleus. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody has the right to "resist criticism". But when did turkeys ever vote for Thanksgiving? Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that there is such a "right" as you imply; but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the realities of the way we work. Options to meet your criticisms have been proposed, but ignoring them and labouring the point here doesn't appear to me to advance the argument. Rodhullandemu 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I am ignoring nothing. Unlike you, I recognise that the present system is corrupt. You, on the other hand, seem quite happy with the corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • No, you imagine that the system is corrupt, without citing evidence for that contention. Had you said that the system is less than ideal, and bothered to raise an WP:RFC, your stance might have some validity; but thus far, this is just wind in sails, sound and fury, and meaningless. Money with mouth, please. Rodhullandemu 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Why does the community so often complain when bureaucrats make the decisions they have been elected to make? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
            • What???? I'm an admin, and a very busy admin. As far as I'm concerned, you either shit or get off the pot. Start an RFC or STFU, please. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Resop on request - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As Biblio gave the mop back aobut 1.5 hours ago, pls take this argument to RFC or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. The crats operate within their parameters and cannot remake or unmake policy. As I see it, their functions involve considerably less discretion than is allowed to admins. However, if you don't like it, flag-waving here ain't the way to move forward. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Or just let's ignore the corruption, which is much easier. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? I say again, put up or shut up. Start an RFC, if you like, but if you're too much of a coward to rely on unsupported rhetoric, as opposed to evidence, then you don't merit any credence in this discussion. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Biblio, that was a very surprising decision on your part, considering the objections raised to summarily giving the sysop right back to RN. I don't believe in making things a bigger deal than they used to be, and I don't have anything personal against RN, but four years of minimal activity is a long time. If RN ran for RfA right now, do you think he would pass? I think the answer is clear, and that this particular course of action (reassigning the bit without much serious consideration) is inappropriate. Juliancolton (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were objections to this action and no reason to act in any hurry, I also objected to the users administrative contribution. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not surprising at all. It's standard practice. As others have pointed out, you can bitch about current practice if you like, but this is not the place. Friday (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Current practice is for bureaucrats to carry out the community's wish, and to avoid independent decision making if there is any chance of controversy. This is not what occurred here. Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia weather, today and every day: cloudy with a chance of controversy. You cannot remotely be serious in what you're saying. Friday (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is always a possibility, correct, but minimizing it is certainly an option. Please do not belittle my arguments by questioning my seriousness; if you have an actual counter-argument, feel free to present it. At the very least, it is more than clear that we need a definite policy on resysopping practices to avoid this debate rehashing itself so frequently. Juliancolton (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No reasonable person could possibly think that this debate will lead to any meaningful change in the existing policies. Therefore, I can only assume that this debate is continuing for drama's sake alone. Please - find the right forum and do what you can to change policy there. —DoRD (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Julian: the policy is definite and it is outlined at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping; if anyone feels this should be changed, a discussion or RFC at WT:BUR would be the next step. –xeno^talk 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That policy is really extremely vague. Juliancolton (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Did they resign under a cloud? (which IS defined, by the way) If yes, don't resysop. If no, resysop. There is a reason we're called bureaucrats. (X! · talk)  · @222  ·  04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That logic rather suggests that administrators who resign in uncontroversial circumstances have the right to have the status restored at a later date. I don't think that's quite correct. Bureaucrats may enjoy (subject to community consensus still favouring this) a discretion to restore sysop rights without requiring a fresh RfA, but I don't think we must do so. I would hope, for example, that any bureaucrat who suspected that someone requesting the return of user rights would use them disruptively would refuse to restore them and require that a fresh RfA be passed. WJBscribe (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, when did it stop being a high crime to use the name "Randy" around here? Or has the RevDelete squad® simply not been informed yet? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename

I am User:Betacommand, (you can check my status on commons where I was renamed), I am not going to go with the normal rename process due my high edit count and the issues involved with such a rename. (we normally have to get a developer involved in order to fix what ever breaks). I would like all the userrights removed from my old account to my new account. I waited to do the rename here on en.wp until I was no longer under any restrictions, in order to make the least hassle and drama, thanks. Δ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

given the high edit count, I'm ok with this as long as the two userpages link to each other. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive already redirected my old userpage. Δ (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course many will call you "delta" as they aren't familiar with entering special characters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats to be expected since that is my username :) Δ (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you have not complied with Rlevse's restriction "as long as the two userpages link to each other" in this edit to this page, in which you were instructed to have your new userpage link to your old userpage, which you have not yet done, so I'm not disposed to welcome you back just yet.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on one's definition of linked. The problem with the redirects is someone not familiar with Delta's history won't know Delta is AKA Betacommand. So for me something like "I was formerly..." and "I am now ..." is in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider redirects as linked as you can get. The I was formerly... and I am now ... I find cheesy and tacky. They are not required by policy so I'm not planning on doing something like that. I am not attempting to hide anything. If anyone has questions of who I am they can check what links here, or take a look at my first edits. Δ (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying your positions.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Then use something like Jack Merridew has at the top of his user page. Without a rename or user page link, there's nothing linking the accounts other than this thread which will be buried deep in page history soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was fiddling with that stuff earlier today (had not seen this thread). I'm thinking you mean the sock icon next to my user name; this thing got wonky with the deployment of vector due to the addition of a new level of containing block in the page structure (means they added position:relative to a deeper div; huh?: they messed with stuff). I've changed things to all work within yet another positioning context that I setup. I'm sure Deltacommand can pick it apart as desired. Prolly using some sort of delta-icon, or one for renames. nb: I hates user box templates, and they should never be required for such circumstances. Or the drop-menus I've restored? ;) I nicked those off User:Hersfold sometime last year. They had vector issues, too; much as above and due to the messing that keeps occurring with the topicon class; fixed similarly, today, and I added z-index, which is fairly specific to my user page mechanism. Cheers all, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{User previous acct}} also exists for this purpose, it would also help in heading off any concerns raised that you've renamed to avoid scrutiny. –xeno^talk 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would such a template be OK on Δ's talkpage? Reason I ask is, I'm seeing the pristine red of Δ's userpage, and I'm wondering if the stumbling block is a desire to maintain a red userpage. TFOWR 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. –xeno^talk 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prev acct template on the talkpage only is okay with me. It should of course permanently be at the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like X! to explain this since discussion is ongoing here and he didn't bother to let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called "I didn't see the thread before he pinged me on IRC asking for me to do it". Am I expected to watch BN like a hawk every waking moment? Especially when I was busy doing other stuff? I didn't think so. A simple "{{done}} by X! ~~~~" would be easier. (X! · talk)  · @975  ·  22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So BC starts the thread, some responses are made and many hours later he contacts you to get it done while discussion is ongoing here? Now I'm going to ask BC/Delta to explain this. At a minimum it's forum shopping. I don't expect you to watch BN every second but I do expect BC to know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is how I see it, 1. Renames with extremely high editcounts normally require devs to fix. 2. My userrights on my old account where in good standing. 3. There have been no issues with my new name 4. When a user renames their user rights get transferred to their new name 5. According to that logic (which everyone agrees to) my user rights should be transferred. 6. You are trying to hold something over my head has leverage to force me to do something that I would rather not. 7. I am under no restrictions and am in good standing with the community so the attempted withholding of my userrights as a form of persuasion to force me to add some stupid template or configure my sig to some silly thing saying Formerly user xxx is just cretinous. Since the only thing holding the issue back here is how I link to to my old username (Ive already redirected the pages to my talk) you have no ground for withholding my valid user rights.

upon those grounds I ask an un-involved crat to move my user rights, since because it seems your history with me prevented you from taking a objective stance with regard to my request. Δ (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your third point isn't strictly true. When you asked to be renamed to ∆, the request was denied by several bureaucrats [3]. Some of the concerns raised in that thread could apply equally to transferring rights to Δ and I think it should have been drawn to everyone's attention here. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Following up this comment by WJBscribe, where was the "SUL unification request" referred to by Deskana made? –xeno^talk 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He asked me on IRC. I can't remember much about the conversation and I don't keep logs. Perhaps Betacommand has some. --Deskana (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but are usurp requests regularly handled in this manner? Betacommand, is there a particular reason you chose to initiate this request via IRC rather than the the usual fashion? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they're not normally handled on IRC but there's no restriction against it. I'd like Betacommand to make any logs he has of our chat available to me. My memory is extremely hazy, but I seem to recall that I asked Betacommand to make the request publicly but he said he wouldn't, and made some comment about wanting to avoid drama. I'd forgotten about the previous rename request since it was just over three years ago and I had minimal involvement other than saying "too many people said no, sorry". --Deskana (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Betacommand, you've stated a few times you are under no restrictions, however WP:RESTRICT has a section listed for User:Betacommand with an expiry time of 'indefinite'. Has this been vacated? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that at the time of my previous request that the username policy frowned upon non-Latin usernames, this has since changed. Δ (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obfuscation isn't going to help you. You had a rename to delta denied, you come here to ask for something, the discussion was ongoing, no one said no, and you went behind our backs to get what you wanted. Now if you'd told X! about this thread it'd be different, but you didn't. This is sneaky, underhanded, and forum shopping. I was not the only one with the same concerns so don't try to single me out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not Obfuscation, its the facts. You are the only one wanting me to "Link" my old and new names. I am considering this closed and am moving on to more productive actions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reread the thread, I'm not the only one. And some of the arbs have told me they agree with me. But not to worry, you're already displaying the same attitudes that got you in trouble before and will do so again and you'll do it all on your own. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled. When I click on the userpage, I get an entirely blank space. (Glad someone explained it's called "Delta". I'd call it "pointy triangle", but then I am a barbarian. Literally a barbarian, as it happens. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend Waiting for the Barbarians. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for resysop

Can I please have my admin status restored? – iridescent 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issue here, ready to resysop in a few hours. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are absolutely no issues, as anyone around here knows. Heck, even the freak show of regulars at Wikipedia Review would probably vaguely welcome this particular resysop. What Iridescent's motivation behind this request is another debate however, but I smile and tip my hat at it.... Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support this restoration! :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the removal request? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request, removal. – iridescent 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complex stuff clearly. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This was today? I guess you're having second thoughts. Restoration is okay with me. I know of no reason not to. Pedro-no reason for your sarcasm. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That was today?????????? EVERY reason for my sarcasm. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly a year ago Rlevse. Don't see any problems with the request. Prodego ^talk 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OH DOH on me. Me being dumb is not a justification for Pedro's comments, which he's partly stricken. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

iridescent eats puppies. She absolutely should not be re-sysopped. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedro mentions people from Boise (or wherever). He should be desysopped, hung, drawn .... etc. You get the idea. Iridescent gets back buttons on website is simple. The more pressing question is how do we get otters on the main page again? Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I had nothing against Iridescent's actions with they was an administrator and would be perfectly happy to see them back with the bit. However, if I remember correctly, Iridescent knew about User:Law being a banned user at the time of Law's RFA. By the time the ArbCom motions rolled around though, Iridescent had already given up the mop. While I disagreed with ArbCom's actions in that instance, Iridescent was essentially in the same boat as Jennavecia at the time. Does this affect anything? NW (Talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it ought to? Or are you just trolling, as I was accused of doing when I objected to the restoration of another administrator's bit a few days ago? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that Iridescent should be resysopped. I'm just commenting, as I did last October, about the inconsistency of ArbCom in this matter. If they really intended to be fair, they would prevent Iridescent from being resysopped or restore LaraLove's bit. But since when has ArbCom ever been consistent? NW (Talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally dream about Laralove's bits, but I guess that's a discussion for another place. FWIW, I agree with you NW. She was a good administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The details of Iridescent and Jenna in the Law matter are not the same. Afraid that's about all I can say on it in this forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued. Lara 03:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

While I hate to spoil a brewing drama, here are the opinions of the only two Arbcom members to express an opinion:[4][5]. – iridescent 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that I know of no public reason why they should not be resysopped and Rlevse is an arb who should reasonably know any private reason, I'm resysopping at this time. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for that 24 hour wait period, eh? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRAT#Resysopping doesn't say we have to wait 24 hours... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I had planned to action this by midnight as well and concur with the result - there is no set wait period (#3). –xeno^talk 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's almost always a sign of a weak argument when someone goes pointing to a project-space page as justification for their actions (even more so when they're pointing at the absence of something). The real question isn't "why wait?", it's "what's the rush?" The virtue of a 24-hour wait period is discussed in the archives of this noticeboard. There seems to be some vehement opposition to it, though I can't for the life of me figure out why that is. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

MzM---"The virtue of a 24-hour wait period" has been discussed, but I can't remember the last time that the 'crats ever waited 24 hours. It was never put into effect and there have been several 'crats who explicitly stated that unless it is made official, that they would not feel bound by it. Thus, nobody actually waits 24 hours. I think what they've pretty much agreed to is no "instant" resysops like they used to do (eg 15 minutes after the request is made.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, did my comment above get missed? She eats puppies. PUPPIES! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse her with Tarrare. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you knew there was vehement opposition to the notion, why introduce it into the argument? Their dietary habits notwithstanding, iridescent is an excellent admin who, quite frankly (!), needs to get back to work after their extended leave. On a more general note: if every resysop request becomes an issue, we will surely see less admins giving up the tools when they decide they can be more useful without them... –xeno^talk 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the opposition comes from a handful of impatient bureaucrats and seemingly has no basis. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't made any specific objections regarding the request, am I understanding correctly that your concerns are strictly procedural? If so, I suggest you create a new section or RFC on the matter. –xeno^talk 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Resysopping is not a matter of consensus; therefore any illusory issue if "24 hour wait" is irrelevant. Issues only arise in "under a cloud" desysopping cases, and the criteria for resysopping are normally set out in the desysop decision. Those criteria should either be followed or referred to the desysopping authority for review. Simples. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[comments not relevant to current request removed]. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)