Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Crat tasks
USURP reqs 2
CHU reqs 6
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
Approved BRFAs 0

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 07:45:42 on November 29, 2015, according to the server's time and date.


[This] notification to User:Useight was never acted upon.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC).<br /ar

@Rich Farmbrough: This gets posted on here at least once every few months :D Useight has an active alt. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I thought either there was some magic protection (like this), or the account was so old that it was inadvertently grandfathered. It would appear that Useight has no intention of using their advanced rights. So the account fits into the category "unused and likely to be unused accounts with advanced rights" which en masse are an unneeded security risk, but clearly doesn't fit into the category the rule covers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
I wonder if we need an edit notice about this. This is the third or so query about Useight (his alt has participated to bureaucrat discussions, so he isn't completely inactive in bureaucrat matters).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I first brought it up earlier this year. Although I never understood why he preferred editing with his alt account than his regular account with user rights. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, he is often editing somewhere on a less-secure computer (perhaps a public computer, or one shared with others...not sure), so he prefers to use the non-crat account to make sure no one has access to the tools if they someone access his account there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Resysop request (Boing! said Zebedee)[edit]

Resolved: Yes check.svg Donexenotalk 17:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

If I'm coming back I might as well do the best I can to help, and much of that was run-of-the-mill admin work - I see CSD and RFU backlogs are generally quite a bit longer than when I was last active, and those are areas where I used to do a fair bit, so I'd be happy to get back to working on those.

My resignation was in heated circumstances, and for full disclosure the archived events are here. I do not believe I was under a cloud at the time I requested desysop and I had not abused admin rights (and I did not threaten to do so, despite some believing that I did). It remains my opinion that blocking highly active contributors in the middle of heated discussions involving them is almost always a destructive mistake, but I have no intention of ever again acting as an admin in any situation of high drama.

If any discussion is needed, I'm happy to wait as long as is needed for a decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You should get a light switch hooked up to your bit. HighInBC 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a bit on/off/on/off, wasn't it? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (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)
Desysop again please

I'm about to use the admin tools for one last time to block my own account. When you see I have done it, please then feel free to remove my admin bit again - I shan't be back, so I will not be requesting its restoration again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 · Salvidrim! ·  17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
When I look back on my previous opinions and judgments and decide I was wrong, I change my mind - what do you do? (That was a quote I read somewhere - can't remember by whom - but I've always wanted to use it) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems cloudy to me. HighInBC 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to explain how I was guilty of any misuse of admin rights and why my resignation was under a cloud. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Would the word "muddy" be better? HighInBC 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that I have not been to 'crat school so I may be way off. I do think you put on a bit of a spectacle last time, but that may or may not be relevant here. I will leave it to the experts. HighInBC 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll accept there was a bit of muddiness around, and I can't honestly dispute what you say about "spectacle". I regret the emotional way I responded to some people who only meant well, including you, and I can only say that it was the result of a lot of frustration (and at least I showed I knew the right thing to do, which was to walk away). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I intentionally provided context without commentary, FYI, because I personally respect you but haven't really taken the time to fully evaluate all that's happened.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, understood, thanks - though I had already included the part you highlighted in my original disclosure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
On the cleanstart EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne which was aborted as the the user wished to get involved in Arbcom 2015.Was the Arbitration Committee informed priorly about your cleanstart ?Just curious why did you create your username with over 40 characters it had to be changed after an admin requested it ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not inform Arbcom of my cleanstart, because it is not required by Wikipedia:Clean start policy - see "If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use", and "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start". As for creating a username that was too long, that was simply because I did not know of the length restriction - as it allowed me to create it, I had no reason to think it was not acceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason you didn't know of the length restriction, is because it doesn't exist. No variant of Usernames must not exceed 40 characters appears at any point in Wikipedia:Username policy, and the closest it comes is extremely lengthy usernames … are highly discouraged but are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm privileged in that I know Boing! said Zebedee personally. Like me, he can be forthright when he's in the right; he's also an honest and extremely fair admin and was one of the best (160/1/0) we had from the 2011 intake. Let's not let this request degenerate in to the squabbling that happened last time - where even some 'crats showed their less revered side - and give him his tools back without a fuss. I'm sure Alan would not do anything to make me regret speaking up here and now that he's back, he's one editor and admin of the calibre we really need to keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me get this right:

  1. In July 2014, having previously resigned uncontroversially, you asked for your tools back solely for the purpose of unblocking another editor.
  2. That editor was unblocked by someone else before your request was actioned.
  3. The bureaucrats who opined generally agreed that there was no policy-based reason to deny you the tools, although several stated that they were personally unwilling to do so in the circumstances.
  4. Xeno Worm That Turned returned the tools to you. He expressly noted that this was on the basis that (should you resign them again as was your stated intention) the whole July 2014 debacle would be relevant to deciding (if you asked for them back again in the future) whether you had resigned in controversial circumstances. You accepted this.
  5. Having regained the tools, you requested their removal after you had used them to block yourself, which you did. The tools were then removed.
  6. You would now like the tools back.

My initial feeling is that I see much drama and silliness, but not really controversy. Asking for permissions back for a bad reason plus a self-block (and wasted time and energy of everyone who debated the whole sorry story) doesn't seem like sufficient reason to deny returning the rights. I would however, be interested if other bureaucrats have differing thoughts on this request. WJBscribe (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that sequence of events is accurate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Worm That Turned returned the tools, otherwise I concur with WJBscribe. –xenotalk 19:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, corrected above. WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
While I don't think there is really a cloud, per se, this is starting to go into the realm where it is similar to people who request rename after rename after rename, and we finally tell them, "No." I'm on the fence on this one because it seems Boing! said Zebedee has been repeatedly wasting our time. They also specifically stated, " intention would be to never request resysop again", yet here they are again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It all happened over a very short period of time during a period of stress, which was preceded by a long (and by most accounts productive) time as an admin, and I've kept away for quite a long time since then. And I think I have wasted far far less of other people's time than I have saved in my years of admin work prior to last year's unfortunate events. And whatever your personal thoughts, do you actually have a policy reason to deny my resysop? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The bit should be returned as there doesn't seem to be any "clouds" or policies in the way but, requesting the "switch" to be flipped many times doesn't shine good on the decision making processes, which in time might hinder retaining the bit. I concur with Kudpung that Boing! said Zebedee is still a net positive (my phrase) to the user group. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no cloud, no evasion of scrutiny. I'm tempted to suggest he runs RfA again just to remind him how valued he is, but in my opinion this should be a simple resysop. That said, I should also disclose that I have met BsZ a number of times in real life, so would like to see other opinions. WormTT(talk) 19:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • (non-'crat comment, obviously) BsZ should be resysopped. I don't think we want to deter admins from stepping away when they feel burnt out or stressed out, nor those who have stepped away from later returning. Of course, optimally the exercise would involve less drama, and also would not be repeated repeatedly... we want back our Boing!, though adminship isn't meant to go boing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator observation) FWIW, the three most recent re-RfA's seemed to go smoothly. I don't think it's a bad thing to go that route after a long-ish knockoff. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is not the forum to change RFA policy, and unless you can show that I resigned under a cloud and must face RFA again, that observation is not relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Actually since no functionary is ever required to use their tools it is not enough to prove that no rule exists to prevent you from getting access back. You also need to convince a 'crat that they should personally use their tools for that purpose. Any 'crat is welcome to decide not to act in this case. It certainly is relevant that you have been a bit wasteful of their time in the past. Just like users who request renames exorbitantly can be ignored, so can users who excessively request de-re-sysoping. HighInBC 23:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think I have enough supporters here to suggest that is unlikely to happen, and if no just cause for refusing my resysop is demonstrated then I only need one crat to do the deed. So do you have any evidence that my resysop would not be in keeping with policy? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) It's not a question of whether you have "enough supporters". My comment was only pointing out that you seem to waffle a lot on what you want to do. My being on the fence means I could go either way, though at this point I'm leaning toward resysopping. I would strongly recommend, though, that you become less of a waffler or you may run into an instance where someone finally says, "Enough is enough." We are all volunteers, and wasting our time with going back and forth on this is not playing nicely with us. Face-smile.svg. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Or opt to use some syrup... ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    I wasn't talking "policy" – I was suggesting that a voluntary re-RfA would be a good course of action in this case. Thus it is relevant. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is not a forum for open discussion on how best to approach resysop, it is a forum in which I ask for my bit back and if nobody can present a policy reason for denying it, I get it back. Your suggestion is interesting, but this *is* purely a policy issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Right, we wouldn't want to waste anyone's time on a few mouse clicks; so an RfA sounds like a good idea. Oh, wait... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Are we worried about being "wasteful of their [the crats'] time" because they're so busy with RFAs right now? I've done 3 cycles of desysop/resysop myself, and this would be BsZ's third. I suppose I see a theoretical issue with someone switching back and forth all the time, but that isn't what's happening here. Three requests in five years isn't excessive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It is when no one else ever does that. People generally don't bounce back and forth nearly as often as has happened here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      • "Excessive" is usually not defined as "more often than other people"; it usually needs to cause some kind of problem for someone. Maybe Wikipedia defines "excessive" differently. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's the number of requests people are taking issue with. It takes seconds to turns the bit on and off. If you want to just be an admin on the weekends, I'd probably be willing to desysop you on Monday morning and resysop you on Friday night every week. I think people are a bit exasperated at discussions that have spawned from these particular requests. That said, I don't think there's any real doubt that Boing! is going to have his access restored. WJBscribe (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments, Floquenbeam. In my time as an admin and serving the editing community, my policy was never that editors should not be wasting my time - my time was mine, and if anyone wasted it it was me, and not the people I was serving. (And I've spent a *lot* more time helping others than I've ever asked others to spend helping me.) Similarly, I am not here to serve the crats, and I shall henceforth ignore those crats who complain I have been wasting their time - if that's what they think, they should just ignore me and go do whatever else they wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Just for the record, I wasn't complaining. I was merely pointing out the potential appearance of your requests in the past. Stating you are going to ignore editors who point out something which might (and apparently is, to some people) be a concern is not a very effective way to interact on a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Even if you don't see it as a problem, at least acknowledging that others appear to have the concern is the most effective course. Something along the lines of, "I can see where you're coming from. I'll keep it in mind for the future." would be a good way to respond rather than quoting policy. As others have said, there was no question of policy supporting the reinstatement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Having been around at the time of the previous desysops and resysops, my recollection matches that of the 'crats above who have commented: ultimately I don't see a policy-based reason for declining this request. It will be nice to have you back as an admin, after the requisite 24-hour discussion period has concluded. 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's very kind, thank you. But I'm happy to wait longer than the usual 24 hours - I've been away so long it hardly matters to me, and I'd prefer to leave things open for long enough for anyone who wishes to have their say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. While I personally think it's silly for someone to keep asking to be de- and resysopped, Boing! said Zebedee isn't breaking any rules by doing so and, at the very least, he has created a little bit of work for we bureaucrats. I hold no objection to him being re-granted the tools once the 24-hour waiting period is over. Acalamari 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fair comment, and ditto above. And with that, I'm off to bed - g'night folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As people seem to be in general agreement with my analysis above, I am also willing to re-grant the tools. We'll wait out the usual 24hr period for good order, however. WJBscribe (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Now done. –xenotalk 17:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)



I would be grateful to have my sysop rights restored. I've just got married and have 2 little children which has kept me away for a while but I believe I have contributed well on a small scale over the years. File Éireann 12:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(non-crat comment) It looks like they haven't been removed (yet?). My guess is that your edits from Aug. 24 through now restarted the clock on the "removal" process. — Ched :  ?  12:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for checking this - you are correct!File Éireann 13:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)