Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

bureaucratship update

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

It is 07:02:04 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

This current COVID pandemic has given me the chance to think through a number of things; I don't really want to be engaged so much with WP - real life is out there, not so much tapping at a keyboard. Also, my attempts to stop the creation of large numbers of very low quality articles through somewhat borderline means, breaching the usual standards of conduct, appear to Joe Roe to be totally unjustified.

Thus I would cordially request an available bureaucrat to remove my administrator privileges. Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Buckshot06#Inappropriate talk page messages is probably the discussion Buckshot06 refers to. Regards SoWhy 10:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove your tools, but it feels to me that if the second half of your message was resolved, the first wouldn't feel such a push to give in your tools. I'd prefer not to take the tools away for the moment, in the hope that some dispute resolution can help make you happier. We have so few admins, and so few editors. We are lucky to have you and I'd rather prefer you to stay engaged if there's a chance of it. --

I'm fine holding this open for a short period (perhaps a day), but if not withdrawn will still process. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should make Buckshot06 aware that upon getting their permission revoked, they might be subjected to a bureaucrat discussion if they ever request the right back. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the circumstances I would favour not actioning this request for at least 24 hours and perhaps a bit longer. This is a request made under emotional pressure. I would prefer to see Buckshot06 resolve the concerns being raised before deciding if they wish to continue as an admin. As QEDK points out, there is also the question of is this a resignation under a cloud, so restoring admin privileges may not be straightforward, and may require an RfA. SilkTork (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Buckshot06 probably felt that a sitting arbitrator telling him that there are grounds for an admin misconduct case request to ArbCom was a pretty clear indication of how the land lay! serial ^# 13:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I raised this with Buckshot06 in an individual capacity, and would of course recuse if it came to an arbitration request. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would, Joe; my point was, rather, that Buckshot06 would be very likely to assume that a case bought by a sitting arb would be the biggest sure thing since Coca-Cola invested in molasses. And has acted accordingly.

To put it another way, if, say Levivich or Bonadea leave me a level 4 warning for my usual trolling, that carries a certain—but restricted—weight. Whereas, if—again for example—Iridescent or MelanieN does the same, it inevitably comes fruaght with unspoken meaning and implication. The same punch, but with a hell of a lot more shoulder behind it. That's the position Buckshot06 probably felt himself in. serial ^# 14:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also guess that it's way too early to even think about ArbCom, given that other attempts at dispute resolution haven't been exhausted yet. Reyk _YO! 13:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate that I wish to have my admin privileges revoked. I have gotten far too tangled up in cyberspace for too long. I want to do more IRL. The reflection period brought on by COVID-19 has allowed me to realise that.

Now, yes, in addition, a completely unknowing administrator of the issues with driveby editors who have unchecked for years created military article after article after article with no engagement with editors pleading with them to reference things; yes, I threatened JMRAMOS0109, several times, he's now communicating!! He's referencing things!! The articles are much more worthwhile.

Joe may also not be aware that I spent literally months trying over and over again to help J-Man11 to become a better editor, prodding, pleading, inserting, cajoling etc. But he was eventually blocked because he was damaging the encyclopedia.

But to get JMRAMOS0109 to communicate, and to make any impression on J-Man11, yes I had to move far beyond any normal level of requests to editors. We deal with some way-out characters.

I still believe that what I did was justified. But at least one other does not. It's a judgement call for which I suggested Joe to talk to the collection of almost all administrators and very experienced editors that, collectively, make up the Milhist coordinators. He was not interested.

So, yes, absolutely, I'm under a cloud. Yes I am *fully* aware an RfA would be required. Given the various views which have been expressed, there's a good chance I would not pass it. I need to admit liability for the misconduct that I may have engaged in. I do not believe, in the circumstances, it was misconduct. Honestly I would prefer that an ADMINCOND takes place *immediately after* I am relieved of the tools, so that the issue is examined and settled.

So, yes, I am under a cloud. But that is not the reason for requesting the tools be taken away - it is the catalyst, the trigger, the spark.

I would kindly request any available bureaucrat to withdraw my administrator privileges. I have no wish for further appeal in this regard. A discussion on my conduct is probably merited - actually, it's certainly merited - but I would request that the tools be taken away *first*. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, addend: I had no idea of who Joe Roe was. Any admin, any editor, could see that I was raising my voice, threatening editors, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per your request. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 21:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]