Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Netoholic 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Netoholic (current bureaucrat, vote to reinstate privileges)

This vote is necessary to find out if the only active bureaucrat on simple.wikipedia has the necessary consensus to keep his status or should be removed. Prior to this vote, Netoholic has been put on request for comments on meta and then the Stewards have been reported about the current situation. Other active administrators have also been asked to candidate themselves for bureaucrat position. --M7 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except some brief delays in promotion, I have performed as a bureaucrat with no complaints until M7 has decided to persue this campaign against me after I made a judgement call and chose not to promote User:Tdxiang. These sorts of judgement calls happen occassionally, and should not be used to attack the person put in the position of making that call. It is equally likely that I might have promoted, but had people complain about that or that decision be regretted. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Netoholic has now been desysopped by a steward (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators. This vote will now determine whether these are to be reinstated. Archer7 - talk 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is little chance of people reconfirming me since this trouble is all so recent. Reconfirmation of sysops is a bad idea because that job attract criticism over time. Apparently, my removal is the reward for putting over two years of hard admin and bureacrat work into this wiki - that it all can be shattered in the matter of one week. So, to all you ambitious ones, enjoy it while it lasts. I would suggest staying away from making bold, hard decisions, as you will end up being punished for them. -- Netoholic @ 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - OK, tomorrow will make it a week since this vote has been opened. Does anyone think this vote should carry on, get some more opinions, or just close it? Archer7 - talk 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I think everybody who wished to say anything has spoken. So, I think this should be closed tomorrow. PullToOpen ^Talk 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, if no-one calls for more time or makes any influential votes, I'll close Netoholic's vote as removal of all privileges tomorrow, and also request promotion of Blockinblox and me to bureaucrat, and Tdxiang to admin. Any problems, speak now. Archer7 - talk 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests posted on Meta. Archer7 - talk 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Log
(support removal/oppose removal/remove bureaucrat status/neutral)
(5/1/3/2)

Support - I see no reason why Netoholic should lose their status. -- Eptalon 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Those still having doubts can see this --M7 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My choice to block you for your trolling and politicking was an admin decision, not a bureaucrat one. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was under the impression that this discussion was about removal of both your bureaucrat and admin flags. Most of the complaints are related to abuse of admin priviliges. Archer7 - talk 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from bureaucrat only this page: request for comments and this: reported is the reason --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M7 isn't a Troll, and THIS?? --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lol, such a tiny wiki and already has a wheel war. :) M isza13 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - my reasons stated on the Meta RfC. Archer7 - talk 19:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Alright, Neto, this has gone too far. M7 is NOT a troll. I request for him to be unblocked immediately, because that was completely unacceptable. I am sad that it has come to this... PullToOpen ^Talk 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Neutral. I have decided that I want to stay out of this vote. I don't want any blood on my hands. PullToOpen ^Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal after reading said meta RfC. M isza13 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remain neutral. On this issue about the veto placed on me. It is therefore up to the new bureaucrats' decision to op me.-- Tdxi a n g 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per my comments on the RFC and the recent developments. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Simple WP wouldn't have been better off if Netoholic had taken a wikibreak at the peak of the conflict until the issues die out. But he stayed on with the project and continued with his responsibilities to clean up the site despite this. However, the block on M7 is unjustified and constitutes an abuse of power whichever way you look at it. Thus, I cannot give him a 'keep', but at the same time, cannot give a 'remove'. zephyr2k 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sysop only. ...Aurora... 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove bureaucrat and adminstrator access. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from being a bureaucrat, but not as an admin --TBCΦtalk? 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.