Requests for comment/Request to Stewards

The following request for comments is closed. Netoholic's administrator and bureaucrat access on simplewiki was removed, and a subsequent community discussion confirmed the permanence of its removal.

This is a request to Stewards concerning User:Netoholic's flag removal from

The RequestEdit


The Wikipedia in Simple English contains about 30k pages, 11,825 of which are articles and has 16 administrators and 2 bureaucrats.

Of these administrators, more than one half are inactive, some of them even for years.

Of the two bureaucrats, one is inactive.

The active bureaucrat, User:Netoholic has been put lately on RFC on meta and - after his latest actions and failures - is now put at Wikimedia Stewards poll, for the following reasons.

Lack in operationEdit

Simple English Wikipedia, like any other project, is subject to vandalism but it has too few people that are willing to do patrolling and clean up.

New users are sometimes sort of discouraged from editing on simple wiki, new tentative ways of aggregation have been discouraged. (see link #1)

New administrators are needed, but even when the consensus is reached, the active bureaucrat is not prompt in promoting. (see link #2) Please note that for this reason, a single bureaucrat is not generally considered advisable for WM projects. The bureaucrat failed in promptly promoting the user, and he finally did it upon a deadline fixed by a Steward.

In addition, the personal opinion of the bureaucrat should never permit him to put a veto, since this has never been part of any policy. (see link #3)

Lack in communicationEdit

The current bureaucrat is not willing to discuss his action with other users, even when people think that the actions are not in accordance with existing policies. I've informed him on Oct 19 about the RFC opened on, explicitly asking for feedback but I could not get any answer. (see link #4)

Lack in trustEdit

The short exchange of opinion with one of the Stewards, has revealed that there is a lack in trust towards other people and a misunderstanding of the Bureaucrat role. (see link #5) The same approach was also observed towards people intervening in emergency vandal fighting.

Lack in politenessEdit

When someone inquires about questionable administrative actions, maybe he is expecting an answer. (see links #6 & #7 & #8)


  1. RFC on meta
  2. RFA TangoTango
  3. Veto on Tdxiang
  4. Netoholic talk page
  5. Request for permissions on meta
  6. On my Talk page
  7. On PullToOpen's Talk Page
  8. On PullToOpen's Talk Page


I have talked with Anthere about this situation, since this is not certainly a customary procedure, and she has suggested me to make a documented proposal to the Stewards. I request the Steward to read this material and to vote for or against this request for revoking flags (admin and/or bureaucrat) on simple.wikipedia to User:Netoholic. I understand that a decision might imply a tentative approach, such as a mail or a post in the said user's talk, so some time is needed. --M/ 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note from NetoholicEdit

I'm generally not very happy with this request being posted here. As Datrio implies, why was this not done on Simple Wikipedia itself? For my part, if people are seeing any delay in adminship processing, I have been mostly away from Simple Wikipedia for about a week, dropping in only twice to block some vandals. I just today (and before this page was created) have begun to process the admin requests which are at their conclusion. I have not promoted one user, because he had only 8 of 11 "support" comments, because he's had two failed EN:Wikipedia requests before, and because he has shown a lack of understanding on how to handle vandals and other admin tasks. I think this is within any bureaucrat's choice to not promote. There is another user who will be promoted soon, as soon as his email access is verified (a requirement on Simple Wikipedia).

The user who created this page is a minor contributor to Simple Wikipedia (under 500 edits). I feel like he has been trolling me a lot lately. Please don't let his carefully chosen links above speak for my work on Simple Wikipedia, nor my desire to improve it going forward. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stewards' opinionsEdit

Upon a quick check of this page and the pages linked, I am for revoking bureaucrat rights of user Netoholic, but we're missing one thing - if this is true, why there wasn't a vote on removing bureaucrat rights of Netoholic? Datrio 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that having the bureaucrat functions in the hands of a single person is wrong. I am for revoking bureaucrat rights of user Netoholic, unless one or two other bureaucrats are quickly chosen by the community of among their most active editors. --Paginazero - Ø 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not my fault that I have become the only active bureaucrat, so please do not punish my just because the other one has become inactive. simple:User:Angela was the lone bureaucrat on Simple Wikipedia, but resigned and promoted simple:User:SimonMayer when she left, so having one lone bureaucrat is not unusual by iteslf. Also, there has never been a formal request on simple:Wikipedia to re-evaluate my bureaucrat decisions before. To immeditaly jump to revoking them is also unfair to me. This entire request for comments is from a user who is barely active on the wiki (also, you can see he is trying to change that only after I pointed out that he is barely active). -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I just mind situation. Please note that I'm not asking for a promotion or for someone else evaluation about my work on simple, but I'm asking to correct a situation where you appear to be Mastering a version of Wikipedia. Editors' privileges are not just related to their edit ranking. There has been a formal Request for Comment in the past (by (simple:User:Archer7), which you've ignored on purpose.
This kind of action is really far from any possible justification and really denotes that you're really blinded with anger. --M/ 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Netoholic, it's certainly not your fault that you have become the only active bureaucrat, but as one of the leading figures of community, you should be one of the firsts to push the community to provide with a turnover of the no longer active sysops and bureaucrats. Being the only active bureaucrat exposes you to a potential conflict of interest, of which this page - as far as I've read - is the result. --Paginazero - Ø 07:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple needs more bureaucrats not fewer. I don't see how revoking Netoholic's rights will solve anything. Angela 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Netoholic, please restrain yourself; that will make this discussion easier. M7's comments are spot on; do not be quick to anger, nor willing to let personal feelings affect your bureaucrat actions. +sj | help with translation |+ 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If Netoholic is to resign, let a trusted admin take over his postion.-- Tdxiang 03:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Tdxiang, this part of the discussion is only community's own. This is not the place for discussing about this detail. --Paginazero - Ø 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Humble servant opinionsEdit

I would suggest to start new bureaucrat elections first for at least 2 possible candidates, ASAP. And then if there is a need, let the simple community discuss, and decide User:Netoholic's future role, wiki way. Depending on the result, any unfair action, that may happened, can be undone. My 2 cents. --Dbl2010 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another humble servant opinionEdit

Why don't you hold new bureaucrat elections, where netoholic will be a candidate just as the other candidates ? Just (for example) say that any candidates with more than 75% support will become bureaucrat, including Netoholic. If he fails this 75% threshold, then he will stop being one. If he gets more than 75%, he will stay bureaucrat. Then, it is in your hands to make it so that there are enough candidates to have at least 2 or 3 bureaucrats on the project. Certainly, you have at least 2 or 3 people you trust to do this job. Anthere

This seems quite fair to all parties, in my opinion. I'd vote for this solution. Jon Harald Søby 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
--M/ 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
And this was the result
(Block log); 20:41 . . Netoholic (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:M7" with an expiry time of 1 day: excessive wiki-politicking. warned before.)
I hereby ask for being unblocked and this users' status revoked. --M/ 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The block was lifted by another administrator, who has been "warned" by Netoholic. I'm convinced that this kind of action is no longer tolerable. --M/ 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, that move is not okay. After the last weeks feedback on your bordering-non-acceptable behavior, I think that simply qualifies as an admin abuse. I removed your bureaucrat and admin status. It is up to your community to decide whether to give it back or not. Anthere 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I am being held to much higher standards than many other administrators on other wikis. Would you remove the status of an admin on EN over one contentious block? Would you do so without even so much as contacting them? -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, we've voted. Netoholic is not to be given back his status. Both me and Blockinblox were promoted to bureaucrat earlier on today. Archer7 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)