Misplaced Pages

I think a crat chat was needed in this discussion, as opposing for an April Fools joke when I counted about 50 different editors participating in this unfunny nonsense and I haven't seen all the jokes yet, plus some of the anti IRC clientele participating in that discussion which votes should discounted. If April Fools wasn't so abused by the community this year, and it been limited like years past I'm sure Mabdul wouldn't have been opposed for it. I'm baffled by the close. Note I haven't really been using IRC much lately, only for if I need to get an hold of an admin emergency, and I have limited interactions with Mabdul there, so I'm not an IRC buddy trying to defend it, just disgusted that it was a vote rationale. Secret 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I had the same kind of reaction. While I initially opposed the candidate, the amount of nonsense in the oppose section simply disgusted me beyond belief. Snowolf 05:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was no worse than the nonsense in the support section. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be disgusted by that vote rationale, however, it is not a prohibited or nonsensical rationale (nonsensical rationales would be "candidate is a woman" or "candidate speaks English"). It's merely a controversial rationale (like 1FA, children, etc). The fact it was voiced by several users is evidence that it is not nonsensical because it is not a view held by an extreme minority of participants. What part of the close specifically baffles you, as I could find no grounds for disregarding a valid vote rationale such as that? MBisanz 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How is "Candidate uses IRC" any more rational that "Candidate users email" as oppose reason... It's baffling. Snowolf 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them. It's baffling, but it's a problem to take up with the community instead of the crats. MBisanz 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand how this RfA could have been closed in either direction. Perhaps the "baffling" part is this: A crat is tasked with evaluating all views and establishing consensus. In this case it appears that the close goes beyond the individual task at hand (the RfA), but also informally is stating what a "consensus" is in regards to not only a "one day per year 'joke' April 1 event", but also whether or not IRC is an acceptable medium of communication. When you (MBisanz) say that "the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them", you (in my view) seem to be establishing a consensus for such a criteria. I posit that it may be a "criteria" for some editors, but I hardly think it is for all editors. Yes, I do realize that you don't go so far as to say that IRC is unacceptable; but, I think you're getting dangerously close to that in the way you're wording both the close and your responses. Please note that I am not finding fault with the close - I think it is quite valid. I'm just suggesting that the wording is dangerously close to setting precedent for future candidates who may use IRC. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The close on the RFA page didn't come close to implying this. It stated plainly ".....specifically those concerns related to IRC canvassing...". Leaky Caldron 13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, first I'll say that I've followed Matt's accomplishments for years now (a TRULY impressive young man), and I wasn't trying to find fault with the close itself. Second, perhaps it's more a matter of my inferring a stance on IRC than him implying such. Third, I honestly have very mixed feelings wrt IRC. I think it can be a valuable tool, but I also think it gets misused all to often as well. If you're open to it, I'd be more than happy to continue a discussion on your talk - but I don't want to barge in if you're not open to a chat. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I've used IRC extensively for over three years. Second, I didn't mean to imply that use of IRC (or any means of communication) is unacceptable. What I meant was that some non-fringe minority of users at the RFA expressed concerns to Mabdul's use of IRC, specifically as it related to canvassing. You're right that the close of an RFA is a specific application of a general rule. The general rule is that if consensus to promote is not shown, a user will not pass RFA. In this case, three minority groups with valid viewpoints (IRC, April 1, and article editing) overlapped to create a lack of consensus (note the phrase lack of consensus, they did not create a new consensus with their opposition). I wasn't implying that there was now a consensus that IRC was bad, merely that a group of people found this candidate's use of IRC to be an indicator that he was not qualified at this time.

Also, since a lot of people have asked about this close, I'll take the opportunity to put my foot in my mouth. My philosophy on RFA remains what it was in 2009 at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_bureaucratship/MBisanz#Questions_for_the_candidate. That is, I'm strongly driven by the numbers, as indicated from prior community consensus. Also, in the RFA-arena, I have a very narrow view of bureaucrat discretion (it exists between 73%-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments). People have said crats should be more holistic in weighing the comments to mitigate the effects of poorly based opposes. I would agree that personally I do not see the use of IRC as problematic. But, just as I could see people opposing a candidate for merely being a user of 4chan, it is not plainly erroneous that a person would oppose a user of IRC out of concern that they are more suspectable to cabaling in private. If you want crats to actually discount poorly thought out but not plainly erroneous comments, then tell us that. Make it a presumption to promote unless the opposition shows actual defects in editing. That could then eliminate the balancing test because everyone passes unless someone shows specific evidence of where they were lacking. MBisanz 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"73-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments?" My understanding was that the zone of discretion was 70-75, and could range further, especially if giving less weight to "weak" votes or if there was a clear trend in the debate. I can't recall a close of no consensus where the percentage was over 80% but had been steadily falling for the previous couple of days, or indeed the reverse, but I would hope that either would be seen as within crat discretion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The range is broader, probably 65-80, but 70-80 is the standard expression. However, 73-75 as discretionary would cover over 99.9% of all possible instances of discretion and I indicated in my RFB that I would be willing but extraordinarily unlikely to use discretion outside that range. I suspect I'm in the minority of crats there though. MBisanz 04:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping

Hi! I'm back after a long absence and would like to kindly request the return of my admin tools. My account hasn't been compromised in the interim, if that helps. If there's anything else I need to do before I'm allowed a mop and bucket again, please do let me know. Thanks so much! Keilana| 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back! MBisanz 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! Now I'll get to work. :) Keilana| 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, If someone would be so kind I'd like my admin bit turned back on. I seem to have regained an interest in BLP issues again, and I may have a use for the tools. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back, MBisanz 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MB! Kevin (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

user:Centrx

Edited the main page followed by a series of rather strange edits. Needs to be de-admined until we find out what is going on.©Geni 07:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally crats can only act in the situations outlined by WP:B, and this doesn't seem to be one of those situations - I've emailed ArbCom so they can act if they wish. If the admin self-unblocks, and starts causing chaos, the stewards can be contacted, but right now it's not an emergency (it's difficult to unblock oneself). --Rschen7754 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Please compare Misplaced Pages:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions with Misplaced Pages:GRU#Stewards. Crats were both unavailable and unable to act in this circumstances, thus Steward intervention would be the only means of resolution. MBisanz 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Geni was sent here by the Stewards, 4 of us (stewards) felt no action on our part was needed, as the user did only one potentially problematic edit and stopped once told to do so. Snowolf 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then even moreso that resolution stands, as the Stewards were the only users who should have been involved in deciding the situation. MBisanz 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, arbcom did it themselves Hot Stop 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User has now been desysopped by stewards following a request on meta from the Arbitration Committee. Snowolf 15:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except in very clear emergencies (and we're talking "deleting the main page and blocking everyone in sight" emergencies), bureaucrats don't have the support of the community to act in these cases of their own accord. Stewards, also, will be very unlikely to act at the request of a general community member except in those cases. The Arbitration Committee is solely responsible for carrying out emergency procedures and authorizing one of these people to desysop someone. In this case, the Committee investigated the situation and found that an emergency desysop was needed to prevent disruption to the project, however the on-wiki actions of Centrx did not quite rise to the level needed for action without ArbCom approval. Hersfold non-admin 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)