Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation)

Editing stats for Jasonr at 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC):

Username: Jasonr
User groups: sysop
First edit: Sep 21, 2004 03:31:27
Unique articles edited: 3
Average edits per page: 1.33
Live edits: 4

Namespace totals
Article 1 25.00% 
User 2 50.00% 
User talk 1 25.00% 

Month counts
2004/09 2  
2004/10 0  
2004/11 0  
2004/12 0  
2005/01 0  
2005/02 0  
2005/03 0  
2005/04 0  
2005/05 0  
2005/06 0  
2005/07 0  
2005/08 0  
2005/09 0  
2005/10 0  
2005/11 0  
2005/12 0  
2006/01 0  
2006/02 0  
2006/03 0  
2006/04 0  
2006/05 0  
2006/06 0  
2006/07 0  
2006/08 0  
2006/09 0  
2006/10 0  
2006/11 0  
2006/12 0  
2007/01 0  
2007/02 0  
2007/03 0  
2007/04 0  
2007/05 0  
2007/06 0  
2007/07 0  
2007/08 0  
2007/09 0  
2007/10 0  
2007/11 0  
2007/12 0  
2008/01 0  
2008/02 0  
2008/03 1  
2008/04 0  
2008/05 0  
2008/06 0  
2008/07 0  
2008/08 1  
2008/09 0  
2008/10 0  
2008/11 0  
2008/12 0  
2009/01 0  
2009/02 0  
2009/03 0  

Logs
Top edited articles
Article
1 - Joe_Ranft 


User
1 - Jasonr 
1 - Jasonr/testpage 


User talk
1 - Jasonr 

This is not a reconfirmation (as the title of the request suggests) but is a nomination for (de)adminship (as Aitias' states in the opening statement); so should the closing be done by a steward or a bureaucrat? I'd think a stewart steward.

Also, what type of consensus are we looking for here? If a confirmation shoots for 3/4 support, does a de-adminship call for 3/4 opposition? Kingturtle (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since numerous discussions have rejected the idea of using RfA for deadminning then I suppose what would be needed would to first get a consensus that we can deadmin people this way. This RfA as it is goes against existing consensus for how de-sysoping can be done.

I doubt the stewards will accept its result as reflecting the community when the community has rejected the idea over and over. We don't "vote" for de-admining people, we don't have a hard number. We de-admin people because they have done something wrong.

Chillum 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

A consensus to desysop on this page would be a consensus to allow desyopping by this method, at least in this case. If people don't like the process, they should oppose the desysopping. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Tango. You can't say that to oppose the process you need to participate in it. We already have had discussions on if this is appropriate and time and time again it has been found to not be how we want to do things. This idea has been rejected and this "rfa" is not an "rfa", it is a process that has failed to gain consensus outright. It is basically ignoring consensus and having a vote instead.

Chillum 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously a steward needs to do the actual desysoping if required, but it might make sense for a crat to determine the consensus, that really is what they were appointed for (determining consensus for an RfDA is really no different than for an RfA - it requires the same skills). There needs to be a consensus to desysop, which I guess would be a minimum of 75% of valid votes, perhaps a little more since there are disputes over the validity of the process. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at how people are voting, abstentions and "not really supporting" votes need to be counted along as "support"s. So, at the moment, we're looking at around 9/19=47% in favour of desysopping. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being inactive and not having any community trust is wrong. It's for bureaucrats to close, stewards do not decide these outcomes. And stewards will accept this. Just because some people are process wonks and insist the process has to be "legitimate" doesn't mean the stewards will. If there is clear agreement to removal, stewards have no choice to oblige. Besides, the community hasn't rejected it over and over, only a select bunch on RFA talk, normally for poor reasons. Majorly talk 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a detour for a moment, the way the RFDA is organized is a little confusing. Either it's a request to de-sysop, or a reconfirmation. It needs to explicitly be stated, and the votes need to be self-explanatory. The support and oppose sections have opposite meanings depending on the nature of the discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be renamed Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Jasonr. Kingturtle (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and the votes should be swapped. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing isn't it? That is what happens when you stuff a square peg in a round hole.

Chillum 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is confusing, but I don't think it has anything to do with the process - no offense intended, but it's the nominator's fault. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The is how reconfirmation RFAs are usually done, so it's natural for the nominator to do it this way. The only difference is that the admin in question didn't choose to go up for reconfirmation. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reconfirmation RFA, it's a request to desysop. I think that's fairly evident. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? --Tango (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RfA that the person running didn't choose to run for... Gee.

Chillum 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a rarity that the level of inanity on this project can actually make me pause, but this did it. Congrats, or something. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gave me pause that a section about procedure was created when procedure is being completely ignored. Making things up as you go along because that which was proposed got rejected is not procedure.

Chillum 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Find another hobby" Says the user who spends most of their admin time deleting IP talk pages en masse... Majorly talk 21:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just chill here people. Let's not have this escalate further. Majorly, it isn't worth it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe zing!

Chillum 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]