Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 6 March 2009

re-stand for RFA

There isn't a solid system for this, you might want to spell out how it's handled, or give links to similar re-confirmation RFAs. I believe that currently even if a B-Cat decides your reconfirmation failed, you stil have to ask a stweard to remove the bit from you. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that would permit a bcat to contact the steward, point them at the failed rfa, and that would take care of things. MBisanz 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... That language has been subtly changed. It used to say {paraphrasing) that "where local sytems are in place for removal of access" that they should be used. The shift to "consensus" is actually a large one. Thank you for the link. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall attempt on hold for now

Just a note to anybody wondering that I haven't started the recall request yet, pending User:Brrryce's response to this question I posed on his talk page. He's a fairly inexperienced user, and I want to make sure he's clear on how things work before I formally get the ball rolling. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okey. I'm standing by for whatever happens. MBisanz 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He has confirmed that he does wish to proceed. I have posted a notice at all required fora, and the forty-eight hours is starting now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Based upon one deletion??

No. --Kbdank71 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. DRV exists for a reason. J.delanoy_adds 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Things like this are bound to happen when an inexperienced user gets pissed off about a deleted article. I think Mbisanz might consider revising his recall policy somehow, perhaps so a proceeding like this can't even be initiated without endorsement by a minimum number of editors -- maybe even with a minimum number of edits each. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:31, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close - clueless new user needs a bit of hand holding. Obvious case of nose-out-of-joint. Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable IARing on somebody else's recall process; I don't think that's why I was designated clerk. I did try to make sure that the initiator understood how things worked before filing, but ultimately I'm going to defer to the process as MBisanz laid it out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is pointless, and I endorse Rklawton's speedy close recommendation. Horologium (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close - We are talking about one contested deletion? Let's get real. -- Alexf 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no –Juliancolton 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:DRV is the proper venue, not this sledgehammer to crack a nut. Seems MBisanz didn't make a deletion decision that no reasonable Admin could not have made. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the recall request based on a single deletion is not warranted, and that the user who filed the request would be well advised to withdraw it and pursue the DRV. That being said, MBisanz's recall criteria provide that to trigger a recall, five administrators must endorse the request within 48 hours. That seems highly unlikely to happen here, and therefore, if the request is not withdrawn, it will probably cause less drama to allow the 48 hours to pass with (presumably) the required endorsements not having been made, rather than to IAR speedy it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I think that MBisanz's close was appropriate, and that the recall is not warranted. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • No. Closing an AfD is not an abuse of admin tools. WP:DRV is the way to go. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I'm no great fan of the admin corps, but even I'd allow a little more slack than to take up arms over a single dubious deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree - this is ridiculous- there is no way the recall can be warranted - Fastily (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close. This is clearly Vexatious litigation over the deletion. I can't believe this was accepted and allowed to go forward. The user that started this process, instead of using WP:DRV, should be admonished for doing so. This recall request is harassment plain and simple, and it should be ended post-haste. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is entitled as per MBisanz's recall criteria. That you take exception to this recall request is neither here nor there, and nor does it warrant any "adminishment", by you or anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• No of course not, but be aware that new users might not understand the different standards for desysopping administrators, so I have every reason to believe it was done in good faith. Nevertheless, for future reference, please see WP:DRV, and bear in mind that desysopping an administrator usually comes after egregious abuse of the tools/position, and not after AfD closes (he's probably closed more than all the admins put together, so what would we do without him there? ;)). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• NO Hiberniantears (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No abuse of admin tools. Agree with Newyorkbrad that it is best for the person asking for recall to withdraw the request. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No. We have DRV for this. Useight (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not a chance This is why recall is not a functional idea. Chillum 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a curious non-sequitor. Seems to me that it's working quite well in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't consider a page full of people stating the obvious to be working quite well. Working quite well would be if we just sent the guy to DRV and went off to write an encyclopedia(without a formalized process for determining the obvious). Chillum 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• What appears to be obvious to you is not quite so obvious to me. The recall criteria require a number of admins to support the request, not a bunch of mates turning up to say that the request is ridiculous. Why not let's see if any turn up to do so, as per the criteria MBisanz laid out? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry it is not obvious to you. Chillum 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• heavens no. –xeno (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No abuse of administrative tools. If we need to be desyoping some bad administrators (which we do) MBisanz is not one of them. Tiptoety 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No and second that the newbie needs to learn a bit more about this process. He has raised what is, in fact, a frivolous complaint, and if he were a more experienced user I'd be suggesting some blowback on the filer. As he is new, I will presume innocence and ignorance. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No – (edit conflict) as I stated at WP:DRV "You have got to be kidding!" This is nothing but a frivolous and vexatious attack at an admin by a user who is pissed off and disgruntled because his article (soon to be two, both of which the creator has a clear conflict of interest) got deleted. This sounds a lot like that portion of the novel/film Band of Brothers where Easy Company's Commander wanted to punish his own Executive Officer for failing to clean the latrine, even though no one told the XO that the inspection time was changed; the XO appealed by requesting trial by Court-Martial. Needless to say, it was put aside. MuZemike 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is, I suppose an admin could possibly be recalled or emergency–desysopped for deleting a really major page (or a bunch of pages as indicated in one of the recent ArbCom cases) or by pushing the little red button, but this isn't one of them. MuZemike 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Although it's clear where consensus is leaning I support keeping this open for the agreed upon time. A speedy close just adds to the plaintifs percieved injustice. Playing it out both limits further complaints about the process and demonstrates that MBisanz takes his recall pledge seriously.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note as well that this isn't a consensus-based process; editors opposed to recall do not have any direct effect on the final outcome. What matters is whether or not five administrators are prepared to endorse recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Just couldn't decide on the best phrasing. Almost used "sentiments" but I didn't want it to sound like it was simply emotion based.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No As an uninvolved admin. That's one fewer admin to try to get five out of.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• No. As Wehwalt said, one fewer to try to get five out of. DRV is the correct venue for this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes just to stir up drama. I don't mean yes I'm one of the 5 admins; I mean that if 5 admins vote yes within 48 hours, then I'm fine with that ... Matt will re-do RFA and pass, and the world will not end. "Admin recall criteria" were popular for a little while at RFA, as a way of pushing back against a perception that admins were a higher power, out of reach of common mortals. I think this silliness helps demonstrates that voluntary admin recall criteria, while noble, probably cause more trouble than they're worth, which is why they're now out of fashion at RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  If that is not POINTY, I am not sure what is. Tiptoety 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Has the perception that admins are "a higher power, out of reach of common mortals" somehow dissipated while I wasn't looking then? 'Cos I can still see it from here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've disagreed with some of MBisanz's AfD closes in the past, and I very much hope to continue to be able to do so in the future. DRV is the proper mechanism to resolve this dispute, and I am firmly opposed to recalling an admin over such an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No way is this a recall issue Filer Brrryce needs to understand recall is not for one case; even if it were, this AFD had no clear consensus and was well within closing admin discretion and MBisanz gave a sound reason for his deletion. This is no way abuse of admin privileges. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No - As an uninvolved administrator, I do not feel that Matt has in any way abused his tools on this issue. As others have said, perhaps our new user should consider WP:DRV as the proper venue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• No, we don't desysop over one minor action - that happened to be a correct, non-abusive one. Majorly talk 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No — Jake Wartenberg 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Hahahahaha. We can delete this now. Synergy 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• You can if you want to make yourself a laughing stock. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NB: MBisanz is not equal to MZMcBride

Sorry for stating the obvious, but I know I always get confused between the two and given that there is an open ArbCom case, probably worth making the point here. Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, now you'll now cause more confusion among those who don't realize what that use of "!" means. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy now? ;-) J.delanoy_adds 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

!=. The interesting part is that it's a real redirect. –Juliancolton 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"≠" is right in the little edit section below the save page button, and that's a fairly standard character... Horologium (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)