The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jasonr was made a sysop by me, a billion and one years ago, and so this whole process is inappropriate and POINTy. As pointed out below, there is no precedent nor justification for this kind of reconfirmation nomination. The nominator should have just asked me. I have just now removed Jason's bit, a pointless thing to do, but harmless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonr[edit]

Nomination[edit]

(4/9/4); Scheduled to end 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Result: Pointless to start with and moot by Jimbo's action.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonr (talk · contribs) – I’m nominating this user for (de)adminship per this discussion and WP:BOLD. Jasonr never went through a RfA and thus never gained the community’s trust/was never approved by the community. He also has never taken an admin action and has only made 4 edits since 2004 in total. I think it’s just fair to give the community the chance to provide or not provide it’s trust here. — Aitias // discussion 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jasonr before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Please discuss this here. — Aitias // discussion 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go on then Avruch. Majorly talk 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think here is as good as anywhere else, since the subject is this request. What makes you think that posting this with barely any prior discussion or planning is a good idea? Avruch T 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because discussing it is a waste of time. What are your arguments for prolonging and process wonking over this? Majorly talk 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not an exhaustive list, and nor is it policy. Nor is it even a guideline. It's irrelevant. Majorly talk 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, however, make it clear that such a policy to revoke adminship by nomination does not exist. Wikipedia:Requests_for_deadminship#Proposed_processes shows that every attempt to create such a policy has failed, and this entire nomination goes against the fact that no consensus exists for this to actually happen (none have achieved a consensus to enact). Esteffect (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons such proposals fail is because people use the fact it has failed in the past a "reason" to oppose it. Now, if we could have a proper discussion about it, without people throwing PEREN and polling is evil around with no thought, perhaps the real consensus will be found. Majorly talk 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a "proper discussion", though, this is a nomination to make a point that we should have a proper discussion. I have nothing against such a process being considered, but I have a lot against using the RFA process incorrectly with a process that does not actually exist anyway. Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "Because discussing it is a waste of time". That quote comes from yourself half an hour before the one stating we should now "Have a proper discussion about it", which I dare say makes this look more like a point so as to initiate discussion. Esteffect (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - This procedure is a violation of WP:POINT. RfA is not an acceptable form of desysopping. This does not belong here. Thus, the very basis of it is a disruption. The nominator has made it clear that their feelings, which means this disruption is to make a point about Jasonr and ex employees in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per the fact that we have no involuntary process for "reconfirming" adminship, and as such is an invalid RFA as user already has administrative capabilities (Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators). Also per Avruch. Esteffect (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This is not the right forum for this. Also, it is a dangerous slope to start tossing inactive admins into reconfirmation procedures like this. Kingturtle (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it dangerous? Wikipedia is not based on a series of precedents, each case should be taken on its own merit, which is why arguments like WP:PEREN are frustrating. In this case, if Jasonr was applying for sysop for the first time, with just four edits to his name, would you support? Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, which in this case is really an WP:AGF as candidate has not been blocked, had memorable negative interactions with me, i.e. has not done anything to make me not want to support him even if there is not much in the way of edits. Don't we only remove tools after someone has done something wrong? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we only give sysop rights once a user has earned the trust of the community? Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support "while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, being an administrator should not be considered a big deal." WP:DEAL Also, the mop should either be removed voluntarily or by ArbCom, not by someone with a WP:POINT -- M2Ys4U (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly supporting - but see no reason to desysop[edit]
  1. I also note that it will require a consensus to desysop.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Scott MacDonald. Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is interesting. I'll note that, while it's impossible to trust an editor whom the community barely knows, a desysop doesn't seem to solve any real problems considering Jason has never actually done anything with his sysop tools and is unlikely to ever do anything with them either. On principle, I agree with Wizardman in the "oppose" section. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Major violation of WP:POINT. Desysop nominator? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree this is also way too pointy. RFA is for the purpose of requesting adminship, not to remove adminship. Stuffing a square peg in a round hole is not a good practice. bibliomaniac15 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No particular opinion. I'm generally in favour of some easier way to desysop for genuine reasons, but setting up a request for adminship in this way is probably not the way to do it. If there's consensus for some sort of desysopping, we should work from there. For now, this is premature and a bit rushed, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree largely with Biblio and Peter. I don't really see a problem with Jason keeping his adminship, and at the same time I do not in principle oppose creating an easier way for the community at large to remove administrators' rights. However, unilaterally setting up an RfDA when there is no community consensus for such a procedure is not appropriate, in my opinion. J.delanoygabsadds 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Let Jimbo decide. Jimbo made the account into an admin because Jason worked as his personal assistant. Now he doesn't work for Wikimedia. What Jimbo has given, let Jimbo take away. Royalbroil 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No action This is out of process, has no basis in community wishes and has been insufficiently discussed with the "candidate. SpinningSpark 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Royalbroil. Additionally, I don't think this request is valid grounds to call for Aitias' desysopping, either. Hermione1980 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Royalbroil, and I agree with Scott MacDonald. Kcowolf (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose As nominator. — Aitias // discussion 15:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose continued adminship, and let's see more of these reconfirmations for admins who were never entrusted by the community. Majorly talk 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose Per Majorly, more of these should be happening.--Giants27 T/C 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I agree with the nominating statement. The conditions of the initial granting of sysop status are somewhat hazy (Ed Poor, who performed the act, does not recall the events [1]), and Jasonr has not made enough edits for me to trust this user. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per nom. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have no problem with this process. A user who hasn't been around in five years isn't going to notice the tools gone, no reason to have them. If the user never went through RfA to begin with, then all the more reason to remove. I applaud the creation of this. Wizardman 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per nom. Discussion has been leaning towards this evolution for years. rootology (C)(T) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What evolution are you referring to exactly? Reconfirmation of inactive admins? Reconfirmation of all admins? Kingturtle (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The inactive ones in particular but the general tone of making it easier to lose the bit. A test case isn't an evil thing; if the community hates the idea it will fail as an idea. If not... consensus can change. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I've always wondered why there's, what, over 1600 sysops but I've only seen 2-300 max. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose A bold move, but one that might bring about change. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose As per Aitias and Giants27.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Abstain per Avruch. Juliancolton (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain also per Avruch. iMatthew // talk // 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This really isn't the correct forum (and unfortunately there is no forum for it). In addition, this is likely a waste of time considering the outcome will not be binding as we have no policy for this. I'd support one, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is no such thing. The idea of "reconfirmation" or "deadmining" in this fashion has been rejected by the community repeatedly. This goes against consensus. This is not the venue for this decision. Also this "rfa" is invalid because Jasonr has not accepted the nomination, this is all messed up. There is no precedent nor justification for this kind of reconfirmation nomination. Chillum 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, while previous proposals have been rejected for the suggested various process pages, if this one has overwhelming support--consensus can change is policy. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But consensus hasn't changed, it is just being bypassed. I highly doubt any steward is going to obey a "reconfirmation rfa" when there is no demonstration of community acceptance of such an idea. Chillum
    Apples and oranges; we don't have a highly supported policy that says x consensus must form in venue y for outcome z, and any such policy would be so foolish as to be as to dog excrement on our shoes. Valid consensus is valid consensus; if 10 people say Jason should keep the bit and 300 say no, he has no mandate or right to the bit. rootology (C)(T) 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We will see what the stewards think. The fact is that this exact thing has been rejected repeatedly and nothing has changed. Just because you throw a vote(and this is a vote) and a bunch of people show up does not make a new consensus. This is simply bypassing existing discussions and decisions. Chillum 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think community consensus would be self-evident in this case. If a lot of people oppose Jasonr having adminship, it would be clear enough that the community has voiced its opinion and why should a bureaucrat ignore that? Conversely, if the neutral section is rammed with people objecting to the process, it means there is need for more discussion away from this RfA, not necessarily that consensus hasn't changed. Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not the right forum (I know that seems needlessly bureaucratic). The framework or support and oppose is reversed. We are putting forward a proposition to desysop him, so it seems odd that "oppose" would be the vote which would confirm that proposition. There isn't a rush, and we could just ask jimbo to contact this guy and have him turn the bit in. I don't agree with the supports, though. This isn't a "WP:POINT" violation. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. the guide to RFAs states: "Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance." In this case, the user has not accepted nomination nor signed it. In normal circumstances such an omission would mean the RfA would be removed quickly, and that's what should happen here. Dean B (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The community is being asked here whether they agree with Jasonr having admin tools. Where is the logic in Jasonr being able to "decline the nomination"? The point of people being asked to accept a nomination at RfA is that they might not want the extra responsibility/drain on their time, that doesn't apply here. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the "community is being asked" then you screwed up the letters. This is RfA, not RfC. This should be refiled under such if that is the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I must have misunderstood the bit that reads "the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators" on WP:RFA. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The mistake is in misinterpreting the words "who will become". It does not say "who is and who is not". Desysoping has never been the job of rfa. Chillum 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He already became one. Thus, RfA can't handle this. RfC is where the community normally calls for a desysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because every editor is entitled to some basic courtesy. Consulting with the user before their record is up for scrutiny in this forum is only fair. Maybe if he is contacted, he will say he doesn't mind having the bit removed. What's the rush here? Email the guy, and wait a few days for him to think it over. Just because that's the courteous, decent thing to do. Dean B (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, which is why I made sure that Jasonr was informed of this proposal to desysop him on his talk page. Things are moving quickly, but it's planned that this will be open for a week, so it’s not really that rushed. There's plenty of time for Jasonr to chip in and for others to make their opinion heard. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category