BrownHairedGirl

[Poetlister]

I was under the impression that an oversighter could remove them. Could anyone give an authoritative opinion on htat?

[Mason]

Yes, block log entries can be hidden using the rev-del tool that all admins have access to, but it's considered "abuse of the tools" unless the block entry has some sort of forbidden content in it (threats, outing, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _redaction

[Poetlister]

If the block is undone before it expires, the unblocking admin could put in a comment "this block should never have been made", but if the block expired that won't work. There could be a new very short block with a comment "Very short block just so I can comment that the previous block should never have been made".

[Osborne]

There could be a new very short block with a comment "Very short block just so I can comment that the previous block should never have been made".

Amending block logs is already implemented and being passed back and forth between teams, waiting for the green light to be merged... since December.

[Liz99]

On their talk page, Iridescent suggested deleting old blocks from editors' block logs because it can be used forever as "evidence" against an editor.

But there was an incident years ago of an admin rev deleting an entry from a block log for improper reasons and they were desysoped as a result. Couldn't recall the name of the admin but it was an unusual case and that is my only recollection of a disputed block log rev deletion ending up in a discussion that was aired on ANI or AN. Of course, I was gone for a couple of years so it might have happened since then.

As for BHG, there were editors and admins, both on-wiki and off-wiki who asked her (over months) to temper her approach in the portal dispute. But, my impression was that she viewed compromise or backing down as capitulation to mediocrity. I think she didn't handle her disagreement appropriately but her departure from Wikipedia is a great loss for the project. I mean, she had 1.6 million edits over more than a decade. She made an immense contribution, particularly in areas that normally don't get a lot of attention.

[Casliber]

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I meant that prior to Fram, this is not a possible outcome for the evidence presented nor the acts described.

The terrain has changed.

Can you point to a specific older case to support this observation?

[rhinoroars]

Eight months later...

Per the discussion we started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rock King (Rapper), I think the best thing for Wikipedia would be if you were again an admin, and I would be glad to nominate you. I understand your preference to have several co-nominators, and I hope that others will show up who agree that it would be of great value to have you back. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank, you @BD2412. I am honoured. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to extend my support for you to run for RfA. Let me know if you want a co-nomination, as I've never done one (so another editor / admin who has done one might be a better choice) Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, @Dreamy Jazz. That's very kind.
I think that a co-nomination would be best. May I leave you to liaise with BD2412? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm be glad to join with Dreamy Jazz in putting this forward. BD2412 T 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I will email them now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The best thing for the encyclopedia would be if BrownHairedGirl were again an admin. There was a relationship difficulty, there was a harsh response, but looking at it as a learning exercise, a cultural course correction for the good, the best thing for Wikipedia is to move forward, to forgive, and to include. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz and SmokeyJoe: I have begun writing a draft nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2. Please feel free to step in and add to it. It would be my privilege to co-nominate with both of you. BD2412 T 21:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

link
BrownHairedGirl (T-C-L) is back and it will be thrilling RFA.

[Vigilant]

She's a shithead and should be denied the bits.

She'll probably sail through.

[OhKayeSierra]

The draft nom (as of the time I'm writing this) is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 (T-H-L)

Thanks for the heads-up. Added it to my watchlist so that I can vehemently oppose it as soon as it's live, assuming that there isn't anything that might convince me to reconsider my stance on her competence as an admin. The amount of tendentiousness and battleground mentality would've gotten a pleb editor indeffed a long time ago, but that hasn't been the case for BHG at all (unblockable much?). No, thank you. There's no shortage of drama queen/Judge Dredd admins as it is.

Edit: I think it's pretty telling that both BD2412 (T-C-L) and Dreamy Jazz (T-C-L) are going with the boilerplate nom statements and making an effort to avoid addressing the elephant in the room about why she lost the bit in the first place.

For the substantial majority of her tenure, she was an excellent administrator. Since the ArbCom case, she has continued to be an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia, and has carefully avoided the issues leading to that outcome. Moreover, she has properly sought out administrator intervention where needed to address pressing issues. Of course, those issues would be dealt with more efficiently if BrownHairedGirl was herself restored to adminship and able to deal with them directly

Come on. By that same logic, The Rambling Man would be an ideal candidate for re-adminship to more efficiently handle main page errors, yet I don't see anyone rushing to his talk page to nominate him. These nomination statements as they're currently written are setting BHG up to fail.

[Poetlister]

I've had many dealings with BD2412 on WP, WQ, WS, Wiktionary, Commons and even French and German sites (he's utterly ubiquitous) and he's always seemed solid and reliable. I don't know why he's getting involved. I'm not familiar with Dreamy Jazz.

[C&B]

To Be Frank, if BHG watches this, the best thing she could do Is get a couple of Decent Noms. BDknobber May Well be solid: but he has also narrowly avoided a Spanking at ANI which results in his "taking a Wikibreak from Administrative matters". If the Best Noms BHG can get Do Be an admin who can't use their Tools and one with less that One Year tenure, then I can see The RFA going badly from the beginning.

I don't know why she didn't get E.G. Mr Baloney; he is one of The Few to Destroy Arbcom effectively, and Seems Keen...

[AngelOne]

Looks like BD is trying to get the Arbcom sanctions lifted before the RFA.

I don't see how she'd pass another RfA after engaging in the exact same behavior with Chris Sherlock. Yes, he wasn't covered in glory there, but she did the same "I've given them a pejorative label and I'm going to use it every chance I get and no I'm not going to change my mind" that she did in the portals fiasco.

Even if she's technically right about whatever she's going on about, she's fucking toxic to disagree with.

[Vigilant]

The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions, and still I do not believe it raised to the level of one at the time (especially in comparison to some of the other cases we've dealt with). I believe I made a statement soon after the desysop was accepted that I would be willing to nominate BHG as an admin. Now you have a few nominators, but drop me a line if you feel my nomination would help. Face-smile.svg That said, I do not believe that the other restrictions should be lifted outright. I would accept their suspension during the RfA, as BHG should be able to be open about the subject at that forum, and RfA voters will want to be able to ask their questions on the matter. WormTT(talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible, even for a second, for the ARBCOM to _try_ to follow rules around impartiality?

[Poetlister]

Funny things happen at RfAs. The "community" is erratic and unpredictable.

[C&B]

I thought further: while I say that having a nominator under the unofficial sanction-as BD2 is-is No way Ideal, running for the Office while still being under an actual Active sanction such as the BHG is must be madness. Basically Have to ask Abcomm for Permission to speak

This RfA will descend, rapidly, Into The Pit

[AngelOne]

Is it possible, even for a second, for the ARBCOM to _try_ to follow rules around impartiality?

I'm deeply unimpressed with Worm's refusal to recuse:

I understand the concern for recusal in isolation, however, when you look at the larger situation, you will see that I have not interacted with BHG outside of Arbcom cases, I regularly nominate individuals after reviewing their contributions and go on to never interact with them (you can look on my user page for examples)

I don't often agree with SMcCandlish (T-C-L), but this sums up my thoughts perfectly:

Rather, it's that you're weighing in as an Arb while also seeming to carry a torch for that specific party's re-adminship, and for it to be easier for the desysopped to regain adminship than the community has established that it should be. That comes across as a double-dose of INVOLVED advocacy.

Sentiments like "I feel that RfA is an unpleasant prospect for anyone, let alone someone who has had their admin bits removed, and they deserve a fair shake at community review" (as if BHG requires your help to win a wiki-political election) are easy to read activistic/interventionist. Analogy: a judge on the appellate court panel cannot also act as one of the defendant's or plaintiff's attorneys.

[Vigilant]

Worm is flatly lying about the desysop being a close thing in this case. Anyone can see the voting on 'remedies'

link

It's more of the 'this person is my wiki-friend and I will bend the rules for them as I please' bullshit.

[Zoloft]

I'm going to give this link as my reason when I vote 'Oppose:' link

[C&B]

Kind of influenced By Above, but their showing their Hands so publicly is Odd. They must know that there's now a an Island or two of people sharpening Pencil and writing up their Opposes as we Speak

[Sophie]

It's par for the course for Worm That Turned to twist and turn everything to suit whatever he feels will support his buddies. Lying comes easily and integrity does not exist; just so typical of members of the Arbitration committee.

[Vigilant]

I'm going to give this link as my reason when I vote 'Oppose:' link

This does not rise to the level of a desysop at this time. WormTT(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't been a year since she got kicked out of the cool kids' club.

Why the rush?

[Poetlister]

It's par for the course for Worm That Turned to twist and turn everything to suit whatever he feels will support his buddies. Lying comes easily and integrity does not exist; just so typical of members of the Arbitration committee.

Where do you think he got his name from?

[AngelOne]

WTT doesn't think he needs to recuse because RfA is hard and needs reform, and anyway he has no history with BHG. The former arguments are reasons to grant the ARCA. The latter is bullshit. It ignores that he's declaring that he's going to be involved just as soon as the ARCA is close. Future history doesn't count, apparently. The potential success or failure of the RfA does not determine how involved he is.

Oh and according to WTT in that same diff, Arbcom isn't like a court. That it's the highest dispute resolution available within en.wp, and that it does "rule" on "cases" are trivial similarities, I guess. Who knew?

I used to think WTT was one of the more thoughtful arbs but this episode shows that he is incapable of evaluating events that he is a part of.

[Sophie]

"Thoughtful Arbs"? No such entity exists. The only thing Arbs are interested in is ensuring their 'buddies' or in the case of Worm That Turned that's the likes of his ensuring his drinking buddies - such as WMUK Trustee RexxS - manage to rise through the ranks no matter how they behave or treat others. Integrity is simply not part of any ArbCom members vocabulary.

[Beeblebrox]

It hasn't been a year since she got kicked out of the cool kids' club.

Why the rush?

This did not directly factor into my position on the ARCA request, but it certainly did cross my mind and would be a factor if I were to vote at her RFA,. The timing just seems bad from a strategic point of view. Waiting at least 12 months shows restraint, and also who knows what the makeup of next year's committee will be? It looks to me like her nominators were like "we need you specifically to come back, now," and she let her ego get the best of her and agreed.

I felt at the original case that she is at least sometimes her own worst enemy, this seems like more of that.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Looks like BD is trying to get the Arbcom sanctions lifted before the RFA.

I don't see how she'd pass another RfA after engaging in the exact same behavior with Chris Sherlock. Yes, he wasn't covered in glory there, but she did the same "I've given them a pejorative label and I'm going to use it every chance I get and no I'm not going to change my mind" that she did in the portals fiasco.

Even if she's technically right about whatever she's going on about, she's fucking toxic to disagree with.

I will oppose, but certainly not because of the Sherlock nonsense. He's done the same thing repeatedly on multiple accounts, going on long paranoid rants, pulling the "it's OK, I'm mentally ill" before resuming his attacks. His block should never been lifted and it's hard to fault people for losing their patience with someone who acts like he does; he's incredibly manipulative and even though he's pretty far gone, he has enough experience to sense which people he can get to white knight for him.

[AngelOne]

As I said, Sherlock was not covered in glory in that thread (he was covered in something but that thing was not glory). I was more referring to this list of BHG's from the ANI above (italics and numbering in original):

1. If you are going to apologise for gratuitous insults and bogus allegations, apologise for them all, or expect your selective apology to be rejected.
2. I have not asked you not to ping me.
3. I have no objection to be pinged by you.
4. I do want you to stop trolling me by making gratuitous insults and bogus allegations
5. If you or anyone else engages in such trolling, I will post on your talk to ask you to stop.
6. If have not asked for any limit to interaction with you.
7. If you want to limit interaction with me, then stop trolling me

And this, from that same thread (numbering in original):

1. Stop trolling. Learn how you are a troll, and work to cut it out entirely.
2. Drop all your vendettas against the many editors who have worked to contain and revert your disruption
3. Stop commenting when you have nothing of value to say. Learn to identify when you do and do not add value.
4. Stop whining when you are told you have screwed up.
5. Sop using your mental health issues as shield.
6. And above all, stop creating drama.

Forget the target for a second. Those repetitive lists are aggressive, repetitive, and unnecessary. Yes, she has a point here, but her approach (how many times did she use the word "troll"? Did she really need a seven-item list? Or a six-item one?) was OTT and unnecessary. Wikipedia doesn't need more aggressive asshole admins.

[el84]

Welp, seems that she has now violated her IBAN conditions before they were temporarily lifted, so I don't see this RfA being successful if it goes ahead now.

[C&B]

Welp, seems that she has now violated her IBAN conditions before they were temporarily lifted, so I don't see this RfA being successful if it goes ahead now.

Nooo, That Is just NA1K pretending that "appealing a ban" is not an Explicit exemption under WP:BANEX.*

*Clue: It is, and those Words are Literally culled from the Policy page.

[Poetlister]

Oh and according to WTT in that same diff, Arbcom isn't like a court. That it's the highest dispute resolution available within en.wp, and that it does "rule" on "cases" are trivial similarities, I guess. Who knew?

The theory is that as its name implies, Arbcom is supposed to arbitrate. It very rarely does so, of course. If it did so regularly, it probably wouldn't do very well. How could it, when it is just a collection of admins who have won a weird sort of popularity contest and few of whom have any relevant training or experience? Arbitrators do have cases, but they don't rule, they arbitrate. If it is de facto a court, the same criticism applies - it is a collection of unqualified admins who have won a contest.

None of this is to belitte the arbs and ex-arbs who contribute here, of course.

[C&B]

None of this is to belitte the arbs and ex-arbs who contribute here, of course.

...the ones that Don't, on the other Hand...

[Poetlister]

...the ones that Don't, on the other Hand...

They include such pillars of Wikipedia as Fred Bauder (T-C-L), FT2 (T-C-L), Jayjg (T-C-L), David Gerard (T-C-L), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (T-C-L), ... Need I say more?

[AngelOne]

WTT has abstained for the motion to suspend the sanctions for BHG's RfA. Definitely the right choice there.

[Vigilant]

WTT has abstained for the motion to suspend the sanctions for BHG's RfA. Definitely the right choice there.

Sad that it's not obvious to him at the start and takes such concerted effort to force him to do what's right.

I decline to go on endlessly point-by-point about this; I've expressed my observations and concerns, quite clearly. But we can try rephrasing. Whether someone likes the PR and lobbying jargon phrase "the optics look bad" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they do, and you can re-describe that situation in whatever language works better for you, e.g.: "WTT's stumping for the appellant while simultaneously hearing the appeal will further erode community confidence that ArbCom is in fact arbitrating rather than supervoting." I repeat that it has nothing to do with the specific individuals involved and any motivations they may have, nor with the specifics of what the Arb in question may recommend in the appeal. It's just the very fact of remaining on the bench for this appeal while – from the bench itself! – declaring for the appellant and also against the community consensus on how RfA operates (i.e. against "the law" itself, in a legal analogy). A judicial activism effect is corrosive whether it is intentional or not. So, that's now several different ways of expressing the same issue, and if it's still not getting through, then I'll simply sit back and let the damage be done. I may be able to stop a calf from inattentively stumbling off a cliff, but I can't stop a bull charging to leap off.

PS: OID's comments at the ARCA are also highly relevant, though they go further in some directions than I'm willing to. I'm not "political" about this, but system-analytical. PPS: "Grounds for recusal" simply isn't a thing. Recusal is not a punishment, and isn't imposed by anyone. It's a decision one makes oneself, about whether one's own thoughts on the matter to be decided may interfere with impartiality (probably doubtful in this case), or give others the impression of lack of impartiality, and erode their confidence in the process (already demonstrated in this case, since multiple commenters in a thinly attended ARCA have already raised this concern).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   03:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC); rev'd: 04:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Craven, indeed.

[Vigilant]

Is "tripling down" a phrase? BHG now continues: "SMcCandlish made a criticism of me which appeared to refer to a bogus allegation of harassment that was dismissed by the community at ANI". Except I did nothing of the sort. I stated that I had felt some previous "wiki-personal experiences" with this editor as "intensely unpleasant". (That may reflect as much on me and my own temperament, along the "it takes two to argue" and "you own your own emotions" principles, of course. But I'm not appealing an I-ban or seeking restoration of admin tools.) BHG has incorrectly assumed something highly specific and kind of bad-faithy from what I said, and then – not discerning/acknowledging a difference between me describing my internal feelings about some interactions, versus me projecting a characterization about her person – has turned retro-aggressive about it. The abortive ANI stuff that she refers to, which was primarily about off-wiki interaction, is not even what I had in mind. Although some of the wiki-interactions I'm thinking of were part of what ultimately led up to that ANI noise, some of them are earlier and completely unrelated (though similar to more recent issues; see sample diffs below). BHG is correct that what she's mentioned are the most recent "issues" between us, though. For my part, I have studiously avoided arguing with BHG, and have even skirted most CfDs in which I would have to disagree with a BHG !vote/nom.

I hadn't looked into it until just now, but on CIVIL stuff, BHG's pattern of dismissiveness toward, mischaracterization of the concerns of, and eagerness to battleground against editors who disagree with her seems to have actually worsened since the RFARB, e.g. [3]. In the next example, someone else was being a bit heavy-handed (after repeat attempts to get traction with BHG on the matter), but BHG's response would probably doom most RfA candidates: [4]. And it got much worse from there. The wording gave me a hunch, which turned out correct: BHG has a habit of hyperbolically accusing other editors of "weaponizing" [insert something here] against her, and it's often combined with strings of other accusations, e.g.: ""Your cynical, bullying, abusive, edit-warring attempts to weaponise ..."" [5]. Those last two diffs are best examined in their entire multi-page context (here, too). The short version is that the other editor, RexxS, availed of REFACTOR to do list-formatting repair on the discussion, for ACCESS reasons, and BHG engaged in an extended editwar to stop him, selectively quoting TPG and pretending that REFACTOR wasn't an exception and that ACCESS didn't matter, not because she disagreed on the merits of any of that, or didn't really understand the WP:P&G pages that applied, but just to stick it to someone she was having a real-content dispute with in the same discussion. This is a total "WtF?!" She even tried to ANI him [6], where she ASCII-screamed ""STOP YOUR LYING"" in bolded allcaps at him over and over and over. While RexxS had erred in reverting a whole post of hers during that fiasco, I really don't think this was called for: ""After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears [....] I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before."" That was just block-worthy on its own. This "weaponization" stuff is usually also in close proximity to declarations that people are "banned" from her talk page (see several diffs above, and unrelated one here). While USERPAGE encourages us to respect requests to avoid non-required user-talk interaction, it's a quasi-privilege admins basically don't have, due to ADMINACCT requiring them to be responsive to editors raising concerns about their decisions (though BHG attempted to subject me to such a "ban" while she was still an admin, now that I think of it).

I was looking for something else in BHG's user-talk history (any post-RFARB issues between the two of us in her user-talk that I might have forgotten). Instead, in just a couple of minutes I ran into more (and quite recent) evidence for opposition than what I'd already considered maybe presenting at a re-RfA. This does not bode well. What will one find with a search for an intersection of "BrownHairedGirl" and "lies/liar"? Or "despicable", "vile", "abuse/abusive", "bully[ing]"? I don't want to look. I was originally critical of the desysop decision (for procedural/policy reasons) [7], but everything I'm seeing now suggests it was the correct move from an ADMINCOND perspective.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the ballgame.

[Vigilant]

It's been three days since ARBCOM lifted the interaction ban on BHG and posted it on her talk page and the RfA's talk page and the RfA is still not active.

Do I detect some second thoughts on the part of her supporters?

[C&B]

Probably on Hers Also I imagine. She must know (and if Ye reading this, you do NOw!) that the screed McClodlike laid out was just a Taster. If he can be the First Oppose, he will be, with that ArCA post And another 1K words.

All the ArCA has done has Given people Fair warning to get their Opposes ready and waiting; if they get in Fastly enough, they'll fuck her Percentage, however many supports she gets.

What She Should Have Done:

Wait a year. Get the ARCA repealed as a Normal Thing (Which would be Dead Cert by then).

Wait another Six Month.

Then File at RFA-having garnered a load of admin noms, everything Discussed and Drawn Up Off-wiki, no hint At All to her Detractors, and A Load of supporters all pre-Alerted to whack down Thirty Or So supports before The Opposition knew what fucking hit Em.

That would give her a Fighing chance; which, realistically-and considering How Unpopular Is the Arbcom that deSysopped Her is-is probaly all she needs.

But she Needs to Cauterize McClot, NA!K etc first.

[Wikiguy.DC]

I've lost a lot of respect for BD2412 after seeing his actions here. It's one thing to nominate a defrocked admin, but trying to to get arbcom to unsanction that admin before hand is something else.

[Poetlister]

I've lost a lot of respect for BD2412 after seeing his actions here. It's one thing to nominate a defrocked admin, but trying to to get arbcom to unsanction that admin before hand is something else.

It has been suggested that he's a lawyer. if so, he no doubt works on the principle that he has to try to get every advantage for his client.

[10920]

The Worm posted:

"The freshly elected committee had witnessed a fiasco last year, we all know what I'm referring to, and I do believe the outcome of a desysop was excessive due to the proximity of that case."


Which fiasco? There are so many to choose from...

"What I ask is that you do not knee-jerk opposition due to the fact that Arbcom desysopped..."

True, which is why I find it disingenuous when ArbCom says the admin is free to pursue another RfA, as if a future RfA would have a chance.

Prediction:

The RfA fails, like the others have in such a circumstance.

[Vigilant]

Is this really appropriate?

So much for the appearance of impartiality

Co-nomination by Worm That Turned

I find myself in an unusual situation here, adding this nomination. Not because I don't particularly know BHG that well, we've never worked together and our interests don't really overlap - that's been the status quo for me since I formed Request an RfA Nomination. No, the odd thing here is that I sat on the committee that removed BHG's sysop user-right, and I felt that should be specifically addressed in a nomination statement. The case was on Portals and you can see a lot of the discussion between arbitrators by clicking on the link. The final decision to desysop was 9:6, though one arbitrator has stated that they may have been "unduly influenced by the need to set a precedent that we would indeed take action". There's the rub, the reason I felt my name should be here on this nomination statement. The freshly elected committee had witnessed a fiasco last year, we all know what I'm referring to, and I do believe the outcome of a desysop was excessive due to the proximity of that case.

I leave the final judgement up to the community - I have no intention of actually voting in this RfA and will recuse if it goes to a 'crat chat (as I would in any case I'd been part of the desysop). What I ask is that you do not knee-jerk opposition due to the fact that Arbcom desysopped, but instead weigh up the positive work BHG has done, and I don't think there's any denying that, against her negative interactions especially at Portals. Keep in mind whether the other sanctions in place are sufficient to stop future problems, as well as her own pledges. And finally, remember, we are all human. We all get wound up about things that should not be important. Thank you for your time. WormTT(talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

She was desysoped and they had to enact an interaction ban to prevent her vitriolic abuse from continuing.
Isn't the standard line at RfA, "Good editor but unsuited to the buttons" ?


What a clusterfuck.

[Vigilant]

Revisionist history

I can't wait for this festering bucket of turds RfA to start!

[Beeblebrox]

I find it disingenuous when ArbCom says the admin is free to pursue another RfA, as if a future RfA would have a chance.

How is it disingenuous? In every case, it is up to the admin hopeful to decide whether or not running is a good idea, regardless of their past. Yeah, these things pretty much never pass, but what would have the committee do instead? Tell them "Go ahead and run if you want to waste your time?" Surely that would make their chances even worse. The fact that the community almost never resysops anyone isn't an ArbCom problem.

[Vigilant]

It's a fundamental problem with RfA which highlights a problem with equity and social status within en.wp.

Admin is effectively a social rank and denotes a higher class of person.

The existing admins don't want their power and status diluted, like a current company shareholder doesn't want more shares offered, and so RfA has become a nightmare gauntlet that few can pass and far fewer can re-pass. Once your virtue is tarnished, you are a fallen woman.

It's exacerbated by the nearly impossible requirements to desysop an admin who is acting poorly in the first place.



You guys made it this way.
I don't see you guys figuring your way out.

[10920]

I find it disingenuous when ArbCom says the admin is free to pursue another RfA, as if a future RfA would have a chance.

How is it disingenuous?

Because it sounds like ArbCom is inviting the desysopped admin to run again, which would just result in a lot of aggravation.

There's no need for that sentence, given that the community does not support admins who were desysopped. Basically impossible to get 65%.

If you were desysopped and want to become an admin again, all you could do would be to open a new account and start fresh, which would be an awful lot of work for someone accustomed to the buttons.

[AngelOne]

I don't read it so much as an invitation as laying out the option.

I think if someone who is desysopped can come to understand what was wrong with what they did and can demonstrate than they've changed in similar circumstances, the community might resysop them.

BHG is not there, of course. She, like most aiming to be resysoped, doesn't think she did anything wrong, or whatever she did was completely justified (she was baited!!!!!!!), and she has no intention of changing her approach. She certainly hadn't shown that she would respond any differently in disputes.

[Beeblebrox]

I don't see how telling someone they are allowed to do something is equivalent to an invitation to do so.

To paraphrase Chris Rock: you can drive with your feet if you want to, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[10920]

It says it here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... -adminship
Unless otherwise mentioned, users are free to reapply at WP:RFA at any time.


Unnecessary to mention it at EVERY ArbCom decision just to rub it in.




"He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Alternatively, Fram is free to cut himself instead, which would result in considerably less pain and aggravation."

[Vigilant]

It says it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... -adminship
Unless otherwise mentioned, users are free to reapply at WP:RFA at any time.

Unnecessary to mention it at EVERY ArbCom decision just to rub it in.

"He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Alternatively, Fram is free to cut himself instead, which would result in considerably less pain and aggravation."

If Fram were to run again and position his RfA as a repudiation of a wrongly decided ARBCOM case while laying out Laura Hale's history and Maria Sefidari Huici's interference and pressing heavily on the "NO SECRET TRIALS" angle, I suspect he'd sail to confirmation.

The WeMakeFailures team has engendered SOOOOO much antipathy on en.wp, it's hard to exaggerate it.

The comically named Trust and Safety team is viewed as the bastard lovechild of the Keystone Kops and the Geheime Staatspolizei.


I see few downsides running against T&S, ARBCOM and the clearly demonstrated nepotism displayed by the Board.

[10920]

ArbCom and whatever supporters they have would rally to oppose him, plus the WickedWomeninScarlet group.

It's not that hard to tank an RfA. Just need one cabal.