Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_for_resysopping:_User:Coffee
(Permanent link at time of posting)

Roger Davies filed the request following an email from Chet (Coffee (T-C-L-K-R-D) ). The response from most of the Arbs was, in my view, reasonable. But I'm completely lost of the overall response from Cool Hand Luke (our very own "One").

Follow-up on my talk page became even more confusing, though I think the final clarification was somewhat helpful. Although, clearly, I still disagree with him. Interesting read, though.
User_talk:Jennavecia#A:
(Permanent link as of this posting)

You never know though, he might fail an RFA for all sorts of dumbass reasons. One I can think of immediately is his absence. And there are some that won't forgive mistakes made nearly a year ago. Then again, Peter did pass. So, I dunno. It should be easier to get adminship certainly, without a crowd of idiots spewing nonsense all over your RFA.

You're saying it's not reasonable to ask (or insist) that the fellow in question pass a new RfA, then? I'm afraid I'd be more likely to agree with CHL in this case - though of course I'm somewhat biased. Admittedly, if the WP folks insisted that everyone who had "resigned" their admin privileges pass a new RfA, nobody would ever resign. But I'd say if there's any question at all over the suitability of someone who's asking for their privileges back, there really should be a new RfA.

That said, I'd agree that successful completion of USAF Basic Training probably would reduce a person's propensity to act impulsively or "immaturely" in future similar scenarios. However, the added emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability gained from military training might also cause him to want to simply delete the entire website.

As for the SlimVirgin example, well... two wrongs don't make a right, as they say!

I'd be very suspicious of the heavy pushing by the infinitely political FloNight. She only gets involved in things that are related to some political scheme of hers, so the fact that she's saying more than "support" or "oppose" means she has irons in this fire. I have no idea what her stake in this race is, but you can be certain she has one.

Perhaps Newyorkbrad would explain his own support in more detail. Yeah, fat chance of that.

On my talk page, Luke later stated that he doesn't trust RFA because qualified candidates fail for silly reasons. Okay, but he's deferring the request to this process.

Now he says he doesn't trust Chet won't repeat the mistake and he's uncomfortable with the time away from the project. He feels like Chet wants the title back, not the tools.

That, to me, is an assumption of bad faith times two.

And Somey, I'm very much saying I don't think he should have to go through RFA again. He was told he had the option to request the bit back from the committee OR go through another RFA. Choosing one should not result in him being forced to do the other.

This kid has been through SO much shit in his short life. The past year has been intensely stressful and he just completed two months of what has broken some. I have spoken to him several times since he got out of foster care and let me tell you, I can hear the differences in his voice. I can hear happiness that wasn't there before. I can hear the confidence that wasn't there before. And I can tell from the decisions he's making in his life, the goals he's setting out for himself, and the drive and desire he has to kick start his life, that he has matured.

Editors here who know me well can attest that I'm a borderline ageist when it comes to child admins at this point. Unless there's a display of exceptional maturity, I'm less inclined to support them at this point. That said, I would hope my reputation and the trust the community has in me has not been so tarnished or diminished to the point that people cannot trust my judgment here. I know this kid better than anyone else on the project. This situation could have ended in a life lost. If not literally, at the very least, a life stifled by insanity. Instead, he fought his way out and he's worked damned hard to make something of himself and get his ass moving on the path with the greatest potential.

He's a brilliant teenager who has not been given the opportunity to prove himself. He's taken the opportunity and so far he's making those who care about him proud. I cannot expect others to see it this way, but they can, at the very least, look at the Cliff's Notes of Chet's life, as it's been presented to them, and give him the basic respect of an honest decision for a request he was granted the right to.

[Edit to correct typos]

If he's really that brilliant, get him the hell away from Wikipedia and off onto some project where he can really benefit mankind.

I would tend to disagree, having grown up in an all-Air Force family. If anything,
basic training teaches people to become more effective trolls, by showing them how
to more effectively cover their tracks and shift blame to others.......

That said, if Lara knows Coffee personally and vouches for him, that would probably
be good enough for me. But still, I have to ask why he wants to waste his time
on a profitless endeavour like that Fancruftpedia, when he could be building himself
an actual career.....

I wouldn't have made comparisons if Luke had not. None of the previous cases are comparable. Just as previous RFAs should not be considered. Peter's restoration RFA is relevant, but that's it.


Flo, along with the rest of the committee, were clued in to what was going on soon after it all happened, and I've given a couple updates since. She was very concerned and supportive throughout. Perhaps the female heart is to explain.

NewYorkBrad, same as Flo, has been clued in from the start. His reasons for support regard the above.

I think it's more about the friendships, for him. Keeping in mind, it's about the only friendships he had access to until now. For him, some of us (particularly the members of the BRC) are like family to him. Quite literally, among the people that cared about him most in his world. There is a bond there for him that most people cannot understand. A connection many cannot grasp. That's why he wants to return to the project.

And adminship for him was always about trust. He wants to prove to everyone that he deserves their trust, and I am completely confident that he will do that. I have no concerns whatsoever at his ability to be a great admin. Will he be the most prolific? No way. He was never as active as Peter, so I don't expect him to be a J.delanoy, racking up thousands of edits and actions. But I do fully expect to see quality from him, and I believe he should be afforded some good faith here.

And, really, I hope he's not around much. He's got a whole world open to him now that wasn't there before. Life to experience in a way he probably never expected to be able to. Wikipedia can be damned, he's got a life and the freedom to live it now.

For an arbitrator, CoolHandLuke holds some pretty peculiar views.

I think that is part and parcel of being an arbitrator.

Nobody's an arbitrator for ever though.

Questions about my votes as an arbitrator probably are best asked on Wikipedia where possible. But in general terms, I am convinced that Coffee has been sufficiently sanctioned for what he did, and that there is no likelihood of further problems if he is restored to adminship at this time. There are also aspects of the matter that I would prefer not to discuss on-wiki, or here either. (I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the detail that has already been discussed, although I hope that it's with his knowledge and consent that some of the aspects have been mentioned publicly)

Yeah, Peter was only mopless for four months before getting it back. Crossin was welcomed back with open arms when his ban was lifted. Coffee could probably ace an RfA without a hitch.

Perhaps he could, but I wouldn't wish an RfA on my worst enemy. Actually, I would.

It is.

That's a bold statement. He could be a LOT worse. Other people already have been.

Care to offer some evidence or examples of his "peculiarities"?

I think it is safe to say that it's not reasonable for me to ask anyone questions on Wikipedia; down that path one finds too many dramacopters and not enough meaningful input.

I've no idea what offense this fellow once stood accused of, but I must wonder if it was as severe as the vague crimes that led to me being chased off "under a cloud". Wikipedia has a strange sense of justice.

Fat? Now, now...Brad is just big boned.

Do you do anything on this site other than make personal comments about people? It would be nice to have a conversation sometime with an entire Horse With No Name, rather than just part of the horse.

As you can imagine, I don't get invited to very many cocktail parties.

And yet I'd be run off the site if I attempted an RfA now. Then again, I probably should be. But then again, so should Steve Crossin, by all rights.

Money on the table that Crossin would ace an RfA if he ran in September, which I think is about six months after his return from being banned.

Well Rootology managed it. I don't know why he was banned though.

I can only think Kelly running an RFA now would simply be for an evening's entertainment. Until some spoilsport snowed it closed.

Define "ace".

You're right in the sense that I don't know what use I'd have for an admin account at Wikipedia. About the only function it would serve would be some sort of moral vindication.

However, it would be nice if some admin at Wikipedia would delete:

• all remaining pages in my User and User Talk spaces
• all content in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces related primarily to myself

Wikipedia has no further need for this content.

Deleted:
User:Kelly Martin/Open proxy list
User:Kelly Martin/monobook.js
User:Kelly Martin/monobook.css
User talk:Kelly Martin/Lpen
User talk:Kelly Martin/Pluto
User talk:Kelly Martin/Deletion of userboxes

I've left your talk archives intact as they might be useful to you – if you really want them deleted let me know (although someone will no doubt restore them)

I've left User:Kelly Martin/Policy council in place as that a redirect that's still in use in a few places.

Regarding pages relating to you (your RFA etc) you're probably better off asking Jimmy Wales to do the deletion – if any Mere Mortal does it, someone will then start warring over it being "part of the record". I doubt he'd have any problem doing it (or authorizing someone else to do it), and it would stop the whole thing ending up an endless delete-restore-delete cycle.

Hey why don't you courtesy blank them? Very courteous, that is.

When I said "all pages" I meant "all pages".
I've made this request to Jimbo in the past. He has ignored it.

Give me a list of pages and I'll see what I can do, although it won't be until tomorrow at the earliest. You might want to ask Brad or Luke/One to do the honors though (or wait until they see this); any deletion coming from them is more likely to remain deleted.

You might be better off putting in a WP:Right to vanish request, though; it takes 'crat buttons to perform some of the actions required for a full scorched-earth deleting of an account's history. Lar will presumably turn up on this thread in a couple of hours, and has the requisite buttons IIRC.

I'd be in support, you seem to have your head properly screwed on, but probably better for your prospects if I say that I'd categorically oppose. Which of course I wouldn't.

By breezing through with little or no opposition thanks to a positive and rancor-free modus operandi - as opposed to poor dumb Alex, who got nailed for shooting his big mouth off and will probably never be admin again. A little civility can go a long way, kids.



Don't forget Enigmaman, who ricocheted back three months after that last RfA mid-game announcement that he was IP socking.

Jimbo is interested in what people can do for him, not the other way around. He's made a career of it.

My legendarily small brain and I will take that bet.

Oh, and Luke's approach is eminently reasonable, and exactly the approach I'd have hoped for when I voted for him.

Why do people say "besides the point"?

I mean, is that a joke (like deliberately saying "gonna gets me some"), or do educated people really think that's the correct phrase?

(Sorry, One -- no personal offense. I'm trying to actually learn if this is a linguistic issue worth understanding.)

You are serious, Sarcastic? Here's my scheme: if Crossin goes for RfA, I say he will pass and you say he won't. We'll each put $100 up and the loser will forward their money to a charity designated by the winner. I can trust you to keep your word and I hope vice-versa. How does that sound?

You have a deal, though I suppose this means that this means that I need to refrain from participation in the RFA due to conflict of interest - I trust that you'll do the same?

Also, I assume that your charity will be the SPCA?

(Also, I'm putting a sunset clause of four months on this arrangement - our disagreement is over his chances of passing an RFA in the relatively near future, not over his chances of ever doing so, so the RFA must be closed by the end of the day November 3, 2009 UTC. If he hasn't applied for adminship by that point, I may be willing to extend it.)

Obviously.

This might be a good opportunity to remind our readers that information posted to Wikipedia Review should not be used as the basis for actual cash wagering, depending on the laws pertaining to your local jurisdiction...

And for those who have little or no idea as to WTF this is all about, I believe the WP discussion took place here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...account_sharing

Personally, I don't think he'd pass, but of course that depends on who shows up that week and whether someone who hates him notices it, as it always does.

FYI, shortly after his 6-month ban began, Mr. Crossin joined us here at WR, at which point we learned that he has a low opinion of Cade Metz, among other things, which led Mr. Kato to note that "this site is reaching critical mass of pro-wikipedians spouting garbage and clogging up threads with inane tripe." I later suggested that he start over with a new account, and while I consider it rather odd that he didn't take my advice, I also consider it rather commendable. And it does present the possibility for an interesting case study, I suppose.

I've got a request before the ArbCom for restoration of my adminship as well. I'm not quite sure what the circumstances are in this case, but it would be interesting to compare and contrast how the requests are treated.

Deal on the date. You are free to participate in the RfA -- I will be there (hee hee).

Don't worry about my charity -- I have plenty of time to choose where the money is going!

I'm somewhere in the middle here. I think there's a decent chance he'd pass, because he's got the youth group and the IRC peeps to support. However, I'm fairly confident he won't ever ace an RFA. It's a game of making friends in the right places and mending fences with your enemies. I believe he realizes this and is playing. However, some transgressions go unforgotten, and just as you have to make the right friends, you have to be careful not to make the wrong enemies.

I'm not betting, but if I were going to wager, I'd say he'll pass, but with significant opposition.

Motion passed with Casliber.

My first Air Force assignment was a life-changing event, for the better, because it was to Japan, and I was very active on the weekends exploring that delightful place. Hopefully if he gets an overseas assignment, he won't be spending his weekends parked in front of his computer closing deletion debates, discussing bans on ANI, or joking around with other young admins on IRC.

Well, even the horse from hell has to say something nice one in a while, so...

"Thank you, Casliber!"

Just had to write a reply regarding this one, first, to the two posts by "A Horse with No Name". If I passed an RFA in September, I'd be shocked. I've had no plans to run for RFA in the near future, and I really don't at this point in time. If I had to put a date on it, it would be some point in 2010. I haven't really thought about it. Things have been too busy in real life.

In response to Somey's comment, I've never seriously considered starting over with a new account. I thought about it for a long time during the ban, but ultimately decided that I'd done a lot of good, hard work, earned a lot of trust...and well...I fucked up big time, to say the least. Starting over with a new account would be the wuss's way out. I decided to be held accountable for what I did. If that means I'll never pass an RFA, well so be it. I'll reap what I have sown.

And in regards to Lara's post, I'm not trying to play any games. I'm not trying to mend fences with people just for their support in a future RFA. Take you, for example. The reason I have tried to...er...mend fences with you, was because I felt bad that I'd caused you harm. I've always got the feeling that you don't trust me, and with good reason. But my focus isn't on "winning people over" for a future RFA. I've always thought, since my ban, that I'd never pass RFA after what has happened, so it's basically been out-of-mind, at least for the time being. But I don't have any plans to run anytime soon. As for how an RFA would go, were I to run, in say, September, I figured it would fail, say 60/40.

But...er...the focus of this topic is Chet, and I'm just glad, as I noted at RFAR, I just hope that what I did hasn't affected Chet's chances at being resysopped. Which it hasn't, so I'm glad.

Steve, listen to Horsey -- they love you over on Wikipedia. You're the Robert Pattinson of the Wiki crowd -- all of the teenage girls and David Shankbone have your poster on their walls. Come September, you just march into the RfA forum, unbutton your shirt to the navel, and announce: "I'm here!" Believe me, you'll get a gift wrapped mop within seven days.

Besides, what's the worst that could happen?

Not much, I guess. I'd run for RFA one day. Just so I know, I guess. Besides, it's a character building experience, and I want to go through it, at least once.

"They love you over on Wikipedia" [who?] Some may be fond of me to some extent, but that doesn't mean they'd trust, or my judgment, as an administrator. It's like comparing chalk and cheese.

Hey, I always sprinkle chalk on my cheese. And don't knock yourself, kiddo -- you have a lot of friends over there. And, besides, Horsey loves you.