User talk:Jackattack1597/Archive 1

Minnesota
Hi Jack-- I will be tinkering with the vast Minnesota infobox, which could conflict with any intervening edits of yours to the text below. Will you be working in the article this evening? If so I stand back until you finish. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not be doing any more work in the article this evening; I will wait and update the remaining outdated economic statistics after you're done working on the infobox.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack-- I think I'm done for the evening also, so have at it.
 * As you can see, the article has just lost its featured status. That's OK by me, as to bring it up to FA status would involve more effort that I am willing to give right now. But without that pressure we can edit at a more leisurely pace.  So feel free to make whatever changes you want-- we have plenty of time.
 * Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Crat discretion
Hi Jackattack, just to follow up a thread on a now archived page; it isn't so much the percentage gap from the discretionary zone as the reason for the gap. In my RFB questions I gave two of the most uncontentious reasons for going beyond the zone - if 81 of the 83 opposes have said their oppose is "weak" even the two who fully opposed would likely blame the 81 rather than the crats. Equally if the support has dropped 12% in the last 12 hours it would be a mercy to close it rather than extend until the support had dropped into the discretionary zone. The big issue is whether long term editors such as former admins should be cut some slack in crat chats. At some point it might make sense to have an RFC on this as there seem to be differences of opinion in the community. I'm not sure how many of the current crats were crats in the era when this resulted in the most extreme example people cite, but I suspect this is an area where we still have some differences.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point about the reason mattering more than the percentage. I'm really conflicted on how I feel about bureaucrat's discretion in the former admin case. On the one hand, I think its good to cut former admins some slack in special circumstances, but on the other hand, crat's discretion shouldn't be absolute when there is literally no way for the community to overturn their decision ( Since Crats have life terms and Arbcom won't take up cases of RFAs absent misconduct) . In my opinion, there should be some sort of hard floor to the discretionary range ( but not  a hard ceiling), to prevent the promotion of admins without consensus as part of broader RFA reform to decrease the requirements to pass and make adminship less of a big deal. ( IE: a hard floor of 50% to ensure that nobody ever gets promoted with majority opposition, with the only exception to the hard floor being Sockpuppetry.) Would you be willing to consider drafting an RFC proposal to decrease RFA requirements?Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a few RFC concepts stacked up for a wet winter when I have time for such things, not sure if crat discretion reform would make my priority list. But as a crat I will try to respond on hypotheticals. So I might take part in such an RFC expecially if invited to join in the drafting. I'm not sure about the hard floor idea, afterall, if 50% supported and 50% opposed but they all said their opposes were weak or very weak, how should it be closed? We crats get to earn our salt on more tricky things than that. What gets more contentious is what would be the special circumstances where you think the community would expect the crats to cut extra slack for a former admin?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I kinda take back about what I said about cutting former admins slack. Honestly, I really doubt that the community wants crats to cut admins some slack, I would expect that they would be treated the same as other users. There definitely should be an RFC on if former admins should be cut any extra slack in RFA's, and I say probably not, but I could also see the argument in favor of cutting them slack. ( The argument in favor is that being desysoped by Arbcom stigmatizes admins so much that they can never hope to get the percentages of normal users.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a tricky area isn't it? I like to think that the community would be very supportive of a former admin who said they were desyopped half a dozen years ago as a teenager and they've learned their lessons since, there are probably some other scenarios, not necessarily fictional. I passed my RFA on the second attempt, so did at least one of my nominees, OK the jump between failing an RFA and being desysopped for cause is not small. Especially when an adult is desysopped for a temperament issue. As for cutting slack for former admins, the argument that I find interesting is that we may need to cut extra slack for people who have been involved at the frontline of one of the areas where we face significan external pressure such as medical claims or climate change.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very tricky. I definitely think that in that case there wouldn't even be a need for a crat chat, but I'm really not sure how to feel about cutting slack for former admins in other cases. Maybe crats should cut a little slack for those working in controversial topics. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a hypotheticalish question for you that I wanted to post on here instead of your talk page since its probably watched by fewer users: If there was ever consensus for a desysopping of an admin at AN would you remove the admin bit, or would you just wait for an Arbcom case? ( I'm assuming the latter, but I'm wondering because of a current AN thread)Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a step you've missed there. Does the admin override the block? If not there would definitely not be a case for some sort of emergency action more urgent than an Arbcom motion. Secondly, just as a matter of practicality, if there is one thing that Arbcom is efficient at it is emergency desysop motions when there is an open and shut case. It is easy to get over focussed on long drawn out Arbcom cases where there are arguments on both sides. Hence the classic flaw of alternative proposals for other ways to desysop admins - the minimum process for the alternative desysop is always slower than an emergency motion from a committee. Of course there is also the possibility of a rogue admin and an emergency, but that's the stewards job. However the 2011 RFC is now a decade ago, and if you read Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy it was a close call - there was 75% support for admins to act in emergencies. But until a new RFC, emergency desysops are a Stewards job. That leaves us with an intriguing scenario, what happens if AN and Arbcom are at loggerheads, what would the stewards do then?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would hope that the stewards would do what AN decided on, since they almost always act based on community consensus in most cases, but realistically they probably wouldn't want to overrule Arbcom when that's the established procedure.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be an astonishing large AN thread to have greater consensus behind it than an Arbcom election. I would hope that if there were such a contretemps it would be fairly late in the year, but not so late as to be after nominations closed for that year's arbcom election. What does leave disquiet is when arbcom does something controversial at this stage of the year when there are many months to go before the next election. Or worse, nominations have closed, and all the candidates are from one side of what is now the most pressing issue of the day.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

'Vandalism'
Please read WP:Vandalism. Since your recent edit was a botched attempt to interpret page maintaince guidelines I will not interpret it as participation in the WP:BRD cycle. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Seddon talk 23:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Rollback granted
Hi Jackattack1597. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AJackattack1597 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Seddon talk 00:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Read the Comment
You have opened a Sockpuppet investigation against me.

"This draft was nominated for deletion on March 12, 2017. The result of the discussion was delete."

Read the comments. Again, why was the Marsha Music not deleted back in 2017? Johndvandevert (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Please do no interact with me again.