Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Muboshgu

Experimental AIV Report Analysis

Experimental AIV Report Analysis is below SQL^{Query me!} 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Q7

 Bureaucrat note: In clerking this RfA, I've removed (via (Redacted) ) a portion of question 7, and a portion of the follow-up commentary about it. This involves redacting talk sections made by: @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Andrew Davidson:, and @Muboshgu:. As has been agreed by multiple admins, this was in relation to an egregious BLP edit and drawing additional attention to it is not helpful. The original edits are in the history if anyone really needs to go looking for it. Any other bureaucrat that disagrees is welcome to reverse this with out consultation. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I approve and support your action. I think the whole discussion about it in the general comments section at the bottom of the page should be moved here, or simply removed/redacted, as well. Unnecessary attention / rubbernecking / ogling / whatever to grotesque incidents like that should be reduced to as near zero as possible. – Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm not about to revert you. Muboshgu is hanging his candidacy on this BLP incident and the redacted comments are fair comments on it, and I fail to see how the specific redacted comments could be considered redactable in any context to be honest. The nature of the BLP vio was repeated by another editor in another question subsequent to the redactions, and the incident is further described in the answer to Q4 with a link to the article on which it occurred. If the incident is oversightable then oversight it, and if it's not then trust admins to handle the revdeleted edit appropriately, but trying to censor the discussion doesn't seem like it's going to be helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ivanvector:, My intention was to keep a balance between having the discussion on this candidate's views on the application of this policy in the past and in the future alive, without drawing further attention to the specific edit made by a vandal in this venue. I do not think the edit is in need of additional suppression. While several admins have agreeded with the specific revdel action, if you want to discuss that further please either do so with the deleting admin or on AN/ANI (where this may already be open). Being able to consider the candidate on the basis of how they would have handle a past or hypothetical situation is normal and healthy in RfA's and you are welcome to ask questions to help explore that topic in general. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't believe I'm "hanging [my] candidacy" on that BLP violation. I think it's enough to say that a BLP violation that I could have addressed if I were an admin pushed me beyond my ambivalence into a commitment to seek adminship. The specific details of the BLP incident don't need to be rehashed. Running is something I've considered on and off for a time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@both: I don't mean to imply any sinister motive on either of your parts. What I'm saying is it's clear that this incident occurred, and there is enough, er, "weight" I guess, being given to it in Muboshgu's stated motivation to stand, so much so that he says (Q9) that he elected not to wait for a nomination, although maybe he doesn't know that self-noms have been a point of friction in the recent past. Since he's hanging his candidacy on that incident (as I put it, and maybe that's not entirely accurate but he does basically say "this happened so I decided to run") of course users are going to want to review that incident in particular. As an admin I sought to review to see just how egregious the edit was that waiting a whole hour for revdelete was such a big deal, or whether that was an incredible overreaction (I'm holding my opinion on this for the moment). A non-admin should be able to review the history and/or deletion log and see that the edit was in fact revdeleted, showing that the reviewing admin agrees with his judgement. All that info is still there, you've just made it harder to find.

Sure we can still ask questions of theoretical situations to judge a candidate's knowledge of policy, but how they react under pressure in real situations is being taken into account here as well. And forgive me for saying so, but the fact that you only redacted comments by and in response to Andrew Davidson while leaving alone other references to the same incident (the name of the subject article is still visible in Q4) makes the redactions seem less like minimizing the incident and more like minimizing the typical dramah that follows Andrew's nonsense stock opposes. Which is fair I guess, his comments seem more and more like they're meant to invoke that sort of reaction rather than constructive commentary on a candidate, but that's not a good use for redaction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was redacted in Q4's response now as well now. My initial inclination was to move the entire question and followups to talk, however there was legitimate discussion that could still aid in the core consensus building exercise that an RfA is, such discussion can still continue and the candidate obviously is aware of "the revdel", and you can still ask questions about the specific incident - there is little benefit to directly bring that article's subject (i.e. linking to the article) back in to the RfA discussion still. My removal was only related to the article subject and not Andrew Davidson's behavior. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I welcome Ivanvector's comments on the matter of redaction but must take issue with his personal attack that "his comments seem more and more like they're meant to invoke that sort of reaction rather than constructive commentary". Please consider the last three RfAs which went the distance:

1. Megalibrarygirl – I supported the candidate with a brief and uncontroversial comment.
2. TonyBallioni – I opposed the candidate for a particular reason – his misuse of draft space – and provided several good examples.
3. Joe Roe – This was the dog that didn't bark in the night. I observed the RfA and put it on my watchlist. I reviewed the candidate's edits but didn't form a clear impression. I therefore stayed on the fence. I didn't cast a neutral vote to abstain because I don't see the point of those.

So, three different RfAs and three different outcomes expressed in three different ways. How are these "stock opposes"? Please compare with those who always contribute to RfA in the same perfunctory way such as the classic "Why not?" Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's three: I've already linked to your previous hundred RfA comments, for percentage purposes, and you opposed nearly two-thirds of them :) That, Andrew Davidson, is more stock than Aitken and Waterman. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew, you seriously can't blame Ivanvector for his very-factual observation under the guise of NPA.And, if you choose to reside in a glass-house, please don't throw stones at the first place. Cheers! Winged Blades^Godric 12:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this ongoing stock opposition is most likely only to be solved by topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what's being discussed at AN* right now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?) – Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)