Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/PMA

message: I don't want to get involved in this matter except to comment on the two points in which my name has been brought into it:
*I did not ask PMA to block the user AndyMe at the Communist Party of Australia article, although I reverted his worthless edits. This article has a long history of vandalism and POV-pushing.
*User le baron is a long-time pest and troll who ought to banned from Wikipedia for good.
I have no opinion on the other matters under dispute. Adam 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

message: It appears PMA has chosen to react to this RfC by resigning his adminship rather than responding here. . I guess there'll then be no need to keep this RfC open? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be best to let things run their course. I'm not sure of the details, but PMA has been desysopped twice before but was apparently able to be re-sysopped without an RfA. I think things need to be formalised in some way this time. I'm shocked that an admin would confess, without any sign of understanding how wrong this is, to blocking users purely because they believed it was what another (non-admin) user wanted: "I thought you had said AndyMe should be banned which is why i did it." "i thought that blocking him was you wanted me to do". It is apparent that the abuse of admin privileges here is endemic and has occurred over a very sustained period of time. I think there needs to be some kind of formalising of PMAs status. It concerns me that, when things have calmed down, he may attempt to discretely ask for the tools back and once again avoid being held accountable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom recently ruled in the Giano case that an admin who relinquishes his or her status in the midst of a controversy may only regain adminship through normal channels (meaning a new RfA). I'm confident that giving up adminship based on an RfC filed against you falls within this ruling, so I would think this should not be an issue. Newyorkbrad 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked at the Bureaucrat's noticeboard about re-sysopping, since PMA has twice before resigned and then regained his access.  If the bureaucrats agree this falls under the "controversial circumstances" clause of Giano, then I think no more needs to be done. Thatcher131 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh okay. If it is the case that he would have to undergo an RfA, then it's probably okay to conclude the RfC. It would be good to get some clarification though (thanks Thatcher). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh, sorry about that mess...I had computer problems. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the Paul Keating article Z seems to think terms such as masterstroke when describing a policy is acceptable. PMA 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I have spotted another dubious block by PMA dating back to April. , an editor who has returned and made a few comments on the Che Guevara article recently. Regarding these blocks, especially the one highlighted, would it be possible for an admin to make a comment on the block log that the previous block was in error etc. Otherwise it leaves an unwarranted black mark on an innocent editor's record which isn't right. --Zleitzen 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block logs