Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat

Suggestion

I would venture to suggest that, because what we have here is an otherwise well qualified candidate, who received all of his opposition based on a well defined set of concerns, any determination of consensus should hinge in large part on whether the supporting opinions addressed and refuted those concerns. Supporting comments like "Excellent editor and will be great admin" are not awfully probative - whereas votes such as that of martinp (talk · contribs) are a lot more useful in gauging consensus. If the crats find that the specific concerns of the Opposers were not refuted, then IMO the RfA should fail. Disclosure - I opposed. -- Y not? 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per q4 comments should also be looked at as they give no idea of what particular part of the question was wrong, or give no reasoning as to how that would affect his ability as an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I was one of the people who gave a supporting comment along those lines. The reason that I did so is because that is very much my opinion (and indeed at the time when I voiced my opinion, many of the oppose comments had not been made so I did not feel a need to refute any other comments in my opinion). I don't believe that my opinion is any less useful in gauging consensus than had I justified my support comment with an entire paragraph repeating what the noms had already said. And I am quite able to disagree with the oppose rationales without expressing it in as many words; I would have thought that it is evident from the fact that I continued to support despite all the opposers. Will (aka Wimt) 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Per-nom supports are not without value. But then what criteria other than numerical could you possibly use where you have 201 "supports per nom" and 71 "opposes per q4"? The only possible solution is, if nobody refutes the objection, the objection must stand! -- Y not? 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not really. RfA is a vote, like it or not. There is no attempt in the current process to make support voters have to refute the opinions in the oppose. Thus an argument that simply, because all the support voters did not specifically refute the oppose rationales, the objection must stand makes no sense at all in the context of how RfA works at the moment. Will (aka Wimt) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There's no requirement. But in the absense of refutation, there is also no consensus. -- Y not? 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No consesus on the BADSITES proposal maybe, not on gracenotes ability to be an administrator as hardly any of the opposers commented on. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A poor retort. -- Y not? 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the opposers feel as though I have a take on the issue that will make me an abusive admin down the road. If it helps, I am (and always have been) committed to follow consensus. Within the jurisdiction of an admin, I also believe myself capable to determine what it is, if it exists. Gracenotes^T § 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought: not necessarily an abusive admin, but perhaps someone who just doesn't get it, and whose bumbling cluelessness will hurt Wikipedia sometime in the future. Gracenotes^T § 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above was meant to be a response to Y's initial query. Do any opposers have a comment on it? Gracenotes^T § 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it's a fact, RfA is meant to be there to judge a candidates abiity to be an administrator, not on his personal views based on something that's been rejected as a policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the candidate did a more than adequate job of refuting most of the opposition – in a way negating some of the support as well (the 'support because there are too many opposes' stuff) – with his later responses to questions (and to be honest, the earlier responses didn't seem to me to be particularly muddled either). However, I assume the bureaucrats aren't allowed to base their decision directly on the strength of the candidates' responses, but have to go with what are in many cases responses to responses ('your answer to that question isn't good enough') or responses to those ('oppose per user x'), or responses to the nomination and not the candidate ('support per nom'). So what matters is not so much whether opposes were refuted, or vice versa – that's as much the candidate's job as the supporters' – but the relative strengths of those arguments for and against (discarding obviously incorrect arguments; the bureaucrats should be free to ignore votes in either direction whose rationale they feel simply doesn't make sense) – Gurch 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporters not countering the oppose votes should not be a huge issue. I did my share on votes that were particularly perplexing, as did many others, but in no way did I respond to every oppose I didn't understand, as that would be rather disruptive. This was an intense RFA, and I took to heart a note that SlimVirgin left on another's talkpage, even though it was not intended for me. [1] (please don't archive yet Mark!) At some point, it was tiring and pointless to respond to all opposers. I can only think of one or two instances where someone changed their mind in this RfA based on a discussion anyway. That said, there are many "per-above" comments in both columns, so discounting them out of hand would eliminate a large amount of votes, not all of which should be eliminated. I do not support a site wide ban on per above comments.  :-D However, the quality, logic, and reasoning of the more lengthy support and oppose comments should receive a more thorough examination. daveh4h 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you should impose a sitewide ban on "per above comments". It would improve deletion disussions, too – Gurch 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We don't need sheep(and I mean that nicely) voting. Wikidan829 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's frequently suggested, but in actuality it's a terrible idea. If I come to a debate ready to make argument A but User:Foo has already made argument A, is it most helpful for me to (1) type out argument A over again and burden every other commenter and the closing with duplicative reading, (2) leave the page without saying anything, or (3) write "agree with Foo"? Newyorkbrad 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if that were actually the case. Wikidan829 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those – ignore Foo's wording and type out your argument. Granted this may be overkill for deletion of an obviously non-notable article when there are arguments for deletion already made (but then commenting in such debates is a waste of time anyway) but I don't think it's at all excessive for an adminship request, especially one where you are opposing the candidate. I feel this exact problem may have affected the opposition and to a lesser extent the support of Gracenotes' request. I am convinced that had the users who opposed "per" question 4 or an earlier opposer all written out a rationale based on their position on the issue, at least some of them would have realised that actually, their position is the same as Gracenotes' position, they'd just been coerced into thinking otherwise – Gurch 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind per User:Username, and in addition blah blah blah - That at least indicates that the person has taken one person's logic and expanded a little upon it. Simply a Per User:Username can be annoying, but I recognize there are rare times when a person has said all there is to be said. daveh4h 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the situation where users merely cite a question number? There were a lot of "oppose, Q4" comments on this RfA which don't actually mean anything at all, as the mere existence of a question isn't a reason to oppose. Some sort of indication of what the voter percieves to be wrong with the candidate's answer would help. Even if someone else has already opposed "per question" and explained... people can have different issues with the same question, and in this case I'm not sure the problem with Gracenotes' answer, beyond a little unclear wording, was ever explained anyway – Gurch 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Y, it is not the duty of the supporters to refute the concerns of the opposition. It's the duty of the crats to determine the validity of such concerns as reasons to oppose the RfA. —AldeBaer 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are completely correct in your first sentence. As to the second, I started with the presumption that the concerns of the 71 opposers were valid, though reasonable people may and do disagree. I thought that was obvious. -- Y not? 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. I'm hesitating to do this, but it's an opportunity to address one particular oppose comment that caught not only my interest [2]. I really don't know what to make of the fact that this user didn't edit the en.WP in several days only to visit for that single edit in GN's RfA. There is no conclusive evidence that he was solicited to vote, but in an emotionally-laden situation like that RfA was, I'm ready to consider that that is what happened. As far as I'm concerned, that's one refuted oppose !vote. —AldeBaer 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad you pointed this one out. This is a classic example of how anybody can vote, not forming their own opinions, but mirroring the opinions of others, without substantiation. I should assume good faith, and believe that this particular user really did consider Gracenotes - that this user did their homework and formed their own opinion, and came to the same conclusion "as the people above", but I seriously doubt it. Wikidan829 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess until you ask him (or become a mind reader) you really don't know anything about motivations in this case. Anyway, I'm having a hard time with people "refuting" an oppose vote on the basis of "no conclusive evidence that he was solicited to vote"...I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this RFA (and didn't participate) but I have to say that the constant combative sniping by it's supporters (all over Wikipedia and on the mailing list) does no good to the process, the nominee or any of the participants. Picking out single editors to criticize is not very productive, and yes, you should assume good faith until shown a reason to do differently. Otherwise it's just bullying. RxS 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why people are doing this I think is that there are many supporters who feel that if they were to lay their lives in the hands of any wikipedia editor (sorta speak), it would be Gracenotes, and they are genuinly upset and disturbed that people oppose him over his opinion of something that is not policy and over a reason that the supporters think is the only reason they would trust his judgement at all (investigate before delete and only that which is directly relevant). It touches the heart of the problem: do we want people we trust to make judgements, or do we want people that follow rules (which Gracenotes btw. pledged to do would this ever become a rule ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also did not participate in the RfA, if you want to look. I am neutral with Gracenotes, as I did not look into him enough to go either way, and frankly did not care about RfA until now. Now, I'm looking at the general problem with RfAs, a pattern I'm starting to see on some newer RfAs as well. I'm sorry that this one user(Noon) was picked as an example, but it's a classification of what is going on here. 6 edits in 2 weeks time, 1 of which was a sad excuse of a vote on Gracenotes' RfA. Come on! At what point do we hold a user "credible" enough to make a decision such as this? Where do we draw the line with assuming good faith? AGF is also a guideline, which means it's widely accepted, not required, especially in pretty obvious situations such as this. Where are the people who oppose assuming good faith with Gracenotes? If they did, this whole mess wouldn't have happened. Wikidan829 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're going way to far with this. This editor has been here since early 2005...longer than I have and certainly longer then most people in this debate. He also seems to be editing in a pattern very close to mine these days, I have very little time to spend here right now. But that doesn't mean (and you haven't shown) that he doesn't have a grasp of policies here, and that he doesn't keep current by reading these pages (as I do). The idea that unless you edit here at a high volume your opinion counts for less is mistaken.

From WP:AGF Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying You haven't come close to meeting that standard with this editor. You can do what you want, it is a guideline as you say (that is: is considered a standard that all users should follow.) But it's discouraging to see it abandoned solely on the grounds that he currently doesn't edit here as often as you think he should. And calling a vote "a sad excuse" harkens back to the bullying I mentioned before, that shouldn't be how we discuss things here and it certainly doesn't foster a thoughtful environment for that discussion. RxS 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to fully agree with you RxS. 2005 is a long time, and we need to AGF here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Wikipedia was looking for contributors, not lookers. The thought that someone who doesn't pay their taxes, but still has rights to vote and reap benefits, just doesn't sit well with me. Wikidan829 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I am trying to assume good faith, but I'm not going to insult my own intellect. —AldeBaer 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So you claim that he was solicited to vote and on that basis consider his vote refuted? Do have have any evidence for that claim? I'm sure lot's of people would be interested in that evidence. RxS 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First read what I wrote, then comment according to your preconceived opinion. Wait, that makes no sense. —AldeBaer 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats taking part

Just wanted to add in that both Taxman and Dan have stated that they intend to refrain from taking part in the discussion as they had strong opinions on this RfA and felt themselves unable to contribute objectively. I would encourage all bureaucrats to follow this example -- if you have a strong opinion either way, or especially if you voiced your opinion during the RfA, please refrain from participating in this discussion so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong opinions, but not strong enough for them to actually vote? Are bureaucrats apathetic, restrained or just lazy? :) – Gurch 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely proper for Taxman and Dan to refrain from this chat. I respect them the more for ir. -- Cecropia 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I commented in support of the RfA but do not have a strong opinion on what has become the key question in it. I intend to take part in the discussion, but will refrain from closing the RfA. Warofdreams talk 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been criticized in the long past (not by either of the two 'crats above) for expressing the principle that Bureaucrats should not express support or opposition in RfAs unless they have a very strong reason to and that, if they do, they shouldn't be the deciding bureaucrat if the result requires judgment. This illustrates my point--we have lost two voices that would have been more significant in the decision than in the RfA itself. At any rate, I see no issue of torpor. -- Cecropia 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that. I am in fact not taking part because I am in the midst of various real-world obligations and cannot give it fair attention. — Dan | talk 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies--I misunderstood what you said. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

So, 74% support with some fairly dubious opposes ends with a no consensus verdict from the 'crats. I'm honestly shocked, the number of recent RfA's that have past with less support than this, but with much better oppose rationale leads me to seriously think that RfA is broken, but I'm not sure it's the process, it's more the consistency with who is promoted and who isn't. It looks to me like it depends on which 'crat gets there first. Let me ask then, is the RfA going to be closed using {{rfaf}}? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know the 'crats had decided. Wish someone had told me. ;-) -- Cecropia 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like it from the chat...... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that they were waiting for a couple of other b'crats to weigh in? hbdragon88 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If other 'crats don't weigh in, it's been decided that it's a no consensus result by the looks of things. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be best to just let them work. RxS 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe it's a good thing. I was about to change to oppose when the RfA was suspended. I'm just waiting for Gracenotes, that hate-mongering attack-freak to dare and run again, so I can oppose him like he deserves it. </...> —AldeBaer 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Me agrees strongly with RxS. Even "No consensus" is better than "no discernable consensus". Gracenotes^T § 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference? To be honest, meaninglessness of raw percentage figures aside, 74% isn't all that bad – it means, in theory at least, that three-quarters of the community think Gracenotes should be an administrator. Pages are deleted every day with less consensus than that. And if the let's-make-this-a-referendum-on-attack-sites votes – from both sides – are eliminated, the result is overwhelming support. Ryan's argument doesn't really make sense, though; the fact that other RfAs have succeeded with a lower proportion of support (this is not the same as "less" support; 201 is more than most recieve), doesn't mean that this one must therefore pass. If that were the case, we could just fix a percentage figure and dispose of the bureaucrats – Gurch 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we just stop this discussion? Everything has been said already, the decision will come soon and probably isn't influenced by this in the slightest. Phaunt 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are free to ignore it. Personally, the faliure of the bureaucrats to actually do anything that couldn't be done by glancing at a number is beginning to irritate me – Gurch 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from your perspective I might well be chewing the carpet as well, but this is an important issue, we still have one 'crat outstanding who wants to comment, and I am preparing remarks of my own; but I must assert that numbers are part of this show, but they are not the show. -- Cecropia 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Impacting upon the past

Although a 'crat need not be bound by precedent, since every RfA should be its own creature, there is already a promotion by which some of the points concerning this RfA were addressed. While I'm aware that promotions are very rarely (never?) recalled, I am extremely concerned regarding any decision that may impact Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU. In theory a promotion is a promotion is a promotion, but some promotions may be regarded as more equal than others. Therefore it may be necessary to consider how current decisions may reflect on past ones. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. We don't do ex post facto on current admins. There were maybe one or two decisions in the history of the Bureaucrat system that were so bad that they were reversed, but that was immediately after they were made. There were also a few cases where "the button" was pushed accidentally (I once pushed the button for an admin before my first cup of coffee and made him or her a bureaucrat by mistake). A quick note to Angela or another Steward patched that up. Generally, someone is only de-admined for something they did while an admin, by ArbCom, voluntarily, or for extreme reasons; for example User:Essjay -- Cecropia 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would take issue with your last example. Essjay chose to resign his positions and leave the project - its not clear he would have been desyssoped had he not. Perhaps Robdurbar is a better example. WjBscribe 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The issues that "encouraged" Essjay to leave the project and his tools behind were rather extreme. -- Cecropia 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some felt that, yes. But we don't know what would have happened had he chosen not to leave. Prob it would have ended up before ArbCom... But it isn't a good example of someone being desysopped against their wishes without an ArbCom decision, because he resigned. WjBscribe 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was more commenting on the perception of an RfA, and therefore the validity of the admin in the eyes of some, which was promoted (in part or in whole) on considerations that are later to be decided to have difference relevance. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as someone who opposed your RfA let me put it this way. Those who opposed your RfA are not going to have their opinion changed by the outcome of this bureaucrat chat and neither will those that supported. Their opinions will change depending on whether you do good or bad work now you are an admin. The fact that one opposes someone's request for adminship does not mean that one opposes them once they are an administrator - we all work together. If you make a good admin decision you'll have my support, if you make a mistake I'll point it out. Each RfA discussion should stand alone. Nichalp analysed yours and decided there was a consensus to promote- if there was any outcry about that it passed me by. Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations. So to answer your question, I don't see why this should impact on how you are regarded as an admin. WjBscribe 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that everyone is ready to bury the hatchet. None of the most decided opposers congratulated LessHeard vanU as a simple and polite demonstration of their willingness to good future collaboration. Not giving any signal is actually a signal. —AldeBaer 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never come across an opposer congratulating a successful candidate, ever. I do not think you can read anything into that. Secretlondon 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to WJBscribe's "Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations." —AldeBaer 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I congratulated User:Joshbuddy after opposing. But that's neither here nor there, as you said there's nothing to read into it. Teke^talk 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have congratulated several candidates that I opposed for reasons of inexperience or mild disagreement with their stances on issues. I have regretted only one support thus far... -- nae'blis 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

*cough*. Daniel 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

General statement on points made by Nichalp

It has been a concern all along that if bureaucrats decide to promote Gracenotes, they can do so simply by saying that people opposed him for not supporting the BADSITES proposed policy, and that's a failed policy anyway. Or they can say that people opposed him because he was in favour of using a common sense approach. Or they can say that people opposed him because he wasn't in favour of removing all links to all sites that criticize any Wikipedians, regardless of context.

While it is possible for people to use those arguments if they want to promote him, I suggest that it would be very seriously misrepresenting the views of those who opposed. Let me give civility as an analogy. We could have a user who engages in the most vile personal attacks with foul language and threats. Or we could have a user who is just generally uncivil, constantly telling other users that they should buzz off, and that their edits are crap. Let me make it clear that this in no way applies to Gracenotes. But if bureaucrats wanted to promote such a user, they could say that people opposed him because he didn't say, "If you please, my dear, I hope you won't mind, but could I possibly ask you . . ." In such a case, disregarding the oppose votes by claiming that the oppposers wanted an excessive, unreasonable, almost cloying, politeness, rather than that they had genuine concerns over the candidate's lack of civility and the possible implications it would have on the project would show a lack either of judgment or of integrity on the part of the promoting bureaucrats.

My implications about possible lack of judgment or integrity apply less in this case, because so many supporters have claimed over and over again (on the mailing list as well) that people are opposing because Gracenotes does not give 100% support to the failed proposal, which — and I agree with this part — was a bad proposal anyway. In this atmosphere, and while surrounded with this false claim, it is possible to have one's judgment slightly clouded without having poor judgment in general, and it is possible to be influenced by unfair arguments without being unscrupulous. However, it would be extemely unfair to the opposers, many of whom are highly respected members of the community, and some of whom are administrators, to promote on the basis that they opposed on the simple assumption that Gracenotes was in favour of linking to these sites. At the very least, as a courtesy to these users, they should be asked if they opposed for that reason, rather than because they felt unhappy trusting the tools (especially the ability to see deleted page versions) to someone who seemed not exactly unsympathetic to trolls on WR.

In Ikiroid's RfA, SlimVirgin asked him his views on linking to these sites, and Ikiroid replied that the only cases where he thought it should be done would be in such articles as "Daniel Brandt" and "Criticism of Wikipedia". The failed BADSITES proposal, of course, would not allow for such links, even in those articles. Yet, after reading Ikiroid's response, I, who strongly opposed Gracenotes, changed to support of Ikiroid, and SlimVirgin, who strongly opposed Gracenotes, thanked Ikiroid, and didn't vote at all. I think that that, in itself, is proof that at least two of the strong opposers were not opposing because of a blind, unthinking opposition of anyone who doesn't support the BADSITES proposal, or who doesn't support removal of all links to all attack sites regardless of context.

We have had trouble before with administrators who are overly sympathetic to trolls. Administrators have powers to unblock users who were engaging in harassment, to undelete articles created by stalkers, to unprotect pages where stalkers are making attacks, and to protect pages or block users where attempts are made to remove examples of harassment. Several of those examples are real, not hypothetical. Perhaps worst of all, administrators who are not unsympathetic to these banned trolls have the power to see and to leak deleted versions of pages. We already had an administrator desysopped several months ago for offering to supply the contents of a deleted version, which had someone's real name (I saw it at the time), to a website which has thread after thread after thread about efforts to track down the real-life identity of users who wish to be anonymous. And only last night, we had a similar case, though I haven't yet made myself familiar with the details. All I know from that case is that the traditional view that everything done by an admin can be undone is no longer true. Thge sharing of sensitive information with the wrong people cannot be undone. We simply have to take into account the concerns that respected, valued members of the community have about trusting the tools (especially the ability to see deleted edits) to someone who either is not appalled by the harassment carried out by members of a site that he is familiar with, or expresses himself in a way that shows a lack of empathy and incredibly poor judgment.

For the record, there are people who post at WR whom I would support without hesitation for adminship, as I know that they are appalled at the harassment of our editors and could be trusted to help and never to make things worse for victims. There are people whose views on linking to attack sites are more liberal than my own views, but whom I would also support for adminship. One of the very kindest, most helpful, most supportive of the people who helped me when I was being stalked (and he is an administrator) recently disagreed with me (privately) about Jimbo's unblocking of Brandt. I would unhesitatingly support this person for the highest position of trust possible in the Foundation. I trust with adminship some of the people who supported Gracenotes. I do not trust the buttons (and especially the ability to see deleted edits) to Gracenotes, who EITHER thinks that a site which he is familiar with where trolls feverishly and eagerly try to to track down the real life identity of Wikipedians, gloat over their misfortunes, and try to cause real world problems for them is a "mixed bag" OR expresses himself so appallingly badly as to show a lack of the basic communication skills that an administrator should have.

The bureaucrats, while weighing up any reasons to disregard the oppose votes, should also take into account that some support votes seemed to be less a result of positive views about the candidate than of annoyance with those who the supporters (falsely) claimed were opposing because of BADSITES. In particular, supporters numbers 93, 94, 163, perhaps 166, perhaps 170, 176, perhaps 177 gave such indication. Some people (98, 144, 154) also supported because they didn't think that the main reason for opposition had anything to do with admin tools. It has, as the Everyking and Night Gyr cases show. Adminstrators have access to confidential information not trusted to ordinary users, and can leak it to others. I do not mean to imply that Gracenotes would do that, but that his attitude towards the whole issue is not one that can make his opposers feel completely comfortable that he would not. Musical Linguist 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Nichalp bringing Essjay into it as an example of a case where it would be fine to link to one of these sites. There is a huge difference between WR users gloatingly posting speculations about who Essjay is, and whether they could get hold of his IP address, at a time when he was guarding his anonymity and a site that reports or comments critically on the issue after Essjay himself came public with his identity. I don't think any of the people opposing Gracenotes, for whatever reason, would object to that link. And the failed BADSITES policy in its most extreme form would not have authorized removal of that link either. It really isn't relevant to the issue of "outing" people. Musical Linguist 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Note from Cecropia: Musical Linguist and others have contacted me on my talk page to raise concerns or point me to information they think I should see. What response I have made I am usually making in the same place. Anyone interested should please look at my talk page if they want to see what has been brought up. Please be aware that only clarifications should be brought up at this point and that the essential work on this RfA is based on the RfA itself. Thanks, Cecropia 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To Musical Linguist: Are you alleging that your concerns in regard to admin's ability to look at and "leak" deleted material that compromises anyone's privacy rights apply to Gracenotes? -- Cecropia 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, I stated in my opposition that I would not be comfortable with trusting Gracenotes to see deleted page versions. I'd like to make it very clear that I am not insinuating that he is likely to start sending private e-mails to people like Blu Aardvark and Amorrow, telling them that he has just discovered from a deleted edit that a certain user's name is . . . But since administrators have access to sensitive information which is not available to ordinary users, and which may put other users in danger, a wish to feel completely comfortable with the candidate's trustworthiness should not be misrepresented as making a political point or opposing someone for wanting a "common sense" approach instead of a blanket ban.

Sure, being an admin is meant to be "no big deal"; but the problems with Everyking and Night Gyr may be leading us to a realization that at the very least, we need to feel that a candidate can definitely be trusted with deleted page versions. We're dealing with people we have never met. We don't know if they pay their taxes, take care of their elderly parents, pick up litter on the street. I don't know who is truthful and who isn't, on Wikipedia, so the best way for me to decide if an editor can be trusted with deleted versions (and my decision may prove to be wrong) is to see his attitude towards the trolls who feverishly try to get hold of confidential information and further publicize it. Now I don't have a habit of opposing people over this issue, and I certainly don't feel stronger about it than I did months ago. Nor would I demand that a candidate jump through hoops (state exactly what I think he should state) in order to gain my support. I don't think any of the opposers had a history of showing up at RfAs to ask the candidate his views on "attack sites" and then opposing if he didn't show support for removing links. The problem was that in this case, as SlimVirgin pointed out at the start, Gracenotes had given indication before the RfA began that he was not particularly shocked by the harassment that WR engages in, or unsympathetic to the people engaging in it. Then, when asked to clarify his position, he did not say anything that would remove those concerns, and in fact, increased them. I shall elaborate on the problems with his posts later. I'm not sure if I should do so here or on his talk page. Musical Linguist 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, ML. I'm concerned though that the problem you are identifying is so broad that trying to deal with it by attempting to filter candidates at RfAs may be neither effective nor fair. It is a leap of faith to assume that a perceived insensitivity on a given subject, even a critical one, is connected to that user using undelete power to expose material that shouldn't be given out. We are making something either side of about one new admin each day (sometimes less, sometimes double that over the course of a month). A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and any new admin could be "the one" to use powers inappropriately. It is entirely possible that a seemingly innocuous promotion could slip through and cause a problem while attention is being paid to RfAs like Gracenotes'. In sum, are we sure that trying to protect Wikipedians' privacy rights through RfA vigilance isn't like trying to kill an infected fly in a swarm of the critters with a shotgun? We might kill a lot of flies but never be sure we got the "right" one. -- Cecropia 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, you possibly misunderstand something. Since Gracenotes gave indication before the RfA began that he wasn't unsympathetic to WR harassers, it was perfectly appropriate to bring it up and ask him for explanation. And the opposers have not been going to all RfAs to filter candidates on this issue — only to those where the candidate has previously given some cause for concern that the voters would like a clarification on. This has nothing to do with making a leap of faith to assume that Gracenotes would expose confidential information. In discussing this so openly, it's unfortunately making an association between Gracenotes and some very unsavoury, unethical behaviour. Please understand that there is a huge difference between not leaving your children alone with the neighbour and looking at the neighbour and thinking "he's probably a paedophile". I don't go to all RfAs and say, "Oppose. I don't have 100% security that the candidate wouldn't give confidential information to stalkers." But Gracenotes — let's make this very clear — exposed himself as someone who wasn't particularly shocked by the behaviour of these trolls before his RfA began, and has said nothing that adequately reassured me and several other respected users and administrators (many of whom have no experience of being stalked, and can therefore not be accused of yielding to personal emotion and panic).

Gracenotes has a total of five posts to WR. Four of them are completely inoffensive. The third gives concern. And no, we don't need a link. I don't think Gracenotes is going to deny it. He reproduces a post from JzG asking to have WR added to the blacklist at meta, and then adds "Hm. And here I was, thinking that the spam blacklist should be used for fighting against spam..." Now this is not a pile on because Gracenotes didn't think WR should be added to the spam filter; other respectable Wikipedians might not think it either. But his wording is enough to sound alarm bells and to justify asking for clarification. The remark sounds slightly sarcastic, and shows zero empathy for those who have been so badly harassed. It would be nice to think that Gracenotes was unaware at the time that WR engaged in anything except criticism, but that thread already had posts from WR trolls making it clear that they were involved in exposing identities (and the thread wasn't so long at that stage that he'd have missed those posts), and his previous post had been to a thread about Brandt's efforts to track down Essjay (started long before Essjay voluntarily gave his real name), with lots of creepy, sinister stuff about searching universities and trying to get hold of IP addresses. Most decent users would find that kind of thing rather repugnant, and would not make a semi-sarcastic post about victims wanting to prevent traffic to such sites, regardless of whether or not they agreed with adding it to the spam filter.

In trying to avoid Godwin's Law, I'll refrain from making an analogy about supporting Hitler! But let's suppose there's a website frequented by rapists. They post accounts of their rape, and glory in the terror and distress of their victims. A future RfA candidate makes a few posts to that site, but never posts anything to indicate that he's a rapist. He has, however, made a completely inoffensive post on a thread where a rapist is describing his attack on his victim and is being egged on by others, so he can be assumed to know what's happening at that site. He then makes a post on another thread, to the website run by and frequented by rapists telling people that he's just heard that rape victims are trying to get personal alarms; and he quotes from the victims, and adds, "Hm. And here I was, thinking that alarms should be used to protect against burglary..."

I fully realize that rape is much worse than WR harassment, and therefore I do not expect the same level of outrage. But he showed none. His post brought attention, in a slightly mocking way, to attempts made by victims to protect themselves. He didn't just indicate that he thought these violations were abominable but that he felt the spam filter wasn't the right way to combat them. (By the way, a site on the spam filter can be whitelisted on other projects.) There was nothing to suggest that he was in any way critical of the harassment, which he must have been aware of from the subject of the second thread that he posted to. There was indication that he was being slightly critical of the efforts of victims to protect themselves. So, this is not making a point by opposing every candidate on every RfA because he "might" leak information. None of the opposers has done that. This is a candidate who drew attention to himself by (very mildly) criticizing (or mocking) victims instead of criticizing those who harass them, and then described the harassing site as "a mixed bag". (Regarding the "faux pas" of that wording, I've read the clarifications from the candidate, and feel that it would not have been possible for someone who has just the level of disapproval of WR harassment that I would expect from a normal, decent user (not hysterical, not irrational) to have used that wording, even by accident.) Therefore, far from being a case of a group of rabid link-removers jumping in to make a political issue of something, it was a case of a candidate indicating that he was not unsympathetic to trolls and stalkers, of several users voicing valid concerns, and of the candidate utterly failing to reassure them, as well as showing poor judgment in other ways (and I did mention other issues when opposing). Yes, another candidate who slips through might reveal information, and Gracenotes might not. But surely we should voice our opposition according to whether what we've seen of this candidate inspires our trust, and not according to an idea that we might not have realized that another candidate is really untrustworthy? Musical Linguist 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi ML: I still feel that only the most dedicated vandal would somehow wile his way into Wikipedia Adminship and then go to the extremity of violating policy and possibly the law by using admins' special access to hunt for information to "out" or otherwise harass Wikipedians. I would more expect such a devious person would go to great lengths to do everything possible to allay your fears or the concerns of anyone else for whom BADSITES issues are important.

I am not going to engage your individual points as this RfA is likely to be reopened. I neither support nor oppose Gracenotes, and I have no preconception as to whether the RfA should (or will) pass or fail, and if I did I would keep my own counsel. I have stated extensively my reasons for taking the course I have recommended. I expressed my own feelings about harassment and stalking in general on the project page of this chat, and I don't wish to either affirm or refute the points you are making, though I appreciate your time, trouble and sincerity in making them. You will be fully able to make all of your points and ask all of your questions when and if the RfA reopens. So can anyone within the usual rules of Wikipedian procedure and civility. I'm hoping that, whatever the outcome, everyone in the community who participates in RfA will view their role with new importance, and give all RfAs the attention and consideration they deserve. -- Cecropia 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, I never said, implied, or thought that Gracenotes went up for adminship with the intention of gaining the power to look at deleted edits in order to find out the name and address of some anonymous user and hand over the information to stalkers. I am quite, quite sure that he did not. My point is that he saw posts on meta asking for WR to be blacklisted because it engages in the practice of "outing" people. At the time of the particular post (JzG's) which Gracenotes saw, there was enough in that meta thread to make Gracenotes aware that WR was, at the very least, accused of engaging in harassment. There was even a post that said that a stalker who was phoning someone's workplace and threatening her family had been welcomed at WR. Additionally, the second thread that Gracenotes posted to at WR was very stalker-ish, and the third had enough evidence that stalking was going on to make a normal, decent person stop and think, "Hey, there's something going on here. This is creepy. I don't like this." Gracenotes, after seeing a thread at meta where the stalking was discussed, a thread at WR where stalking was going on, and another thread at WR where evidence of stalking was clearly visible, did not stop and react with any kind of disgust. But he didn't just remain silent. He reproduced the request for blacklisting, and gently mocked it.

I am not suggesting that his post was a frightful crime, for which he should be denied adminship. I am suggesting that it indicates a very troubling attitude which makes people concerned at the possible implications of granting adminship to him. I am suggesting (1) that his post showed that he had read the claims on meta that Wikipedians were being stalked, (2) it was to a a thread which at the time of his posting already made clear that the frequenters of that website were engaged in "outing" people, and (3) it was to a site where his previous (completely inoffensive) post had been to a thread where Brandt had been detailing his efforts to track down a (then) anonymous editor by contacting univerisities and trying to get IPs. Given the three facts I list, and given the gentle mockery in his post of Wikipedians who were trying to protect themselves against harassment and outing, I would suggest that that particular post was an implicit statement of "Hey, guys, I see some of what you're doing to Wikipedians, and I don't have a problem with it."

So, I stress once again that I do not for a single moment think that Gracenotes engaged in some kind of sinister plot to obtain adminship so that he could assist WR stalkers who were trying to get hold of IPs and names and addresses. I will go further and say that I am quite sure he did not. I can't imagine how my very valid concerns about his mild sympathy for perpertrators over victims could be interpreted as a belief that he's one of the stalkers himself or one who is seeking adminship for the purpose of helping them.

If Gracenotes doesn't think that what they're doing is appalling, and if his first instinct is to gently mock those who try to fight it and to show not even the mildest disapproval at a time when he knew some of what was going on and before he was looking for RfA support, then there are valid concerns about confidential information that he might be able to see, and about people blocked for "outing" that he might unblock. I do not think that Everyking sought adminship with the intention of looking at deleted edits and passing them on to WR stalkers. I do not think that Husnock sought adminship with the intention of restoring my stalker's posts about me, and protecting the page when others were trying to remove them. But Everyking, as far as I can tell, had an attitude of friendliness towards the stalkers and of hostility towards some of the people on Wikipedia that they were trying to out, and Husnock had an attitude that it's "a bit much" to tell someone what he can or can't have on his talk page, even after he had been told that Jimbo had said to block and revert this person on sight, and even after five administrators had told him that it was a user who had been banned for serious harassment.

Weighing up the post at WR about the spam filter, and more importantly, the attitude that it showed, plus his "mixed bag" comment, plus his "I am not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites; if needed, others may do that" statement, plus his partial restoration of a trolling post after SlimVirgin had said that she had sent two takedown notices to WR and that it was upsetting even to talk about it, along with other objections which have been mentioned, but acknowledging that his courtesy has been admirable throughout the RfA (unlike that of some of his supporters), I feel that it is not clear that he can be trusted not to add to the problems. I think I have already made the point that an administrator who is, even mildly, supportive of these harassers is far worse for the project than an ordinary user with the same attitude. Musical Linguist 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I'm hoping that Gracenotes will agree to rerun the RfA so that your points and those of the candidate and others can be aired and discussed in a civil give-and-take. -- Cecropia 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

re:"Gracenotes gave indication before the RfA began that he wasn't unsympathetic to WR harassers" - can you give us an example of this indication that Gracenotes supports "harassers"? I'm curious what not being unsympathetic means. Are you trying to say that Gracenotes approves of "harassment"?Piperdown 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've answered that adequately above. Musical Linguist 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ML does have a point in that, when I posted there, I did not know what the WR did to Wikipedians. I learned most of the information I now know about it from this RFA, and from this I certainly do not plan on posting there in the future. (If you knew me in real life, you would know that... well... I'm not the type to express feelings, and that I do not communicate empathy in dialogue so much as I try to in actions.) Gracenotes^T § 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If your RfA runs again, that is an area in which I think you might need to give further clarification, Gracenotes. As I've pointed out above, there is a lot of indication that you knew they were doing pretty dreadful things to Wikipedians (unless you're in the habit of posting to threads without reading any of the previous posts, and unless you had read ONLY the JzG post on meta, and none of the previous ones), and you not only showed no disapproval, but, when you did slightly commit yourself, it was to a very gentle mocking of their victims. It was inevitable that we'd want further clarification. Regarding your communication of empathy in dialogue rather than in action, your statement "I am not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites; if needed, others may do that", made to a group of people some of whom have suffered the most awful real life harassment as a result of being "outed", does not indicate that you'd communicate empathy through action. Musical Linguist 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When I answered that question, I had not seen a link, in discussion, to an attack site. I have since seen one that was meant as a personal attack to someone who was trying to civilly engage in discussion with me, and I removed it, since it met a criterion for removal (a personal attack). Gracenotes^T § 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the civil tone you've taken in your comments, in what I am sure is a difficult time for you, particularly as this is in contrast to the constant sniping aimed at opponents of your RfA from your supporters. But what you just said gave me pause. When you say that you first learned in your RfA what "WR did to Wikipedians," what exactly do you mean? Surely you must have been aware, since you posted there on several occasions, that a major portion of WR is devoted to attacking and attempting to "out" Wikipedians, and that entire message threads were devoted to one particular administrator. Are you saying that you did not know what those kind of posts did to the Wikipedians subjected to those kinds of attacks? Or did you mean that you were somehow, unlikely as it may seem, unaware of the relentless, sometimes vicious personal attacks against your fellow editors? --Mantanmoreland 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, Mantanmoreland, since there are at least 3 admins I've been able to google in the last 5 minutes that are listed as having accounts on WR, 2 of which have posted there, while a third who handled your User:LastExit uncle situation in July 2006 according to his diffs on wikipedia has an account there, do you think those 3 admins should have their admin status removed for doing so, or are current admins grandfathered while Gracenotes is not? For tthe record, I am against linking to any non-reliable source on on any wikipedia page, and that includes linking to WR. So for those scoring at home, you'll have to find these 3+ admins yourself. Google is a powerful thing. Perhaps all wikipedians should sign a promise note to never use google to search User:[x].Piperdown 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no problem in having Wikipedians post at WR. One of the most concerned users when one of our finest and nicest administrators was outed and threatened posts there, as far as I know; and I voted to make him an administrator. I can still remember how, when a spiteful troll turned up and started posting her name on various pages, this user was reverting as fast as he could. It is a problem if you post there enough to have an idea of what it's like, and then indicate lack of sympathy for the victims of their vicious attacks. If it were just that he posted there, there wouldn't be any problem. Musical Linguist 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To Musical Linguist: I hope that I was allowed to make one faux pas in my wording; I'm personally sorry that it was an insensitive one. I know a lot of metaphors, and while typing it I misidentified the connotations of the "mixed bag" metaphor. Regarding recent developments: Mantanmoreland gave me a chance to delineate on that comment in Question 13, and I did. He then flatly denied my claim, and I invited him to email me about the issue for evidence supporting my claim. He has not done so, perhaps because he does not wish to touch the issue for a while. At Cecropia's request (regarding clarifications), I shall not comment about your concern about deleted revisions; if you wish to, please contact me privately. Gracenotes^T § 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad ML has clarified the reason for at least some (perhaps most or all) oppose votes, because the opposition is being caricatured. My reasons for opposing are summed up in a post I wrote to Gracenotes. The bottom line is that I feel Gracenotes has shown poor judgment on a number of issues, and a tendency to act without being informed. The linking-to-attack sites is an example, as is posting about it to one of those attack sites, as is building up large number of edits using a semi-automated script just before standing for adminship, as is restoring part of the post of an anon IP from an attack site after the post was removed by two admins, etc etc. I fear Gracenotes will be an admin who gives every troll and troublemaker the benefit of the doubt because he's unwilling to inform himself before speaking. Sorry, GN, that's my honest opinion. I also worry about the 5,000 or so edits to articles and only 300 or so posts to article talk. I don't recall ever supporting anyone with that balance of edits.

I'm stressing again that I'll support the outcome no matter what it is, and I'll support Gracenotes as an admin if that's how it turns out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the current administrators lack a knowledge of such things; the older ones being familiar with old and long-gone users (many of whom ceased to be active before Gracenotes even registered) but not newer ones, and vice versa. To be honest, expecting everyone else to match your own taste for such things is unreasonable – Gurch 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When there isn't a policy, as in the case of BADSITES, to guide our actions then a common sense approach is what is required. Labeling someone who advocates a common sense approach as likely to give "every troll and troublemaker the benefit of the doubt" is casting an unfortunate and unfair aspersion on that person's decision-making ability. The number of edits over 5,000 supposedly added by bot or not so many posts to talk pages is an obfuscation of the point really being made that, "I oppose because the candidate disagrees with me." CLA 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Re: the posts below: If you read above, Cecropia asked us to restrict ourselves to comments that clarified the voting: "Please be aware that only clarifications should be brought up at this point and that the essential work on this RfA is based on the RfA itself." I clarified the oppose vote only because it is being caricatured. Therefore, please don't post more of the same repetition of opinions about the substantive issues from the RfA talk page in response; otherwise this page will simply become a copy of it. This is for clarification only of the votes/comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the comments you're referring to to above so that they don't fall out of chronological order. I agree with you about restricting our comments as Cecropia asked us to do. CLA 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"For any reason"?

I have stated often that a person is allowed, when opining on an RfA, to express support or opposition for any reason. – Cecropia

This is simply not true. Votes are removed/stricken all the time, and not just those from anonymous users or people who have voted twice; often votes deemed to be "trolling" get removed as well. And not by bureaucrats, but by pretty much anyone who happens to be passing through; the definition of trolling of course varies widely from one person to the next; I've had plenty of my own votes removed in this way – Gurch 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is trolling, or making inappropriate comments, then that kind of falls outside the area of expressing support or opposition. Expressing an opinion on an RfA implies that it is meant to be taken seriously. -- Cecropia 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And those who do intend for their opinions to be taken seriously, but have their votes struck anyway? – Gurch 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By "struck" you mean removing? Who is doing the removing? -- Cecropia 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The only votes I have ever seen struck have been those made by sockpuppets or banned users, and those made by IPs or very new users (and even then, they're usually just indented). If anyone's striking comments for any other reason, even for trolling, I'd like to see a diff (because personally, I find such striking reprehensible, and would gladly yell at anyone striking comments). Ral315 » 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet votes

For the record, support votes #132 User:Brownlee and #152 User:R613vlu were sockpuppets of Runcorn and are now banned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point there is no harm in pointing out confirmed socks but, unless we have a situation that socks are so numerous they would impact the understanding of this RfA, they shouldn't make a difference. -- Cecropia 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they banned or blocked? —AldeBaer 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn was banned after Gracenotes' RFA (but not, as far as I know, directly because of it). --Iamunknown 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with LessHeard vanU

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. There were many more issues raised by opponents at the Gracenotes RfA. The attack site issue was the only one with LessHeard vanU that I can see (and one person commented on his lack of article contribs), which is perhaps why he had so many fewer opponents, and which indicates that this was not the sole issue with Gracenotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can redo this, all issues are on the table again. -- Cecropia 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the 71 opposes, I can only see three that do not mention attack sites – Gurch 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I had so many opposers was because I had so many supporters. As is the case with my contributions, quantity is a very misleading way from which things may be assumed, especially when the votes can actually be looked at, as Gurch did, and when my contributions can actually be reviewed, not merely counted. Gracenotes^T § 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly pointed out by Crecropia that 73% of all oppose votes in both RfA's related to the position the candidate took regarding the attack sites issue. There may have been nuances in reasons for opposing on how this position reflected upon the candidiate (lack of empathy for victims as against mistrust in removing bad faith/all links to such sites) but each devolved to the same criteria. It is this common issue that the 'crats are addressing, specifically in regard to this RfA, and not the other 27% reasons for opposition. Also percentages are more indicative than raw numbers, as (outside of Wikipedia) a candidate with 90% of 20 votes cast has a greater democratic mandate than one who receives 80% of 20 million votes. The major comparison between the two RfA's is that there appears an established pattern in the voting decisions of many editors as regards candidates who take a certain stance over a certain issue, and especially among those who choose to vote to oppose. Thus, as this indicates that neither RfA was entirely its own creature, it needed to be examined. My understanding of Cecropias finding on this, that the weight (or lack of) given to the oppose votes based on a candidates position on the issue was not sufficiently argued by the closing 'Crat in the first RfA and should be given greater, or the fullest, consideration here, is one I entirely agree with whatever the conclusion. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One way to draw a comparison would be the following: 9 out of 16 users who opposed LessHeard vanU's RfA also opposed Gracenotes' RfA. Alright, 7 didn't (and 3 or 4 even went on to support GN) but the fact that 9 users who opposed one RfA find themselves opposing for somewhat similar reasons at another RfA is at least bordering on "no coincidence". —AldeBaer 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yipes!

It's still going? What is it? Like 6 days in limbo now? Миша13 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the nature of bureaucracy... AmiDaniel (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but it's waiting for Gracenotes to drop the other shoe. -- Cecropia 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Gracenotes has already expressed his desire not to be fed through RfA again this soon after the previous one; if you can't promote him based on this one, close it as unsuccessful and get this whole thing over and done with – Gurch 11:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're waiting for Gracenotes either. I think he is waiting for us.. Secretlondon 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He's given mixed signals. I've left notes on Gracenotes' talk page. What would he waiting for us to do? -- Cecropia 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Decide what we're doing? Secretlondon 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I was essentially waiting for the crats to decide something, which is the point of this discussion. There have been far more controversial RFAs for which consensus has been determined, and there is little reason why this should be different. Consider: if I were promoted, what would happen? If I were not, what would happen? Which would hurt Wikipedia, and its community, overall?

If either a 7-day 0/0/0 rerun or an extension on the first one is what the crats decide to do (say, 3 days), I would issue a statement about my views on opposers' valid concerns (as a component of the "candidate's statement"), with the intention of resolving them to the best of my ability. Yes, this seems simpler, but I doubt that it would be easier for all involved. If promoted, I would issue a similar statement. Please note: I do not plan on going through a rerun in the immediate future, and would not prefer it as an outcome. Gracenotes^T § 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Gracemotes. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but I still see a mixed message. You start by saying that you would issue a statement in the event the bureaucrats decided on a 7-day rerun or a (e.g.) 3-day extension. Then at the end you do not plan a rerun in the immediate future, and would not prefer it anyway. An extension of this nomination would not be productive or definitive, IMO, because it would layer another level on an already messy RfA. So please choose only one:

1. A rerun immediately or at a future date expressed now.
2. Withdraw your nomination, and be free to put up a new RfA whenever you feel ready.

Be aware that if someone else posts a new RfA for you, it will die and closed if you do not accept. -- Cecropia 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gracenotes#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes_2 is pretty unambiguous ... --Iamunknown 18:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Sigh, I hope Gracenotes does decide to run again

2 seems to be the best option. A lot depended on the whether the crats would choose to not fulfill the purpose of this chat, which has not been done, because they have deemed it impossible. From this variable stemmed the equivocation. Gracenotes^T § 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes 2

I've just taken the initiative and created a new RfA nomination for gracenotes to take this into a re-run, I have also advised Gracenotes to take this option as this chat is currently stalled. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you give bad advice :) Still beats me why Gracenotes would want to extend this period of harassment by a further seven days. His original reaction the first time Cecropia proposed this was:

I don't object strongly to a re-run, but reconsidering the strain this RFA has brought upon my wiki activities and in real life, I'm not sure if I'd personally be so fond of it (esp. doing it so soon after the first one). If it's the only way to determine consensus, though, it should be fine.

It's quite clear, now that they've stalled for over a week, that the bureaucrats are not going to make a definite decision. So why exactly does consensus need to be determined at all? I'm not sure why bureaucrats seem so adverse to closing a discussion with a "no consensus" result – something that happens to deletion debates daily. Perhaps it's the lack of such a provision anywhere in writing, but it would be trivial to add "no consensus defaults to no promotion" (as no consensus defaults to keep on an AfD) if so – Gurch 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Stalled" is a harsh evaluation. Gracenotes did not give a clear indication of what he wanted to do, as the above quote shows: "don't object strongly," "not sure I'm personally fond of it," "If it's the only way [...] it should be fine." But no commitment. Sometimes you just have to commit to something. Should I have restarted the nomination and have Gracenotes say "No, I really don't want that?" or close it and have him say "wait, I said a reun could be "fine"?" We then went through a bureaucrat chat and it took time to get a number of 'crats together (why I still believe a single 'crat should close a nom whenever possible). Then we needed to poll opinion and come up with a mutually agreeable way forward, and we did. Now we are waiting on Gracenotes who says he is waiting on us. If you call that bureaucrats stalling, I assure you there are lots less laborious way to stall. - Cecropia 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing notes

Seeing as a re-run has already been created and deleted, the original run is still suspended (as I am writing this), and also from reading the discussions above, there emerges a clear consensus that the bureaucrats were unable to establish a consensus whether there was a community consensus to promote Gracenotes at this time. (See also: tail recursion.) Миша13 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

As there seems to be no clear consensus, and no consensus about how to evaluate it, I'd like to suggest that Gracenotes take a few weeks to let this attack thing die down. There are people who are deliberately stirring it at the moment, many of them involved with these sites, so that any allusion to it turns into a circus. That's in part why there are such strong feelings on the other "side," because we're being deliberately baited. Perhaps Gracenotes could take those few weeks to inform himself about the nature of these sites, the nature of the attacks, and why people are so upset by them. He could also reflect on some of the other objections raised, so that he could reiterate his views from a more informed position. Maybe he would change his mind and maybe he wouldn't, but at least the community (on both sides) would see that he was taking was a thoughtful, informed approach.

The RfA re-run could be monitored by bureaucrats to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into squabbling again e.g. each person could be asked to make one comment only, including on the talk page.

Would something like that work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very good suggestion Slim, I offered another nom to Gracenotes, but he said he would prefer to self nom next time, I think this would let him make a statement regarding attack sites and clarify his position better than was on the current RfA. I do hope it happens soon though. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's Gracenotes's last word on the subject for now, I will close the nomination as "Withdrawn by candidate" assuming that no other bureaucrat has a different suggestion. -- Cecropia 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gracenotes should still ask for a decision on this RfA, and that if the decision is "no consensus," that it be without prejudice so he can re-nominate at any time. The casting of aspersions on one of the "sides" in this issue by the suggesting editor above shows that there are strong feelings on the issues involved all the way around. CLA 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the candidate's RfA is closed as withdrawn, it is understood to be "without prejudice," and he would be able to run again at any time. -- Cecropia 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes did not withdraw his first RfA (that was "suspended") nor his second RfA (that he rejected and Ryan deleted). --Iamunknown 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If he fails to respond to multiple requests to express his desires on dealing with his RfA, and the bureaucrats agree consensus cannot be determined, that is a withdrawal. He can proceed but he won't. I think it is his most graceful exit under the circumstances. -- Cecropia 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about, if Gracenotes accepts a re-run, starting 19 June, then we eave it suspended till then, pending the outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, so long as he openly states that he will do that here. If he does agree. the re-run RfA will open June 19, whether or not the candidate is ready to participate. Fair? -- Cecropia 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, if Gracenotes doesn't agree then you are left with the only other option of closing it as failed - it might be a good idea protecting this page and the RfA talk page once Gracenotes makes an indication of his intentions. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I hope Gracenotes will honor us by dropping the other shoe. -- Cecropia 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If bureucrats come to a consensus that consensus cannot be determined, then the RfA results in "no consensus", whatever Gracenotes' feelings on the matter are. How is that a withdrawal? --Iamunknown 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is semantics. RfAs have been re-run or extended in the past; therefore they have not been closed until the final ending date. Gracenotes has been offered a re-run because the exisitng RfA is indeterminate. If he refuses to continue his RfA that is a withdrawal. For what reason would you prefer it be called "no consensus"? -- Cecropia 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is semantics - So? That isn't a valid argument by itself. For what reason would you prefer it be called "no consensus"? - Because it has been deemed as such by the bureaucrats. --Iamunknown 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It has not. That is what the entire discussion is about. I believe you are a supporter of Gracenotes, what advantage do you believe he would gain from a "no consensus" closure? -- Cecropia 02:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would set a precedent, wouldn't it, that would help guide future decisions in controversial RfA's? CLA 02:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing the RfA as undecided would set the precedent that if the community does not provide the material for determining consensus, then the bureaucrats can not take over the community's responsibility. But that doesn't answer my question as to how Gracenotes would be better off with a "no consensus" finding. -- Cecropia 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any hard, fast rules for this. How about a straight-up vote by the non-recused bureaucrats on whether a consensus was reached, with a majority deciding? One of them has already, somewhat voted, on the chat page. CLA 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why on Earth are politicizing this, Cecropia? If by taking to Gracenotes on IRC, goofing off on his talk page, and commenting that I would support him as an administrator, I am suddenly a "supporter" of Gracenotes, then by golly! Wikipedia must be split into political factions that I just didn't know existed. We are here to build consensus not partisan politics.
• I didn't say that I thought Gracenotes would "gain" anything from a "no consensus" closure; he wouldn't gain anything, since he would not gain the the sysop flag. It merely appears to me, an untrained uncouth registered account, that (1) there is no consensus among anyone as how to move forward, (2) you are unwilling to make a decision by yourself (hence "suspending" the RfA) and (3) Gracenotes has commented, albeit indirectly, that he is not planning a second RfA any time soon.
• I guess if you want to wait for Gracenotes to definitively answer a statement directed by you, then go ahead; I imagine the answer will be "No rerun". --Iamunknown 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Politicize? I was referring to the simple fact that you indicated support (#5) on this RfA. I don't do IRC, I haven't looked at your comments on his talk page. I was trying to engage you rather than blow you off as to why you were debating the fine points of how to characterize the ending of this RfA. That's why I remarked that it is a "semantic point." This has gone on long enough without adding points of debate. It seems that you just want to debate for its own sake and find a pivot to accuse me of insulting you. -- Cecropia 03:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and that would be incredibly far from the truth. --Iamunknown 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA Closed

I have closed this RfA as withdrawn by bureaucrat due to the candidate's desire not to continue the RfA at this time. -- Cecropia 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... The RfA page claims now "Closed as withdrawn by candidate"... Миша13 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think that "consensus not determinable" might be a better description that lines up with the discussion here, but it is not my job, nor is it anyone's, to argue with the decision. Anyway, Cecropia, thank you for trying to deal with the quagmire here, although I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of a decision. I hope the latter is understandable. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)