Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Request for Comment on RFA

When some of you Bureaucrats' have got a minute, would you mind popping over to the RfA request for comment? Your views and suggestions would be very much appreciated on this and I'm am sure you have some interesting idea's to add. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: standing of blocked editors to comment on RfAs

I justed wanted to check whether there is any precedent on whether blocked editors may participate in RfAs by having their "support" or "oppose" comments proxied to the RfA page by a third party? WjBscribe 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call it block evasion, because, that is what is happening. Mercury 04:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should be allowed, provided that their comments aren't patently abusive or made in obvious bad faith (in which case I hope that no third party would be willing to pass on their comments). Sometimes, a blocked user may have had experience with a candidate which would be relevant to bring up in their RfA. This would be even more true at RfB; if a user has been wrongfully blocked by an abusive admin, it's extremely important that they're allowed to say so if that admin runs for RfB. Walton^One 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user, is well... blocked. They are not allowed to edit. I would consider editing by proxy, editing none the less. Mercury 10:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user may still have important information relevant to the RFA. They are not banned, and unless the block was for disruption of RFA, remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Kusma (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless they're blocked for disruption of the RfA process or the RfA in particular, and it doesn't violate HA CIV NPA etc., I'd be inclined to accept it. Daniel 11:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Any good information they have is more than welcome in a comments section, but not as a vote. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with EVula here. Basically along the lines of "then don't get blocked." It's not like it's hard to avoid getting blocked, I've been here for 4 years and have never come close. Besides, RfAs run for a week, if someone has done something so egregious as to be blocked for longer than that, then the likelihood that their information is highly useful is not high enough to make it worth it. - Taxman ^Talk 01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no "right to edit". If someone wants to be available to comment on RFAs, then they should not get blocked. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the block is set to expire while the RfA is still running, I think it would be preferable for the user to wait until then to participate in the RfA. If the block doesn't expire until after the RfA is scheduled to end, I think it would be acceptable to put a brief comment from the user on the RfA's talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm inclined to say "it sucks to be you" about participation while operating under a block. If the block expires before the RfA is closed, fantastic, they are more than welcome to participate. If the RfA opens and closes while the block is in place, well... sorry, they don't get to participate. Yes, I realize that is a little bit harsh and that blocked users aren't the same as banned users, but at the same time, blocks are in place because they've proven to be disruptive in some way, shape, or form; one of the consequences of their actions is that their ability to participate in discussions is curtailed (that includes RfAs, RfBs, AfDs, RfCs, and any other acronym that has a lower-case "f" in the middle). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sensible action. Daniel 23:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

faith assumption and verification

Without unblocking the account, and in the absence of any faith assumption, it would be difficult to verify the proxy comment is accurate and actually a proxy comment. Until the block is expired of lifted. I suggest not posting to a discussion on the behest of a blocked user, with these issues unworked. An alternative is if you agree with the block users point, you may rephrase the point in your own words, and own your comment. But otherwise, we are setting a bad precedent. Mercury 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users can post to their talk page, so verification is no concern. Daniel 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me, I have not had much sleep. Mercury 12:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Something I know quite well :) Daniel 12:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Account created with bad email needs renaming

I accidentally created User:Giorgio Spy with a bad email address. As nobody (not even me) can access the account and nobody has any chance of doing so (because the only copy of the password was mailed to an invalid address, and MediaWiki reported an error but for some reason created the account anyway), could a 'crat rename it out of the way so I can try again? --ais523 17:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping proposal

After some of the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but the steps are a little too unwieldy. It seems more like an interrogation than much else. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to try to balance "ease of use" (it should be easier than arbitration) while still closing it off from abuse. But do you mind if I ask, interrogation of who? The admin technically does not have to do anything, as much as any RFA candidate has to do (though the questions would be different). Unless I made something unclear or made a serious typo, most of the work has to be done by those bringing the case. After the case is approved, it proceeds pretty much like an RFA. (please discuss on the talk page though) Mr.Z-man 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a desysop request?

Since this is the forum used to discuss desysopping most frequently I thought I would bring it up here. The latest desysopping for an enwiki admin was done on the basis of a statement by a user of "Feel free to de-sysop me if you desire." Any isolated case is no big deal, but in time such things become based on precedents. So I ask, Should voluntary desysopping be limited to explicit requests, or should we proceed on desysopping those who write non-explicit statements such as the one quoted above? (link to permissions discussion on Meta) NoSeptember 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

user:The Random Editor's situation is complicated. He is in contact with the arbcom about it. That de-sysopping might be undone. Raul654 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular case is of no real interest to me, but it is good that ArbCom is involved for whatever reasons.

I have noticed a lot of IP addresses making requests at Meta on the "behalf" of others to request desysoppings (for various projects, not just enwiki). Of course, often the IP may be the actual person (who has never created a Meta account), but in other cases, it seems odd to set up a situation where anyone can successfully get someone desysopped by quoting a non-explicit statement from the user. NoSeptember 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the situation is even more muddied because the user indicating he was leaving... so it is a very plausible case for desysopping under more common circumstances. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from a Steward perspective: requests for desysopping posted on Meta must be confirmed by a logged-in edit from the concerned account on the project in question. Save for a very, very small number of people in whose case it is already an established fact that they control a given account on Meta that is the same as their local project account, it wouldn't even matter if the person posting the request was logged in on Meta with an account using the same name as the account from another project. Usually, we request that the confirmation post be linked in the request on Meta, preferrably by a diff. If the account owner on the given project doesn't post confirming the request on his or her own project, we can't desysop. Identity verification is a prerequisite and it is the Steward's job to verify it before carrying out the request. So impersonation will not accomplish the goal of having someone desysopped without the admin's knowledge and concurrence (and particularly since the action is easily undone, although we need to avoid at all costs a back-and-forth in the user rights logs).
Now about NoSeptember's question, it will depend on the circumstances, and particular cases are, of course, set aside, but the cardinal rule is that a Steward does not "want" to desysop anyone. The Steward will only carry out a user's wish to be desysop (if voluntary) or a local community's or local ArbCom decision to desysop someone. So if someone were to post something like "nobody likes me on my wiki, so desysop me if you want", the Steward would tipically ask what the user means by "you". If the person is asking the Steward to assess the situation on the local wiki and make a decision of whether or not it justifies desysopping, and if so, desysop, the request will be denied. Stewards do not interfere in that except if there is a clear emergency, with clear and highly demaging abuse of the tools. If the user wants the Steward to desysop if the Steward "feels like it", the request will equally be denied, and the user asked to ascertain community feeling regarding his or her status on the local project. To put it simply, the first question the Steward would ask is: "is it your wish to give up the status voluntarily? If the users says something like "no, but I'm fed up with everything that's going on and I want someone to make a final decision and be done with it", then the Steward will not desysop, because it is absolutely not a Steward's role to override a local community's process and make a decision on a case that is currently open for discussion. So long story short, if somoene whose identity is verified (or else, no-go) makes a non-explicit request, the Steward will ask that person to be more clear, and then decide accordingly. Redux 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi

Fellow bureaucrats, what is our opinion on this RFA? I read it with the intention of closing and I am not sure there is a clear consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those that could go either way. I think people opposing this nomination on the basis of his inexperience (3 non-revert edits in the main namespace) make a good point. Either way, I think the nomination should be put on ice (that is, closed with no decision yet) pending outcome of this discussionRaul654 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done that, and included a link to the status of the RFA at the time it should have been closed: [2] --Deskana (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, this is a clear no consensus. We have a substantial percentage of editors commenting objecting due to the lack of mainspace contributions. Supporters conclude that other contributions give them sufficient information to know that the user will not abuse the tools, but many acknowledge that the lack of mainspace edits is a valid concern. There is also some support and opposition over the nom being written as if by Cobi's bot (and a few editors just seeming confused by this), but this wasn't a major issue. The roughly three-quarter support seen at the scheduled closing time was about as high as Cobi's support ratio got, and the late comments were all in opposition (not sure why this would be). In summary, to me, it seems that there is one major concern held by a substantial proportion of editors, which could potentially be addressed by closing this as no consensus and welcoming a new RfA in a few months. Warofdreams talk 22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this fully 24 hours after its scheduled conclusion as no consensus. Clearly a large proportion of participants have expressed the belief that this user needs more seasoning, and the consensus of "neutrals" express the same reservation. This editor has been pointed in the direction he should go in order to succeed later. -- Cecropia 05:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, and I agree. Thank you, Cecropia. --Deskana (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. This was a productive bureaucrat chat; getting to a decision in around 24 hours worked well. Warofdreams talk 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

I don't want to confuse the discussion, but I would like to comment, are you open to outside comments? Mercury 12:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so I have split this off into a different header. We will consider the comments, but we do need chat that is exclusive to bureaucrats, which can go in the above section. --Deskana (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the nimination should be suspended pending the outcome of this discussion. The support percentage is often adversely effected by remaining open past the close. This would have the effect of making the decision easier - but probably not in the method desired. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the average case the support percentage goes up a few percent as a result of time past seven days, but to a degree statistically consistent with 0. I suspect there is an observer bias in tending to remember cases that go down at the last minute. Dragons flight 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? It's went from 72/23 to 72/30 in the past 10 hours or so, I have to agree with Ryan. Wizardman 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:R's RfA in July was also somewhere in the discretionary range at the original closing time and slipped below as some opposes came in the hours afterwards, so this isn't the first time this has happened. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, really. There is a large scatter with examples of both substantial falls and significant rises, but the average is slightly positive, based on statistical analysis I did a year ago or such. Dragons flight 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with suspending it. GDonato (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I'd do it myself, but for all my talk about non-crat RfA involvement, I'm wary of non-crats suspending RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think that's something that is clearly only to be done by bcrats, but I'm obviously not going to do it here since I've participated in the RfA in question. In general though if you buy into the idea that RfA should be a consensus gathering exercise, then the nominal expected closing time isn't quite so important, and we should take various views into account in closing. Note that I participated in this after the nominal closing time and take that into account as you like. But also note I've expressed this opinion consistently. - Taxman ^Talk 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

C'mon guys. The reason we pay you those humongous salaries is to make the tough calls like this one!! Ronnotel 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And part of that can be discussing it of course. - Taxman ^Talk 18:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, snap judgments only. Dubious concepts such as "facts" and "reality" will only serve to water your decision; how can we overreact to such rational discourse? Tsk tsk... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Try getting away with that at Yankee stadium. I can just see it now, the umpires all huddling up after each pitch. . . ;) Ronnotel 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there was no clear consensus to promote by the closing time, arbitrarily letting it run past the set time is not such a good idea IMO. If the RfA is going to be extended, it should be stated clearly and for how long, shortly before or shortly after closing time. If it's going to be suspended, suspend it at closing time. After all, you can remove the RfA from the main page and decide at leisure. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't suspend nominations retroactively. However, I'd support it being suspended now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is no sense suspending it retroactively. What I meant was that it should have been suspended at closing time. Not let it run indefinitely. Suspending it now, I don't agree with that. The only thing to be done now is to extend it with a clear statement stating when it ends. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, this is the page just before it was supposed to close (the next edit comes 1 minute after it was supposed to actually). Kwsn(Ni!) 20:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold up?

I don't quite understand the hold-up in this case. He is clearly below the threshold for promotion, and keeping the RfA running is not helping him. If this was a long time user or former admin and there was a zillion votes, I could understand sitting on it while the crats get their stuff together... but this is a comparatively new user who could stand a fairly good chance at another RfA in a couple of months (where I, and others, might vote for him then), and keeping this RfA in limbo is not fair to either him or the community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he makes a few hundred edits per month and doesn't create much article content. That's unlikely to change in the next few months. When bureaucrat chat started, the RFA was in the traditional discretionary range. I wish the 'crats would either extend, freeze, or close. Discussing the RFA closure while consensus is changing is strange.--chaser - t 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming they are discussing it anywhere, which I haven't seen. It looks like no-one is around, or seemingly, willing, to do the obvious (be it closing or suspending). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty close. A bit of waiting may help to figure out whether is consensus or not with more people commenting. Captain panda 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I found it very very ironic you were going around tagging supports after it was supposed to close (and at that time would have passed) and completely ignored the opposes. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"At the time would have passed". No, that's not true, otherwise it'd have been closed already and there'd be no issue. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, at the time, just looking at the numbers would have been a pass, that's what meant. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the case. There was no clear consensus to promote at that time either, in my opinion. --Deskana (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn, I did put notices on two support votes. Within a half hour of that, I was offline (check my contributions) and, to my knowledge, there were no other votes either way. While there were votes, I didn't see them (the page is not on my watchlist), and looking at the history, Cobi commented on the oppose himself. And in any event, the notes were apparently removed a couple of hours later anyway. Perhaps its best not accuse me of bad faith for not doing something when I did not see it and was not online, because, if anything, you make yourself look like a bit of an ass. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I'm just saying that's what I saw when I looked on the page after the comments about the after close voting was made. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jbeach56

Jaranda requested that, after giving up his sysop bit voluntarily, that he be given them back. He left a bit of controversy regarding the Jimbo's/Mzoli's meats thing, but I decided (after a number of very respect users vouched for him) that it wasn't a suffeciently big deal to deny his request that the bit be restored. Because he scrambled the old account, I've restored them to his new account, User:Jbeach56. Raul654 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Non latin username changes

WP:U specifically allows non-latin usernames, so if a new user creates an account with non latin characters, they can be expected to be allowed to keep their username and unless it means something offensive, no-one should even bother them about it. So why are established users not allowed to change their username to non-latin characters? This is what I'm talking about, it looks like the username will not be changed, yet, the user wishes to have a non-latin username because it is the same as his one on the hebrew wikipedia, which is an even greater cause for allowing the username, with unified login apparently on its way. Sorry, but this smacks of bureaucrats' thinking they are above policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed anyone with Troll in their name is allowed a rename at all.. The issue with non latin characters is that a large % of users cannot tell them apart. We are given discretion, we are not policy bots. Secretlondon 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this good faith user had troll in there name and most probably requires a username change only adds to the fact that this rename should be done. You may not be policy bots, but you are given the job of enacting community consensus - the community has decided to allow non latin usernames, and you are supposed to enact on that wish. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, having "troll" in a username is a good argument to force a username change, by block if necessary. It's not a good argument to force a username change to a particular username.--chaser - t 18:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the username is still within policy so I don't see what the problem is with this username. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You will observe that I, and other, bureaucrats disallow changes for other reasons as well. We are concerned with the entire Wikipedia community, not just the desires of a single editor, especially when that editor is asking something that s/he can do him/herself (i.e., register a non-latin name) without 'crat action that creates problems for the community. I proposed to the two editors how they could proceed, and at least one has done just that. -- Cecropia 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, you're making up policies as you wish. When you become a bureaucrat you don't just get a free pass to pick and choose which rules are observed. The single editor wishes to have the same username he has on another wikimedia project, which he is more than entitled to per all our policies, yet he is being disallowed that opportunity by people creating rules and problems that don't exist. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Change the policy to disallow non-Latin scripts, that'll solve this problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation

Is this the first time that there has never been a single oppose vote on any current request for adminship? I wonder if this puts a gloss on the sometimes-expressed opinion that RFAs bring out unhealthy criticisms of editors. Sam Blacketer 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Or it could just be that we have a handful of very qualified editors on the board ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the bot isn't picking up the oppose in Rudget's RfA. Daniel 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Killjoy. — Dan | talk 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anonymous Dissident, :) Rudget _{Contributions} 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been several, Bduke, etc, and today there was a 147/0/0. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction to rfa

For the sake of openness and full disclosure, I'm letting the BN know I have modified the first line of my old RFA. It turned out that 6 of the respondents were each socks of Runcorn. So I have noted this. (diff)

If there's any problem with this edit, please revert and correct as seems right. I've edited it (although its an old item) since it turns out fully half of the oppositional views turned out to be one person's heavy use of puppetry, and because the correction seemed very simple and obvious, as did the disclosure on WP:BN. I've made no other changes. Otherwise if it's not a problem, brief confirmation would be appreciated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to change the totals. Add a footnote instead. In the footnote, add the list of sock usernames and the corresponding diffs for which they voted in your RFA. That would be a better solution IMO. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Nichalp. That RfA is a historical archive, which should not be changed to evidence the Bureaucrat's decision on promoting or not, and the evidence he/she used to reach that determination. Whether that evidence was, at that time, faulty, is not a reason to change the total now, since subsequent users may question that Bureaucrat's decision with the now amended totals, when he/she acted accordingly and in good faith with the previous numbers. I believe the best thing to do is leave the discussion as it was closed, but add a footnote after the discussion establishing your evidence, and elaborate in the talk page. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A good point, the evidencing. I have reverted the tally to match that set by the closing 'crat, made clear the adverse sock use was identified well after the close, and added diffs per Nichalp. I've also put the note on a separate (indented) line under the tally. It's now clearly a note added afterwards and note aside, the RFA is as left by the closing crat. Can someone confirm this is okay? I'd like the matter more visible than a "bottom of page" or talk page note, since RFA's get referred to, and not everyone reads those pages. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now, however the decision belongs to Bureaucrats, so you should obtain feedback from anyone of them. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Usruptations

A backlog is aloof. I'll take "get some b'crats down here" for $700 please. hbdragon88 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoral of Darwinek as sysop

Darwinek (talk · contribs) was desysopped following an arbitration case in April 2007. He was allowed the option of appealing directly for reinstatement, and did so, and this has reached a majority on the Arbcom mailing list to reinstate Darwinek. Could a bureaucrat kindly restore the sysop access for Darwinek please? Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot

Bureaucrats, what do you believe the outcome of this RFA is? I do not believe that we should promote in this instance. The concerns of the opposers are quite serious, and there are considerable amount of people opposing this RFA. I would like some input from other bureaucrats before closing this RFA as such. --Deskana (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The numbers are inconclusive, and the objections seem to have serious content. No consensus. — Dan | talk 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I call it no consensus too. Secretlondon 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the RFA accordingly. No consensus. --Deskana (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Most of the opposition is solid arguments grounded in details of the unpopular, though fundamental, fair use policy. Plus, there's the candidate's (mis)understanding of replaceability and the perennial philosophical disagreement about whether block/ban confusion means policy ignorance elsewhere. The supporters' comments indicate they're considering these points. Some supporters say his opinion about FU-rationales shouldn't matter as long as he enforces policy elsewhere (it's just his opinion!), but I doubt we'd promote someone uninterested in a neutral encyclopedia just because he can clear a CSD backlog. Free distribution is likewise a foundation issue. I'd say no consensus.--chaser - t 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who switched from oppose to unenthusiastic support, I'm not sure that's a completely fair summary of the situation. One has to be careful not to overblow RtD's stance on images here and I'm afraid the comparison you make is doing just that. Betacommandbot recently tagged for deletion a whole slew of images with no fair-use rationale, many of which did fall under fair-use even though the specific rationale was lacking. I think RtD is simply saying he believes the NFCC policy should be relaxed, not thrown out and he made it perfectly clear that he would not undermine 10c. Similarly, we have admins who don't delete articles because they're unhappy with the notability guidelines and we can live with that. I think the bureaucrats should examine whether they feel the promotion of RtD would have a positive net-effect. Obviously the NFCC is a sensitive issue and so there's an immediate backlash when someone expresses doubts on the issue. But I think a number of opposers failed to actually go and look at the work that RtD has done in the area. Pascal.Tesson 14:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the work he did in that area and felt that his own characterization of his position was accurate: he believes that an unfree image that provides more information should be preferred to a free image that is adequate but less good. Is there any doubt about his position on that question? He stated it several times. Chick Bowen 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The percentage of support is well below 75%, there is significant, well-reasoned opposition from many experienced users and admins, and the level of support is not not exactly at the level (in quantity) one sees in suspended nominations... Honestly, what is to decide? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted feedback from other bureaucrats before I closed it. Is that unreasonable of me? --Deskana (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey, it was at 74%. That isn't well below 75 (1% if my calculations are correct). Majorly (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, Despite this person being my own nomination, I'm finding it nearly impossible to see a consensus. It's a shame, since I still think this person would be a great admin, but there are about 5-6 different oppose reasons at least. If it was just 1-2 petty opposes that everyone was using i may be able to argue it. It's really an uphill battle, since the opposition was actually relatively serious stuff. (had he decided to use edit summaries he'd be at 75%, may I point out). Just my take, I guess if I can't see a consensus that makes it more obvious. Wizardman 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's expressed interest in working with images, yet many of the opposes were regarding image problems... it could be problematic to promote at this time. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly. If the candidate has declared an intention to work with images, the community has raised significant objections with the candidate's understanding of policy in that area. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*...I wish you would be more specific about your concerns, as I thought I made it clear that I would have to enforce policy as it stands. Not doing that would be a good way to be quickly desysopped. I do not fundamentally disagree with the non-free content policy, rather, I think that it should be balanced against the fact that we're here to make an encyclopedia. My preferred balance would be one that provides the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people, which is really not far from the current policies. The major thing is that I refuse to get involved in deletion "discussions" revolving around WP:NFCC#10c.

I'm also wondering if my statement about edit summaries was unclear. I would provide edit summaries for every deletion I make, as well as page moves, major edits, and controversial edits.

So, are there any specific scenarios where you think I would make an improper decision? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can speak only for myself. Having processed PUI and IFD many times, I am aware that there are numerous judgment calls (what you call the "gray area"). I feel strongly that we need someone more committed than you seem to be to free content making those judgment calls. The kinds of decisions that get people de-sysopped are not remotely my concern. Chick Bowen 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I may be stoned for saying it, blind dedication to free content would severely damage Wikipedia. Free content is very important, but there are times when we cannot fulfill the end goal of the project without relying on non-free content.

The end goal of Wikipedia is to bring more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. The "more knowledge" refers to quality content, the "more people" refers to the ability to bring that content to more people (in other words, free content), and the "in the form of an encyclopedia" refers to the structure and limit of the project.

I understand why we are here. It's not for just free content, and it's not just for ultra-high-quality content. It's about the free knowledge that we give through that content. When we do not have, cannot find, and cannot create high-quality free content, we should think about the goal of the project, and make content decisions that will increase the amount of free knowledge in the world.

Perhaps you will tell me that providing free knowledge is really just a secondary goal. If so, I would ask you: why do we even allow non-free content at all? Perhaps, as Jimbo put it at the end of his new video, it is because we "imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." This is the purpose behind the non-free content policy: to provide as best we can the most knowledge to the most people when using free content falls short. And, in a great testament to its writers, the current non-free content policy reflects this goal almost perfectly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You said you were confused about why people were opposing you; I explained. You asked, "are there any specific scenarios where you think I would make an improper decision?" and I answered that question. Why are you still speechifying? This page is not the place for that conversation. Chick Bowen 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I was hoping you'd try to understand my position before setting your opposition in stone. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The sunder king

This looks like it might need a snowball close. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn and closed.--chaser - t 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know he hates us all, though.[3] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took that out in the hope no one would notice. Let's drop it. Failing RFA sucks.--chaser - t 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What's all this about? The sunder king 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all. This didn't have to be posted here; it could have just been done. As Chaser says, everyone is happy to just let it go and move on. Chick Bowen 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Restore access

Will a bureaucrat please restore my admin access? It was removed by Angela (talk · contribs) at my request, under non-controversial circumstances. As I understand it, standard practice is that access should be restored at my request. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Dan | talk 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - auburnpilot talk 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination withdrawn

I'm withdrawing my RFA for obvious reasons. VanTucky ^Talk 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've closed and archived it accordingly. Sorry it didn't work out - I hope you'll take onboard the concerns of the opposers and run again. Best of luck if you do. WjBscribe 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Self noms

I am sick and tired of Kurt Weber's "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger" bs. I think everyone agrees that this kind of knee-jerk opinion that is not based on any of the current criteria does little to help the RFA process. Occasionally someone tries to deflate him within an RFA, but has anyone tried to seriously dissuade him from continuing this nonsense backed by some community weight? I think if the crats added their voice to the multitude of regular RFA contributors then we just might convince him. Thoughts? VanTucky ^Talk 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My thought is to leave him alone and get on with it. It isn't like his opinion will affect the final result, so don't let it bother you. Majorly (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very reasonable opinion in my view. Speaking of putting some weight behind it, he's apparently just been blocked for this very issue. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Kmweber. See also an RFC on this exact issue: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber. Friday (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vague opposes like this have no effect on RFAs. It's hardly a persuasive argument. It's barely even an argument. That said, that does not mean making the arguments is not disruptive. I can't say I disagree with the block. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info Friday. VanTucky ^Talk 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal. Kurt's been a presence for several years (though I don't think I've encountered him at RFA before), and no bureaucrat would put much stock by his power-hunger theory. (I now observe that he's been blocked; I wouldn't have bothered myself but I have no argument with it.) — Dan | talk 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just pointing out to everyone that User:Mercury has requested arbitration for Kurt's actions here. Thoughts? GlassCobra 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems more disruptive than what User:Kmweber was doing personally, seems any B'crat already knows how to equate his !vote so not sure where this is going really, thought there was consensus on the RFC already. Dureo 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

His comments are stupid and ridiculous, but it is for that reason that I think that he is given very little weight. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to point people here. Look at who nominated him. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

Would the bureaucrats please consider promoting this one early? All kinds of nonsense is going on in the oppose section, and since the whole thing is unnecessary, I see no reason to let it continue. Chick Bowen 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Chicks suggestion here. This RFA will not fail and Majorly is already eligible for re adding the bit per current practice. Lets take the fact of the RFA acceptance as an explicit request for the bit. Mercury 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comparing this to Danny's renom in any other way than to note that, if Majorly could regain his bit by right, he should have asked for that. Since he accepted a renomination this must run its course unless he withdraws it. -- Cecropia 20:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this sentiment. If Majorly is the subject of a current RFA, we should not promote prematurely. --Deskana (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I too. Cecropia is characteristically wise. — Dan | talk 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Three things, related to the above RFA:

• (1) Could the bureaucrats confirm here that starting an RfA resets the "voluntarily gave up the bit and can have it back on request" thing? In other words, withdrawing while the RfA is running is equivalent to not succeeding (as predicting what would have happened after the withdrawal is impossible), and the RfA not succeeding means the former admin can no longer ask for the tools back as they could have done before? Obviously this is not happening in this case, but just thinking for future cases (the main possibilities being someone withdrawing a failing RfA and asking for the tools back, someone withdrawing an unclear RfA and asking for the tools back, and someone withdrawing a succeeding RfA and asking for the tools back). Apologies if this has already been made clear in previous cases.
• (2) Seeing as this RfA has seen duplicate votes by Maxim (making a deliberate point), the note I left here might be of interest to the mathematically minded.
• (3) Finally, seeing as some people have raised concerns about the usefulness of using the RfA process for reconfirmations like this - might it be possible to actually note somewhere for future reference the idea (suggested by several people) that a user RfC might be as suitable a venue for gauging the continued trust of the community (possibly linked from the RfA page), so as to avoid drawing attention away from other RfAs running at the same time? Obviously no-one can stop reconfirmation RfAs, but making more people aware of other possibilities might be useful. As time goes on, we may see more of this kind of thing (retired admins wanting their tools back).

Obviously, if you want to wait until the RfA is over before discussing or answering, please do. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, numbers 1 and 3 should be posted on WT:RFA for the community to decide. It's not really for us to decide whether or not this is the case. Maybe we can draw a line in the sand in a controversial case, but it's not really for us to decide overall. And thanks for number two, I love seeing mathematical analysis like that, its funny  :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take the questions to WT:RFA, but I'll wait until the RFA that prompted the questions is finished. Question 1 does seem to be bureaucrat related though, as it is a bureaucrat that would have to deal with the question initially. I assumed that Cecropia's (I'm paraphrasing here) "the RfA must finish unless [it is] withdrawn" to imply that a withdrawn RfA was a failed one, but then realised that the statement was actually silent on the issue of whether a withdrawn RfA was failed or just, well, withdrawn (ie. stopped). Carcharoth 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would assume point 1 would depend on how the RFA was going. If it was withdrawn and consensus was against the candidate, then a 'crat could use their discretion to deny a requested re-sysopping. But if it were withdrawn with consensus favoring the candidate, I see no reason why they can't be re-sysopped. SashaCall 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to question 1, I would not say that simply mounting a reconfirmation RfA (let's call it an RRfA) should automatically remove the "right" to request an admin bit back that was voluntarily relinquished in a non-contentious de-sysoping; i.e., the admin didn't suspend his/her bit under a cloud. For example, if an RRfA has started and the early results are positive, and a number of editors ask "why don't you just ask for the bit back?" and the RRfA is withdrawn in response to these concerns, then I would say that the bureaucrats can reasonably decide to restore or not the admin bit depending on the established criteria as though the RRfA had never been mounted. However, as with any other Wikipedia process good faith is a critical issue. If someone were to mount an RRfA, and then let it run for more than a day or so and then drop it for no obvious good reason, or especially drop it at any time after it seems opposition is increasing, I would count the withdrawal as a failure and would not restore the bit until a full-term successful RRfA is completed. To do otherwise would encourage "gaming the system," which is not good faith. -- Cecropia 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to q.3, my personal feeling is that, if an admin or 'crat wishes to seek confirmation after a year or so, that is a good thing. It should be done in good faith with the understanding that a failure loses the bit and a new RfA would be needed to regain it. In the case of 'crats in particular, I wouldn't be averse to a mandatory review every year to two. I don't consider this an ego trip on the face of it, since the person seeking reaffirmation has something to lose in exchange for the hope of a "stroking." -- Cecropia 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these replies. Makes sense. Carcharoth 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Suspend or extend discussion

See also: User talk:Gmaxwell § Majorly

Very recently it has been suggested/revealed/{other politically-correct verb} that checkuser evidence suggests that Majorly edit-warred using an IP address in tandom with his account (in the interests of transparency, I wish to note that Majorly denies this on the page, although the checkuser Gmaxwell saying it was a 'direct hit' or words to that effect).

In light of this, can I ask the bureaucrats' opinion on possibly suspending the RfA temporarily pending clarification of this issue (given we have two users in good standings with very conflicting stories, and it could lead to mistaken opposers if it wasn't Majorly or potentially a successful RfA if it was and such is revealed afterwards), or extend it past the normal closure date to accomodate further discussion?

Cheers, Daniel 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Majorly has been quite upfront with what happened there, he was mistaken as it wasn't his usual IP. I'm not sure Gmaxwell checkusering Majorly on commons however was the most productive use of checkuser. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he has amended his comments to that effect, yes: link. Daniel 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The same person with checkuser access has asserted that Majorly is 'probably' a sockpuppet of Matthew (talk · contribs) (link). If ever we needed some IAR action, it's now. Daniel 04:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea for a checkuser to see if this is true or not? SashaCall 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As a checkuser: Gmaxwell's assertion is not based on checkuser evidence, as there is none. There is some reasonable overlap of editing patterns, and enough similarity for people to be suspicious, but there is no checkuser evidence linking the two together. Indeed, Matthew was actively editing (from no way near Manchester, IIRC) when Majorly was confirmed to be in Manchester for a wikimeetup. I am reasonably confident that Majorly is not Matthew. As for the accusations that he's edit warred using an IP, I've yet to see any evidence of this either. If people want to submit me evidence, then I'll consider it. Until that time, I must assume that these comments are made on faulty information. As a bureaucrat: Based on what I've just said, I see no reason to temporarily suspend this RFA. People who are opposing in good faith based on totally faulty information will have their opposes discounted, with absolutely no hard feeling or bad intent towards them. This is what bureaucrats are for. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'from nowhere near Manchester' is a bit of a non-starter as most British IPs don't geolocate anyways. User:Veesicle 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle, I am English. I am aware of all the intricacies of British IPs. I am not at liberty to disclose the information I have due to the access to non-public data policy. But I assure you, I know what I am talking about. Checkuser has suggested in the past that is highly unlikely that Matthew and Majorly are the same person. It is not fair of you to say I am wrong when you have seen none of the data. This lack of a correlation, given with the evidence Ryan has submitted below, mean that the assumption that Majorly is a sockpuppet of Matthew is a faulty one. --Deskana (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were wrong. I was just mentioning that that bit didn't really gel. I don't believe Matthew is a sockpuppet of Majorly anyways. User:Veesicle 13:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly can not possibly be Matthew. I was with him on 9 June at the Manchester wiki-meetup, so how was Majorly supposed to make all these edits ([4][5][6] [7] [8] [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]) whilst I was with him? And no, it wasn't just me, there was WJBscribe, Wimt and plenty of other admins who can all confirm this. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deskana claims above "Checkuser has suggested in the past that is highly unlikely that Matthew and Majorly are the same person." but Deskana has never performed the correct checks of the accounts. Becca and Raul654 have independently confirmed the checkuser verifiable connection between their accounts. I'm very disappointed that Deskana would claim this without actually checking. I will educate Deskana on the use of the checkuser tool, and I'm sure he'll be glad to retract his statement. --Gmaxwell 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you explain now the evidence above. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pure speculation here, but sharing account passwords is one way that physical presence somewhere else, while the other account is editing, is not conclusive evidence against certain accusations. But let's not get into speculation upon speculation here, and wait for those reviewing the evidence to report back. Carcharoth 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If Gmaxwell is saying his statement was based on a confirmation by Raul and Becca that other checkuser results had been flawed, then I think the next step is to ask Raul and Becca to comment and clarify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing new evidence that I did not have before. There may be cause for concern. I will give more information when I can. --Deskana (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The RfA itself has been withdrawn but it is useful to get clarification on this matter regardless, it's a very serious matter. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a touch of curiosity, and if we strip out the above matter, would Majorly still be able to request +sysop from a bureaucrat or would he now need to go through a fresh RfA ? Nick 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion above, there seems to be no clear policy on this, and just at the moment probably isn't the best time to formulate one. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There has been discussion of this further above (as Brad says). I said there that I was going to "wait until the RFA that prompted the questions is finished" before taking the question to WT:RFA. I was presuming that the RfA would finish in a normal manner, so I'm not quite sure where this goes now. SashaCall said above: "if it were withdrawn with consensus favoring the candidate, I see no reason why they can't be re-sysopped" - I had been going to respond with a "but not if it is withdrawn in response to new evidence coming to light", which sadly now seems to be the case (though to be fair to Majorly, read his withdrawal comment for his reasons for withdrawing). Regardless, I don't think any bureaucrat would promote Majorly without a new RfA, and quite possibly Majorly would agree with that - though if Majorly and the bureaucrats could confirm this, that would answer your question. Right now, though, I think they are trying to deal with/contain the fall-out from this. :-( Carcharoth 15:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant Arbitration cases say not if there are controversial circumstances, and that determining controversial circumstances is up to the bureaucrats. Trying to make a black-line rule would take away that discretion, so my approach would be wait and see how the allegations fall out, and respect the people we elected as bureaucrats to be sensible and rational if and when Majorly asks for his flag back. Thatcher131 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be wiki-lawyering, but the ArbCom precedent talks about an admin who gave up adminship under controversial circumstances. Here, Majorly resigned the tools voluntarily while in good standing, and the controversy (if it were to pan out) came later. So, technically that precedent may not be applicable, although the general principle of bureaucrat discretion and common sense still would be. Newyorkbrad 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if a checkuser can help me understand why Majorly and Matthew are still being considered socks when Majorly was with a number of admins on 9 June 2007, in a chinese and nowhere near a computer, whilst Matthew can be seen to be actively editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More will be revealed at a later date, but I assure you nobody has forgotten this. --Deskana (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the specifics of course, but if the allegation is that they're two people who sometimes shared accounts, there's nothing remotely implausible about the known data. Friday (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I talked with Greg about this last night, but not with Becca. Also, admittedly I found out about this just before I went to bed and I was very tired, so it's possible I made some mistakes.

Majorly has a great deal of IP overlap with Aillema (sp?). Aillema has one overlapping IP with Matthew. Majorly has no direct connection to Matthew, but if we assume Aillema is a sockpuppet of Majorly, then it's possible Matthew is also one of majorly's sockpuppets. The other technical evidence connecting them was, IMO, inconclusive. I also found two (totally innocuous) accounts whose editing patterns clearly suggest they are not new users, whose technical evidence ties them to Majorly, but this could just be a coincidence. What Greg is saying - that Mathew and Majorly as the same person - is conceivably possible, but I think the connection is tenuous. Raul654 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know how GMaxwell's use of checkuser on Comons is legitimate here where he is not a checkuser, whatever the result. Giano 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Gmaxwell checked on commons is now answered at User talk:Gmaxwell. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More generally, while normally activities on one wiki are by tradition not always closely evaluated when deciding what to do on other wikis, if a matter is raised that can be resolved by reference to things that occur on another wiki, it's appropriate to involve whatever resources are the right resources for the task. If I had been around and asked about it, and felt it was a legitimate request, taking the overall privacy policy and checkuser standards and practices into account, I would well have carried out a check on Commons, if it made sense to do so, and reported the result here, if it made sense to do so. I don't think Gmaxwell acted at all inappropriately to carry out a check as he did. I would also agree with Greg (as he says just below) that maybe in this case, since there appear to be new developments, allowing everything to get investigated before we question things might be appropriate. It's more respectful of the individuals involved, I think. Note also that there is an m:ombudsman policy and process if you think there has been some misuse. Every checkuser (including myself of course) willingly submits any and all of their checkuser actions to review that way if needed as a condition of taking on the role. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you Lar. So Greg is now an Admin here and been granted Checkuser for Wikipedia and is it OK to plaster Majorly's IP al over his RFA page?Giano 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I said, apologies if I was unclear. As Greg said, more clearly than I, he carried out a check on Commons, and that check was deemed relevant. The IP address was already known, as I understand it. I would do the same as Greg did, if something, for example, came up on de:wp that somehow tied to user actions (and thus a check) on en:wp or meta or commons, and I was asked to perform such a check, I would evaluate the request and decide what to do, or possibly arrive at such a conclusion independently and act. After running the check, if that is what I decided, to do, I would evaluate whether to reveal the results on de:wp, and do so as appropriate. That decision sequence has nothing to do with whether I hold admin or CU on de:wp or not. Despite the tradition I refer to above, I don't think that it is at all inappropriate to carry out a check on one wiki to help bring clarity to a situation on another wiki if it will be likely to do so. I get these requests all the time, and carry them out when I feel it is appropriate and would be helpful. I used to ask the en:wp CUs for these sorts of checks, until I was granted CU here myself. I hope that helps explain further and puts the matter to rest. Allegations of CU impropriety should be taken very seriously, these are our most trusted users we are talking about here, and are best handled by the ombudsman process, I think. Apologies if I was unclear. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The concern here is that Greg did do a CU on commons and from that concluded that Majorly was probably a sock of Matthew, his RfA went down hill from there. Now we have a situation where it is looking increasing likely that the CU evidence is completely inconclusive, and linking that to the other evidence such as Majorly actually being with other users when Matthew was editing then it's highly unlikely that they are socks. It's one thing anouncing that a user is a sock puppet by running a CU on a different project, but it's something much more serious doing so when in fact he was wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "highly unlikely that they are socks" is necessarily a irrefutable conclusion yet, based on data I have access to. (We all have access to different sets of data to draw conclusions from, of course, you have data I don't have and vice versa) I'm also not sure that your characterisation of the sequence of events is completely correct, but again I have insufficient data and a lot of that is hearsay. There seems to be a certain amount of revision of assertions as to what happened when here, at least by some parties. I think waiting for a full investigation to be made before drawing conclusions would be prudent, (there's no rush, after all) and I'm somewhat disconcerted at some of the things being bandied about by several parties. Really though, I've not been asked to investigate this, and I don't think I want to comment on particulars, except to say that just the narrative here, and in the RfA itself, gives one the ability to draw more than one conclusion about a number of things. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quite so Lar. However Greg is not one of our most trusted users, in fact he is nor even an Admin. So what you would do in that situation is neither here nor there. Giano 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, explain to me how Majorly is Matthews sock when Majorly was at a wiki-meetup with me and matthew made about 30 edits in that time, if you give me any plausible explanation then I'll be happy to listen. There's things being bandied around here, because about 10 of us know it's impossible that they're socks. I'm sure we will have a full investigation, and when that concludes, I expect appologies from the people that caused all this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not in possession of all the facts. I can think of a number of plausible explanations but I am not sure that putting them forth at this point would be useful as they would be mere speculation. I think an investigation is underway and should be allowed to run its course and not interrupted with demands for explanations and apologies. I am not part of that investigation as I have not been asked to be, so that really is all I want to say about this. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quite so as well, he has indeed not been elected admin here... however he's one of Commons' most trusted users, we elected him there as CU and as admin, and have not seen the need to rescind it, and he's a developer, so quite trusted by WMF overall. (developers have global access to everything so that's not granted to just anyone, it shows a great deal of trust by WMF in him, in my view)... Whether that leads you to trust him or not trust him is a matter for you yourself to decide, and rightly so. Further, everyone can have lapses in judgement even if they are trusted overall, you do, I do, everyone. I'm not here (in this subthread, answering "I would like to know how GMaxwell's use of checkuser on Comons is legitimate here where he is not a checkuser, whatever the result."... which is a valid question) to comment on what Greg did or didn't do per se, merely to comment that crosswiki stuff can be legitimately requested and legitimately acted on and so we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, we should judge on merits. The use is legitimate from a "he's not a CU or admin here" perspective, in my view, as I've tried to demonstrate that is not relevant. It may be illegitimate for other reasons. We may want to discuss this elsewhere, not sure. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, and for what reasons would you suppose it may be illegitimate? I wonder how may of the ordinary rank and file editors know that GMaxwell is walking arownd with checkuser and full access to #admins - well Lar how many of them do you think know that? They may just want to know why that is? - or is that none of their business? Giano 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We're way off in the weeds I think. Our process here is that one applies to arbcom for permission, which is how I got it, I applied. Deskana also got it that way, as did VoiceOfAll. Greg has CU on Commons. Not here. He cannot run checks here and cannot see the results of checks run here by others. I don't offhand know how many people do or don't know that, and am not sure how I would go about determining it. I don't think it is, or should be, secret though. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is who may use CheckUser on Wikipedia[26] I don't see GMaxwell listed, as if that is not bad enough he gives Majorly's IP out on his RFA page and then now it looks like he has made huge mistake and Majorly is inocent anyway - he should not have been doing the check at all. This is one very good reasom why the CheckUser should be confined to tried and trusted users. Giano 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GMaxwell did not run the check on en:wp as I understand it. I think it is premature to draw any conclusions at this time though. As I have said before. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This thread is going nowhere. GMaxwell's behaviour has certainly lead others to draw their own conclusions - it is a pity you are unable to see that. Giano 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% agree with you that people are drawing all sorts of conclusions about all sorts of things. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I just think it's premature at this point to do so with respect to some of the things people are drawing conclusions about. I also absolutely 100% agree with you about this thread going nowhere, by the way, so let's let it lie... ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Unfortunate that Raul654 posted this while investigations are still ongoing and without the latest updates.  :) --Gmaxwell 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out User talk:Gmaxwell#Majorly. Can we maybe try and close that thread on your talk page and redirect people over here? Oh, and Greg, no offence, but some people are probably really upset about this. Smileys probably aren't appropriate. Carcharoth 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Majorly has now offically withdrawn his request. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone in this thread knows that... :-) Carcharoth 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Oops, did I say no smileys?

Sorry. I didn't see any sign that they knew. Meh, I guess this kinda of thing happens to everyone once, right? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about all this everyone. This is a very unfortunate kerfuffle. I had not wanted to say it publically, but several users I trusted already knew that I edited sometimes with an alt account, which Raul revealed above. The account, which is now inactive was used completely legitimately, within the sockpuppet policy. I am not a sockpuppet of Matthew, and he is not a sockpuppet of me. The perceived connection is the fact he allowed me to access a tool of his once, which would explain the fact that during a period of fast editing we had the same IP address. I hope this explains it. Majorly (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. With that in mind, I propose that we re-open the RfA. My trust in you is not diminished just because some people decided to assume bad faith and jump to conclusions, and I see no reason to deny the project a competent administrator. Walton^One 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You propose we undo his withdrawl? This is not possible. --Deskana (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to wait until an investigation is completed and Majorly's connection to Matthew is either refuted or confirmed. If he's indeed cleared, then a new RfA should be started, one free of the taint of sockpuppetry allegations. Chaz ^Beckett 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly withdrew. Since when can we force people to run for adminship? --Deskana (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expressed myself poorly. I meant that a new RfA should be started if Majorly wishes to request adminship. He's certainly not under any obligation to make such a choice. Chaz ^Beckett 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a few of the oppose votes had anything to do with the checkuser concerns. User:Veesicle 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I wasn't proposing forcing a re-opening against his will (he certainly has the right to withdraw); just that, if he consents, we should be prepared to re-open it. The circumstances of the withdrawal were not his fault, and now his name has been cleared, I think we owe him another chance. (Obviously, if he wants it to remain closed then we should respect that.) Walton^One 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Majorly has either been proven guilty or shown innocent. I'm awaiting future announcements based on the continuing investigation mentioned above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence connecting Majorly to Matthew (who, from comments here, I presume is persona-non-grata) is so tenous that I don't really think this warrants further discussion until and unless more solid evidence of bad behavior is presented. (All I've seen so far is one IP address, one time). I'm willing to take Majorly's word at face value. I'm sorry that his legitimate sockpuppet got outed in this process and that this has no doubt caused him consternation, but I think this is a non-issue. 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Raul654 [27].--chaser - t 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This kerfuffle is why we must only give checkuser access to people in whom we have the greatest trust: they have access to most sensitive data. Worse, the data is not always conclusive.

I am quite sure that a checkuser making a disclosure of sensitive personal information in the middle of an RFA is quite the wrong thing to be doing. There are plenty of off-wiki means of communication. Not that we at English Wikipedia can do anything about it, as the checkuser in question is not even one of our checkusers. -- !! ?? 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you say, we can't do much about Gmaxwell's checkuser access on another project (although he's clearly shown himself unfit to occupy any position of trust), so that's a non-issue here. However, now that Majorly's name is cleared, I really think he should have another chance at adminship. The project needs him; he's done wrong in the past (e.g. the G1ggy chatlog incident) but it's outweighed by the good he's done. Walton^One 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree he has "clearly shown himself unfit to occupy any position of trust". We don't know the evidence that has been considered, and he has explained his motivations in detail on his talk page. This seems to be a situation in which different explanations are possible for the same evidence (based on the fact that the checkusers make comments as if they are looking at different data). I don't see evidence of any abuse of power or bad faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that isn't important either way. This discussion isn't about Gmaxwell, it's about Majorly, and I'm arguing he should have the chance to get his tools back. Let's just focus on that. Walton^One 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything stopping Majorly from starting another RfA, if and when he wishes to, is there? The withdrawn one is withdrawn though, it would be a fresh start. I would think it might be prudent for all the investigations that were underway (I don't know the particulars of which) to be concluded though. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire situation has played our poorly enough as it is; the last thing I want to see is Majorly run another RfA just to see it get sidetracked by something else. At the very least, waiting until the dust clears will help alleviate some concerns people may have had. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where we stand

As far as I can see, Gmaxwell stands by his allegation and continues to assert that his evidence is strong (as recently as this edit), while Raul finds the connection tenuous [28]. Majorly's RFA is at present withdrawn. In pursuit of some resolution, I suggest that those with checkuser permissions (on either en.wiki or commons) who have participated in this business, and perhaps one or two who have not, discuss their findings privately on IRC or by some other medium, so as to be sure they are all looking at the same data. I have no doubt that the contradictions thus far between Greg's and Raul's conclusions result from some misunderstanding or asymmetry of data.

The question of whether Greg's original checkuser was 'illegitimate' is irrelevant to the matter of Majorly. This is not a court of law; nobody can cause the community to un-hear the things it has already heard. The best we can do is try to figure out whether or not Greg's conclusions were justified. Even if he should turn out to be wrong, he will not deserve to be pilloried; this will have been a thoroughly uncharacteristic lapse in judgment. The assertion that he has "clearly shown himself unfit to occupy any position of trust" is entirely overstated, especially since we do not know yet that he was mistaken. There is surely no doubt that he has acted in good faith thus far.

If, even after comparing and discussing results, the disagreement persists, I suppose the community (which cannot be given access to the data to judge for itself) would have no way of deciding who is right -- this would present, as far as I know, the first problem of its kind, or at least the clearest instance yet of this problem. However, we don't know yet that this situation is truly at an impasse. Until Greg and Raul compare data, or unless some other new information is discovered, further discussion can't be terribly helpful. Majorly is of course welcome to start a new RFA at any point (though not to continue the old one -- it cannot be un-withdrawn), though I would not suggest that he do so until these allegations have been cleared up. — Dan | talk 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Regardless of Majorly being guilty or innocent GMaxwell had no right or authorisation from Wikipedia to checkuser him. He then broadcast on the RFA an IP number claiming itwas Majorly's. He has clearly broken the conditions of his trust. Giano 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So report him to the ombudsman committee. There's nothing that the bcrats can do. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thoght they were here to help and oversea fairplay. Silly me. Giano 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, gmaxwell checkusered an IP that Majorly claimed was not his. That can hardly be described as "checkusering Majorly". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, that doesn't make much sense. The IP itself was already public (in the page history, to which I and others had drawn attention in comments on Majorly's RFA); W.Marsh had already alleged that it belonged to Majorly. If indeed it had not belonged to him (as Greg expected), this fact could be stated without revealing anybody's personal information. However, it did belong to him (as Greg discovered), and there is no way of announcing this plainly important fact without connecting Majorly to that IP. If Majorly did not want his IP known, he should have been more careful about not logging out; it would also have been appropriate for W.Marsh to discuss his suspicion with Majorly before making it public, at which point (ideally) Majorly would have acknowledged that it was his edit, maintained that he didn't mean to log out, and asked that W.Marsh not make a big deal of it. W.Marsh would have assumed good faith and all would have been well. A number of things have gone wrong here, but by the time Greg entered the equation, the IP itself was already very public, and whether it was Majorly's was the exact question already at hand. Greg was only being helpful by answering the question. — Dan | talk 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement that it isn't even possible that Majorly and Matthew are socks - this needs resolving and I would strongly suggest the checkusers making a statement as soon as possible to exhonerate Majorly and the people that originally made these claim offer a full appology. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you contacted gmaxwell to ask what evidence he has? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have actually, and I got a good response from him. I think he made an error, but acted in good faith, that said, it doesn't mean what he did wasn't wrong, and completely destroyed any chance Majorly had of passing an RfA with false accusations and an appology is warrent at the very least. Sorry, but it's hard to believe any evidence when you were with someone for a few hours when they were supposidly editing with a sock account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is he so busy elsewhere then, that he does not follow Wikipedia matters? Giano 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted Greg and am attempting to get in touch with Raul. It may be a few hours before anything can be arranged. I ask everyone to be patient. Thanks very much. — Dan | talk 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the end result is that we don't know either way. So I suggest we do similar to what is done when something is inconclusive on RFCU- forget about it until something extra evidence comes to light. It may be that extra evidence never does come to light, in which case we never investigate. As far as I'm concerned, this is resolved as "we don't really know". I also see no particular reason to not believe what Majorly says. I'm also curious as to why this "tool" that Majorly refers to is a server in some remote location. I find this somewhat worrying. My comments with regard to the characterisation that the RFA failed because of Gmaxwell's accusations is to note that only two opposes were due to the evidence of Gmaxwell, and one of those was Gmaxwell's oppose. We don't know it would have failed because of that, and although it may well have done, it is best that we do not speculate, as this would only cause bad blood. So, I suggest we forget about this and move on. --Deskana (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What until the next time? - never in a million years. There must not be a next time. Solve problems don't run away from them. Giano 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really good enough Deskana, if someone makes a claim like that on an RfA then we don't just leave it as "we don't know" - we would like a firm answer either way please. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It may not be possible for us ever to have a "firm answer" - the data may support a range a of conclusions. Unless Gmaxwell is persuaded that he is mistaken and changes his mind the fact will presumably remains that "Gmaxwell believes based on some technical evidence that Majorly is a sock of Matthew". Raul appears not to be persuaded that this evidence is conclusive and Deskana has raised a question above about the tool explanation above, but also seems to regard it as inconclusive. Hoping for a complete resolution may be over optimistic. Several of us were present with Majorly in Manchester when Matthew edited 23 times and not to believe Majorly could have been in a position to make those edits. If there is a further RfA, commentators will have to decide how much weight to give to Gmaxwell's opinion. They will be able to balance it against the opinions of others who have seen data, and comments by those of us at the Manchester meetup. On balance, I continue to believe Majorly that he and Matthew are two separate people. But that may be a judgment that everyone is going to have to make for themselves. WjBscribe 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (Dan) has said just above that he is working to resolve the issue through communication, which amazingly hasn't happened yet. He asked for some time to bring everyone together, and I think that is a reasonable request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no solid conclusion that can be drawn. We have access to data which can be contradictory and confusing. And that's what's happening here. I look at the data, and I see some reasons why they could be the same, and other reasons why they could not. {{inconclusive}} is used quite a lot (as you can see here), and that's the conclusion here... that there is no solid answer based on checkuser data alone. --Deskana (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't have been announced in the way it was. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but unfortunately we cannot undo that now. --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what we're missing here may be something that the community has chosen not to rule on yet: a presumption of innocence or guilt. At least under US Law, there's a presumption that if a charge is presented and not proven either "by a preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the subject is presumed innocent. I know that under some other jurisdictions, the subject may in fact be presumed guilty. My personal feeling is that accusations of sockpuppetry in an RFA are sufficient that I'd like to see them proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but my feeling plus $2.50 will buy you a latte at Starbucks, and certainly aren't decisive. But there we are: my opinion is that unless the charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (although I could make an argument for a preponderance of the evidence), then Majorly's name should probably be considered cleared. In either case, the community has chosen not to evolve its legal theory (and let's not kid each other - we have legal theory here) to that point. Whether that's a good decision or not, I leave up to each user's own opinion. - Philippe | Talk 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think aims were achieved. Legality and justice were never part of that equation. But hey! , lets not worry our pretty little heads about is all, I'm sure it will all be sorted out elsewhere and off Wiki by our betters. These things usually are. Just out of interest who out of those commenting here are actually Crats bothered about the situation? Giano 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Me, for one. Raul654 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• So you are Raul and Deskana (who wants to forget all about it) Andrevan and RDSmith that is 4 out of 10 who are bothered. Giano 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by this entire conversation. No one here has suggested any reason other than Greg's checkuser evidence, which he has acknowledged is hardly definitive, to believe the two users involved are sockpuppets. Their editing patterns and interests are not similar; their writing styles are not similar; they have not supported similar agendas. I think of both of them as users with relatively strong personalities, but they are not similar; it would take quite a determined and skillful ruse to pull it off, but in this case, unlike earlier, agreed-upon cases of admin sockpuppetry, no one has made clear what the benefit of all that trouble would have been. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to discuss. And though Giano's style is, as so often, a bit more ascerbic than I might like, he is essentially right: Greg has behaved irresponsibly here by not getting consensus among checkusers before making this accusation. Chick Bowen 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right! and if Giano was not so bloody ascerbic nothing would ever be rectified or noticed about here. Giano 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And so, may we move on now? The system and the tools available aren't perfect, it requires the study and judgment of a reasonable person, just like anyone of us. Gmaxwell made a quick call and acted on it. He may have been wrong on the sockpuppetry determination, but two check users have confirmed that it could've gone either way given the available evidence. It was Ryan's evidence that cleared Majorly beyond doubt. The mistake Gmaxwell made was revealing this information without discussion or confirmation of other facts, such as those Chick Bowen suggested above. But remember, he was acting in good faith. Let's face it, any one of us could've been in that position, and most of us have been, at one time or another, in the position Gmaxwell is now: facing criticism for a quick misjudgment.

This thread serves as a reminder to all CUs to use their tools carefully, and to note the consequences of revealing this type of information without verification and considerable thought. I don't think we need to keep reminding Gmaxwell of the consequences of his actions, or to be much more careful next time. And if you're looking for a public apology to us from Gmaxwell on this thread, I don't think we're entitled to it. He should just talk directly to Majorly, either publicly or privately, and obtain feedback from other check users. And we should leave it at that. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Let's face it, any one of us could've been in that position, and most of us have been, at one time or another, in the position Gmaxwell is now" - I beg your pardon - speak for yourself sunshine. Giano 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for such a civil comment, an example of everything we stand for. I'm sorry I didn't realize you were perfect, I just assumed we were all the same. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious what I meeant. Most people, in fact an amazing overwhelming majority do not have checkyser facilities, note I say facilities not rights - because GMaxwell does not have CU rights on Wikipedia - so most of us have never found ourselves in that position. Of the very few who do have acces to CU very few of those have found themselves in this GMaxwell's position either. So please think before accusing me of being perfect. However, true you feel that may be. Giano 17:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I failed to clarify. I did not limit myself to CU responsibilities, nor admin, nor Wikipedia, for that matter. What I meant was that most of us have had a responsibility, including in real life, and have faced criticism for a mistake carrying out these responsibilities. Nobody's perfect, so we shouldn't judge people so harshly if we weren't directly involved or if we've never been in their position; we should provide constructive criticism and suggestions. So, I'm sorry you thought I was accusing you of something but, for the record, it's sometimes hard to discern another persons comments when they call you sunshine. I won't reply on this any further, we should be commenting on the issue at hand. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear from Greg, particularly whether he still believes that there is sufficient technical evidence for his conclusion, and, if not, what went wrong. I would also point out that this began with Greg attempting to refute allegations that Majorly had used a sockpuppet to engage in an edit war that had been presented already at the RFA. Majorly stated unequivocally that it was not him, and when Greg went to confirm it, he found that Majorly's statement was incorrect*. Greg presented the evidence to Majorly privately, and Majorly's response was to threaten to have Greg's bit taken away for "checkuser abuse" rather than to address the concerns. (I would posit that that response would only be logical if Majorly intentionally lied about the incident in question, but I left my starred statement above neutral regardless.) It was only after looking further (in response to Majorly's overly defensive reaction) that Greg came to the conclusion he did. Fault Greg for his jump-to-conclusion-mat-usage all you want, but it takes two to tango in this dance, and, given past happenings (*cough* MSN transcript *cough*), perhaps it's not out of character on Majorly's part. Note that I supported Majorly's RFA, I simply wished to lay out what actually happened before the lynchmob completely takes Greg down. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell. Let's not lose sight of what happened here. Greg did contact Majorly privately, and if Majorly did respond by threatening allegations of checkuser abuse then both Greg and Majorly might need to consider apologising to each other. I would also like to point out that Deskana's concerns about this "tool" remain unanswered, and that Ryan's point about being at a wiki-meetup is only conclusive evidence that the people operating the two accounts (Majorly and Matthew) are separate people. From what I've seen (I don't have checkuser access, but this is based on comments in various threads), it is entirely possible that the checkuser evidence that points towards sockpuppetry is due to sharing of accounts or even something as simple as logging into the accounts from the same IP. If Majorly could either deny this, confirm that the overlaps is due to shared use of this "tool" (and explain the tool), or confirm that he would never share accounts with anyone else, and Greg (as the person who initially raised the issue) says something as well, then we might be able to move on. What I (personally) don't want to see happen is for Majorly to submit or accept another RfA while these issues remain unresolved. It is predictable that all this will erupt again if that happens, with an even more divisive split between those who still support Majorly, together with those supporting him because of some sense of injustice, and those who still have concerns, or who still outright oppose for other reasons. The best outcome would be for any future RfA by Majorly to avoid drama. I would also urge people to read User talk:Gmaxwell#Majorly, in particular the bit where I point out the sequence of edits Greg made to the RfA, Thatcher131's response, and Greg's long response here. Carcharoth 13:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed what is this "tool", and what third-party site were Majorly and Matthew allegedly both using to indirectly log into Wikipedia, and has either of them changed his password since using this tool? At least some of these questions might be answered by researching the IP address(es) that they allegedly shared. 216.97.170.180 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, though it's not really anybody's concern. However, I will humour ya'll. The "tool" Majorly speaks of is a perl script ran via shell (on a remote server… with a much faster upstream than I have at home) that I allowed him to use once. It's really as simple as that! Ignoring the checkuser abuse, I'm not convinced there's a reliable source that Majorly = me. Infact a respected Wikipedian has clearly proven he can't be me. To conclude: you've wasted time you could have used to write an article. I'm still retired. Respectfully, Matthew 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation Matthew. I would disagree and I believe such issues such as editing through a remote server (especially one not controlled by the Foundation) is a cause for interest. Perhaps you could explain a little more about the Perl script, what it does and link the edits, deletions etc made by this script. If it was used for some high speed administrative action, perhaps we could agree not to take the matter any further than here, for instance. Nick 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement

I first spoke to Matthew on 1st October 2006, on IRC. I was asking him how he made an admin-like revert, and he told me to look at his monobook.js. We then added each other on MSN, and after about 3 weeks of talking, he nominated me for admin. Prior to October, I had never heard of him, apart from to go neutral on his 2nd RFA.

We are not the same person. For starters, imagine there was no actual evidence, and we had to go by edits. We have completely different editing areas. He edit(ed) TV related subjects, mostly sci-fi. I edit a very wide range, but I've never edited sci-fi articles. Around October 2006, we were both making hundreds of edits a day. Not even all of them were semi automated. This would require two different computers, with different ISPs, and incredibly good acting skills. Has anyone not noticed that there has never been a "messed up" edit, where the wrong account is used? Of course there hasn't been one. We are two different people - very different in fact, I'd probably not get on with him in real life. I won't discuss the fact I was at a meetup on 9th June 2007, when Matthew made several edits when it would have been impossible for me to do so.

Regarding the fact our IPs were supposedly the same during a short period was the fact that he set me up on a remote server to make very fast edits. This is a server he had used, thus my account had the same IP. I have no idea how it works, this is simply what he told me. Apart from this slight overlap, which I have hopefully now explained fully, there is nothing.

Regarding IRC channel logs, neither myself or Matthew have leaked channel logs. I have admitted to Mark Ryan that I have sometimes told Matthew when he was being bullied in the channel by so called respected editors. This is an unacceptable use of the channel, and it would not be tolerated in any other forum. Matthew is a friend of mine, and I have no wish for him to be attacked behind his back without being there to defend himself. Absolutely nothing else was ever told to him. And I have been in the channel when some very sensitive subjects were being discussed. The conversation about Matthew wasn't even sensitive, just nasty to read if you happen to be Matthew.

Those accusing me of leaking IRC logs are no better themselves. Gmaxwell posted a private conversation between me and him, which obviously has many people concerned. I'll explain my reaction. When someone states an IP that you are sure isn't yours is yours, you become confused. Well I did. At first I wondered how he knew this information. Maxwell is not an enwiki checkuser. He then told me he had checked the IP on commons. An abuse of checkuser, as I said so in the conversation. He claims the IP was being abusive on my RfA. Undoing another IP edit is not abusive. No where near. Anyhow, Maxwell has posted a private conversation of mine, without my permission. As well as this, Thatcher quotes without my permission from the IRC channel, in his oppose on my rfa. The fact I have been threatened at least twice for leaking logs, based on the loosest, vaguest of evidence seems slightly unfair to me, when these two users (one not even an admin, but someone who shares his cloak name with an arbcom member, who has high level access in the channel - a position said user has used to his advantage on several occasions) have blatantly posted private logs and no one even blinks an eyelid.

My energy and passion for editing English Wikipedia has gone from about 100% to close to nil in the matter of hours really. I feel abused in the fact that I have had my account checked for absolutely no reason at all, my legit sock was needlessly revealed, and how there is still no explanation/apology from any checkuser, privately or publically for this MAJOR fuck up. Lessons will be learned from all parties (I for one will keep out of the admin channel, since I am not an admin, and I don't intend to run again - despite the support of many users, I feel that this horrid accusation has simply got me down.) I had wanted to get the article I was working on in the past week - yes, the one I was working on instead of answering pointless optional RFA questions - to featured article status, but at this moment in time, I feel completely let down and abused by those who are in the highest level of trust in this community, so I have no real desire to. I'm sorry. Majorly (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, I'd like to thank you for this statement. It certainly clears up a lot in my mind, and I hope the others involved in all this will be good enough to post similar statements so it is clear where everyone stands and what lessons can be learnt from all this. Hopefully that will lead to a satisfactory resolution to all this. I do earnestly hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia - maybe with time you will feel differently about a future RfA nomination. Carcharoth 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I think you've behaved astonishingly well under the circumstances. Chick Bowen 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Well said. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what I have to apologise for. I never revealed any personal information, and I contacted Majorly privately before saying anything, out of respect for him. I was always sceptical of the accusations, as I have noted in the above threads. If someone can tell me what they feel I've done wrong here, I'd like to hear it, so I can know what to do better next time. --Deskana (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Majorly is saying that he would like an apology from Gmaxwell, without naming names - something Gmaxwell did not do. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely support you, Majorly; and I also agree that this was a major breach of the trust that certain users have been granted to execute specific functions here, but also of the decency and etiquette that is supposed to define this project. I understand your feelings and extend my deepest condolences. GlassCobra 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Majorly, for posting this statement - frankly it's a weight off my mind. I withdrew my support given the lack of tangible evidence at the time and the mess it was turning into, but I feel very bad about doing so and should have known that you would never jeopardise your standing as a good Wikipedian or show such disdain for our processes. I'm sorry and ashamed to see you leave like this - what an ugly situation which could have easily been prevented with some transparency from the very start. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation; I think it should resolve concerns about you and Matthew being the same person. If you used your admin login to make edits through a server controlled by Matthew, that would explain the existence of checkuser evidence linking the accounts. All admins should remember that sending an admin password, unsecured, through a server not controlled by the wikimedia foundation is extremely insecure. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Too late, the deed has been done..I'm not sure how Gmaxwell got away with calling someone a sock on their RfA (confirmation) without real hardcore proof or evidence which believe me, not many [[people who give up their powers then want it back and just go to the crats for it instead of reconfirmation|admins]] do and I was really happy that Majorly did but baseless allegations by Gmaxwell did jeopardise that. His RfA was going quite well, but just like it happens on many RfA's by people with grudges, it happened again and sadly by a respected member of he wikimedia community. If I'am correct then checkusers aren't suppose to abuse their "powahs" without going through simple process like through Requests for Checkuser. I'm not sure if someone with a higher authority should step in and resolve this problem because this time a respected member of the 'admin society' has been done wrong. Those that opposed Majorly's RfA based on that baseless allegations should re-think what they did (*even though its too late) since the same/similar thing will happen to them one day and before I get checkusered for being a Matthew sock, I will tell you in advance that I'm not from that country or even that hemisphere..Cheers..--Cometstyles 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have several misconceptions about this situation. One, Gmaxwell's allegation, while wrong, was not "baseless" - two users who have previous been accused of being socks editing from same IP is certainly a base for suspicion, albeit not proof of course. Two, who are you accusing of holding a "grudge" against Majorly? Gmaxwell initially assumed he wasn't the IP, not the sort of thing someone who holds a grudge would do. Three, checkusers are not required to wait for someone to have posted on WP:RFCU to run a check; saying that is like saying that vandals are required to have been listed on WP:AIV before being blocked. Finally, suggesting you're going to be checkusered for being a Matthew sock is either disturbing paranoia or a failed attempt at... something. Hope that helps. Picaroon (t) 06:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, he shouldn't have blatantly put it on someones RfA without clear proof. I have talked to Matthew and Majorly subsequently on IRC and with different IP's which i checked before matthew got banned from IRC for something known only to a certain group of people and just throwing random allegations on RfA's will not help the person who might become a victim of your own misunderstandings and GMaxwell knew it wasn't him then why post it on is RfA cause we know the wikipedia community is fickle and most might have actually believed Gmaxwells 'lies' and they might never ever trust Majorly again just because someone thought they knew too much about something they knew nothing at all about and please don't tell me about how long it takes people to be blocked for being trolls, I have made over 700 reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA and most of the times, they were not blocked because the admins misjudged them and seeing the backlog on WP:RFCU does mean then someone, somewhere ain't doing their job and as far as my "paranoia" goes, Ha !, the only thing i fear is how long till wikipedia gets 'really' destroyed by hierarchy and bad bureaucracy. Wikipedia has lost so many good editors because of this bureaucracy and the failure of the arbitrators and mediators to solve common problems and the blocking of editors whose only aim on wikipedia is cause problems for other editors and and some admins who had to leave just because our so called "cabal" that does not exist did nothing to help them or make them stay...great community we have...This is getting tiring and I will 100% be ignored so why do i bother!!..Cheers..--Cometstyles 09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, your concerns are noted. It's just that some users feel this kind of stuff gets blown out of proportions most of the time, while others think it's always covered-up and forgotten before any necessary change happens. This debate transcends this specific incident, as you point out, it happens in other project pages besides RfA. As a personal note, I supported Majorly in his RfA, did not change my support with this mess, and still support him, even without reading his statement above. I hope he continues writing and applying for sysop. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

None of this is so big a deal that it warrants all this nonsensical chatter... Majorly is a fine fellow, and we all can say the same for Greg... as soon as they both work it out, which I'm sure they will, Majorly will ask a 'crat to set him right in as far as extra buttons go, and we'll all go on our way to being super volunteers for an excellent project. In the meantime, I suggest we all go back to writing articles. Cheers all gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen :) AmiDaniel (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it'll be as easy as just asking for the bit back. The RFA hadn't run full term and most of the opposers were unrelated to the checkuser info. I think to fully connect the dots Majorly should point to the edits he did while on the remote server, both in terms of putting this totally to bed and for any future RFA where a large number of fast edits might be relevant. Having said that, throwing a stink bomb like that in the middle of an active RFA is pretty poor form, it'd be nice to get some words from Gmaxwell. RxS 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that RFA is null and void. If Majorly asks for his bit back, I'd be happy to grant the request. Raul654 17:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As one who struck my support in light of the unclear mess - I would support Rauls's idea Agathoclea 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As another who struck my support, I also support Raul's idea.K. Scott Bailey 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that, at this point, should Majorly request the administrator tools back, a survey be taken of all bureaucrats as to whether they believe it should be given back. Ultimately, the choice is the bureaucrats as to what they do with the checkuser "evidence", but surely having a consensus of bureaucrats is better than a single one. Daniel 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no checkuser evidence, that's part of why this situation is a complete mess. No need for a crat chat for this one. If Majorly wants his bit back then he can just ask for it back from any 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of people who Opposed the reconfirmation process, and their comments were in no way related to the sockpuppetry allegation. I would ask that if Majorly does wish to be reinstated, he starts a fresh RfA and lets it run through the 7 days. Nick 08:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. There was already significant opposition before gmaxwell made his statement. User:Veesicle 00:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I don't object to your giving Majorly his bit back, but in light of Cecropia's post above, it'd be nice if you bureaucrats were on the same page about this, if not in this specific circumstance (Majorly seems to have lost interest), then in future ones.--chaser - t 08:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't have given him his bit back either. I think if someone puts themselves through an Rfa and then it fails then he should have gone through another rfa. If he didn't put himself through the rfa then you can promote without it. I didn't see consensus as being to give him his bit back. However - there is nowhere that says we all have to agree. Secretlondon 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I strongly ask you to not give the bit back, at least for now. This whole situation blew up because you had a checkuser saying one thing and another checkuser saying the opposite. I really do not think it would be in the best interests of the community or of the encyclopedia to have a situation where one bureaucrat says one thing and another bureaucrat says the opposite. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Quoting AmiDaniel) Amen. Daniel 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Yes, I think Majorly ought to get his sysop tools back, but given the controversy, I firmly agree with Nick that an RfA is needed before they should be restored. Let me say that I will strongly support that RfA; however, in any situation where there might be the slightest controversy, it ought to be the community and not the bureaucrats who make the decision. The bureaucrats should only re-sysop in non-controversial cases IMO. Walton^One 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An apology

I wish to take this moment to apologize to the community, but especially Majorly. I do not wish to open more wounds, to worsen the situation; I merely want to bring some sense of truth and closure to this mess.

I agree taking a big share for the responsibility of all the drama that has occured. A few months, back I suspected there relationship between Matthew and Majorly was more than just MSN mates. Sockpuppets. They're not. I had contacted some users privately about my suspicions. One of them was User:CO who made a gross error in filing an SSP when evidence was clearly against the fact. I also contacted Gmaxwell, whose evidence was also against. Apparently, a checkuser was done afterwards, inconclusive. I'm not to sure of the verity of the previous fact, but I think this is likely. Afterwards, I considered the matter resolved.

I regret the course of events heavily. I should have contacted Majorly about it. Maybe a user who knew him well (ex, Ryan P.). I didn't. I have talked to Majorly about that since privately, and I have apologized to him. However, what is done is done. I think Gmaxwell made a poor decision in bringing up this matter again, during RfA. Majorly likely made the correct decision in withdrawing the RfA. However, I ask that if Majorly asks for his +sysop bit back from a 'crat, the drama and eventual result of the RfA be ignored, as Majorly enjoys support from the community and it was a very ill-advised move that brought it to this. I also regret that Majorly doesn't want to edit here anymore; he was a very good editor and administrator, and I hope he will change his mind on that.

Now, after this lengthy diatribe, what am I try to say? In a nutshell, I am apologizing for suspecting Majorly, not talking to him about it, the SSP, and all this unnecessary drama and stress. I sincerely hope this will bring some closure and heal some wounds.

Respectfully, Maxim 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I respect you for your apology. You did the wrong thing, but I'm sure we all appreciate that you had the best intentions and the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. FWIW, this was not all your fault - some people who should have known better showed appallingly poor judgment. But the time for recriminations is over IMO. Walton^One 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4

I would like to inquire of the closing bureaucrat and any other bureaucrats who may have reviewed it, what factors other than the pure vote count were considered in deciding that consensus was not achieved. With all due respect to the opposers, some of the grounds stated for opposing promotion (such as that the candidate had failed RfA's thousands of edits earlier) strike me as highly unpersuasive, and there were a couple of !votes (such as "self-noms are prima facie evidence of power-hunger") of a type that we are routinely assured will be disregarded at closing time. For the record, other than having supported in the RfA, I recall no previous contact or connection of any kind with this user. Thanks for your anticipated response. Newyorkbrad 13:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As a non-bureaucrat who went neutral on this rfa, I believe it should not have been successful. In a traditional vote, this was 68%, much lower than what is normally considered successful. The opposes regarding the fact that this user self nominates every couple of months, are in my mind perfectly persuasive. Adminship is no big deal, and that also means not getting it is no big deal. If this user waited for a few more months, when someone else nominates him or her, it would likely be successful then, if nothing else major occurs. For now though, I believe he or she can wait and not self nominate again. Majorly (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When did opposing on the basis of self-nomination become legitimate grounds? Not being petulant, just curious. How does whether one nominates oneself or is nominated by someone else have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether or not they will be a good administrator? This goes back to Weber's specious "prima facie evidence of power hunger" oppose rationale. I have rarely seen weaker arguments made against a candidate than were made against Hdt. And, for the record, prior to this RfA, I had no relationship with this user at all. I have no dog in this fight. I just found that opposing a good editor like him on such shaky footing made me question the RfA process quite a bit. K. Scott Bailey 13:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It shows disrespect for the community. I specifically asked him on his last RfA to wait until he was nominated, and didn't listen. Lots of RFAs in a short time shows an unneeded desperateness for the tools - which are really not that great. As I said, he'll pass next time, if nominated by someone else. Majorly (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect--and I have a lot for you--you made a request of him that is specifically contradicted in the RfA instructions. Self-noms are endorsed by the instructions of the RfA, and as such, requests that a user NOT self-nom--and opposes based solely on that reason--are, in my opinion, without merit. Even when those requests come from a user I respect. K. Scott Bailey 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You aren't understanding. When a user self nominates so many times, it becomes a problem. Not as in "they'd abuse the tools", but disrespect for the community they are asking approval from. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's unofficial Wikipolicy on RfA's then the RfA instructions need to reflect that. I find no "disrespect" in Hdt waiting 3 months, editing a ton, and then nominating himself once more. In fact, there are other editors now that have said basically, "If that's all that people are opposing you on, well I will nominate you. This should NOT be an issue though, as all that matters in an RfA is whether or not the editor in question would be a responsible admin. K. Scott Bailey 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the right decision was made (no offence to Hdt83), as Majorly points out that the percentage majority was 68% (yes I know it's not a vote). I would agree however, that using one point as a point of oppose, except for incivility, vandalism etc. shouldn't really be used in the oppose percentage. Just look at my RfA for evidence of that. I wasn't judged on my experience or even potential as an editor, rather !voted on as a failure for my "poor judgement" regarding BLP, or Question 5 in my case. I would have liked to be an admin, but beggars can't be choosers. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't clearly say whether his perceived 'disrespect for the community' would affect this user's judgments as an administrator -- his persistence in pursuing adminship might translate to abuse of his position, and it might not. I myself cannot tell. It's certainly not so 'unpersuasive' that I feel justified in ignoring it altogether -- and this was not a single user, like Kurt, whom I would generally be inclined to disregard; there were 23 users opposing, many of whom seemed more or less to agree with Kurt, and many of whose judgment I have no reason to question.

We have seen that it is impossible to predict a user's future behavior accurately based on his concrete past history; much discussion has lately been devoted to the problem of 'unqualified administrators' -- those who turn out to cause problems, even if nobody could have guessed it by reading through their contribs. Here, in response to this problem, I see a new method of evaluating a candidate: based on general impression. Certain users get a sour feeling about a candidate -- they say he seems over-eager to have the tools of an administrator. This could mean he wants the position merely for its status (which attitude we want to discourage), or that he will use his tools in an authoritarian manner; or it could mean nothing. In this case I trust the impressions of numerous users ahead of my own judgment, which could be no better than a wild guess. — Dan | talk 17:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'm frankly not persuaded by this rationale either. There appears to be an element of pure bootstrapping: "it's fine that you self-nominated, but since out of all the dozens of self-nominated candidates who are routinely promoted every year, you were arbitrarily singled out and told not to self-nominate, so we won't support you even though we would support someone else with an identical record if he didn't have a prior failed RfA or two. And the fact that in spite of being turned down in the past, he still wants to help ... that is certainly not acceptable either." Color me unconvinced; I'd like to know if any other 'crats have thoughts on this one. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had promoted this user, I would be taking a chance on him. It would have been my decision and not the community's. I do not find the arguments presented in the oppose section damning -- nor do I find them thoroughly invalid. I yield to the wisdom of the community, such as it is, because I don't feel comfortable placing such a personal stake in this user's success. I can think of two ways you might change this system if you don't care for it: (1) Convince lots of folks that bureaucrats should have the authority to ignore the numbers more often than they presently do, thereby establishing a firm basis for this practice. The past uproars have served to make the bureaucrats much more careful and conservative in deciding when to do this. (2) Convince lots of folks, starting with those who opposed this nomination, that their arguments are no good, so that other nominations (and a future renomination of this same user) will not fail for the same reasons. Do so, in fact, whenever you see people giving silly opposition. Engage the oppose voters in dialogue, and if they fail to reply to your comments, point out this fact for the benefit of the closing bureaucrat. Find some other people to help with your mission. I think it could be done. — Dan | talk 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who opposed (and was cited by others), I feel like I should point out that the crux of my opposition wasn't so much in the fact that he self-nominated, but the fact that he self-nominated after being advised by multiple editors multiple times that he should wait for someone else to nominate him. To disregard perfectly sound advice from multiple people while simultaneously saying that an admin must be open to constructive criticism is not behavior I like to see in an admin candidate.
The fact that he made a few thousand edits between RfAs is a complete non-issue; that is expected of any RfA candidate whose previous attempt failed, and so it isn't as deserving of cake and a pat on the head as some people are making it out to be (and the number itself is immaterial). I expanded on my stance at User talk:EVula#Respectfully, on your oppose of Hdt, for those that are curious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "advice" that you and other editors gave him in good faith, was, in fact, bad advice. The RfA instructions specifically mention that there is no problem with self-noms. In fact, as has been pointed out by others, the placement of the self-nom mention above the other-nom mention seems to ENCOURAGE self-noms. I find any argument containing any mention of opposing a candidate based upon something explicitly condoned--and possibly even encouraged--in the actual instructions of RfA, completely unconvincing, and potentially invalid. Self-noms simply don't matter, and many--if not most--of the opposes either mentioned the self-nom thing specifically or simply put "per [someone who cited self-nom]." As I said in my initial post to your talk page, I respect you, but you're completely wrong on this one. K. Scott Bailey 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The inability to take constructive criticism is the reason I opposed; that inability was manifested in the self-nom. Whether self-noms are allowed by the rules or not is completely irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, advice to not self-nom is not "constructive criticism." As there's absolutely nothing wrong with self-noms (and it's actually rather encouraged), it's actually BAD advice, that he was well within his rights to ignore. Requiring that someone not self-nom for them to get one's support is not fair at all, in my opinion, and advice to that effect is not good advice. K. Scott Bailey 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to agree to disagree; neither of us is presenting an argument that is particularly compelling to the other. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I've read both the arguments, and Scott has clearly the superior position. As Pete Franklin wrote it when he titled his memoir, You Could Argue But You'd Be Wrong. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I opposed because Hdt83 self-nominated again. My reasoning for such is that it "shows poor judgement and restraint" (bad characteristics in an administrator), given the fact that "all of his previous RfA's came to the conclusion that he should wait longer and also for someone else to nominate". I find the close to be proper, because no extraordinary circumstances exist (he didn't have phenomenal amounts of people in support, as seen in Danny, etc.). Daniel 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So do you simply disregard all the clear evidence above that demonstrates that self-noms are not only allowed but encouraged? And further, do you also disregard the fact that said advice NOT to do something that is not only allowed but encouraged is actually very BAD advice, and SHOULD be ignored? K. Scott Bailey 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record (and the 'crats looking on), I hope it's becoming more apparent that this nom was unsuccessful almost SOLELY because of the specious "no self-nom" reasoning. K. Scott Bailey 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that self-nominations are perfectly proper, insisting that a particular candidate proceed only on nomination by someone else strikes me as an "arbitrary demand for a shrubbery" of a type that is generally frowned upon in this forum. Ironically, I believe that use of that phrase in this context was originally coined by Carnildo, who was the subject of the very RfA whose lesson the bureaucrats may have overlearned as reflected in this case. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to Bailey) I do not contend that self-nominations are allowed. However, in this case, it demonstrated to me that (in my personal opinion) this user's judgement isn't up to the standard I feel is needed for an administrator. The reason I opposed the nomination is not for the self-nomination, but because it demonstrated poor judgement, which fits into a longer pattern of behaviour from the candidate that made me uncomfortable. If you wish to say that I cannot oppose because I believe the user has poor judgement, then I will consider the matter closed because there is no point debating that issue.

On the point of this specific request for adminship, the outcome is not going to be overturned. You could file a request for arbitration, but I am not sure they'd accept the case. If you want a centralised discussion about acceptable rationales for requests for adminship, please take it to WT:RFA and WT:AAAD. I have no interests in debating about whether my reasoning falls within what any particular user feels is acceptable reason for opposing (especially not a user who has campaigned for six days straight to try and achieve a perverse outcome to the obvious result), especially not in this venue and dealing with specifics, because all it achieves is more ill-will and potentially more anguish from the candidate involved. Daniel 02:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, hardly. The combination of 'too soon' and a history of self-nominations which failed to heed the constructive criticism showed me that the candidate's judgement was flawed and does not respond to criticism well, hence why I opposed. The fact that it was a self-nomination merely meant that I couldn't offset the 'too soon' issue, which in turn led me to the conclusion that I reached (which apparently Bailey and yourself disagree with, which I respect though disagree with). I disagree with Webber's constant opposing of self-nominations (and the reason for it), as seen by the number of self-nominations I have supported recently. That being said, the circumstances with this particular candidate meant that I opposed on the basis of concerns about their judgement and dealing with advice and good-faith criticism. Daniel 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm certain you don't "have interest in debating it", and I should not be surprised. It's been relatively clearly demonstrated that a majority of the oppose votes were specious. It would take a bold move to do the right thing here, and I never expected it would happen. I simply wanted the facts clearly laid out, so that no one could claim ignorance. You stated yourself that the reason you opposed was because he self-nommed. Anything you say after that is "fruit of the poisonous tree", so-to-speak. If it's based on the fact that he self-nommed against what was BAD advice from a few editors, it's not sound. It's as simple as that. As for the RfA talk page, it's a muddled mess. The only remedy for this clearly unjust result was to come to the people who actually promote, and see if someone would be bold. It's no big deal, really, other than the fact that a fine user was rejected on specious grounds. It actually happens quite frequently at RfA, but no one wants to deal with it. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're now misrepresenting my comments by paraphrasing them and asking me to reply, which is nonsensical. The concept you don't seem to grasp is people agreed with the prior criticism and advice, hence why the RfA failed. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong. Daniel 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I opposed because Hdt83 self-nominated again." Your complete sentence, unparaphrased. As for people "agreeing" with the advice, that matters not at all. Bad advice is bad advice, no matter HOW many people "agree" with it. The RfA failed because not quite 1 in 3 people opposed, with many based on faulty reasoning, and the 'crats didn't throw out those votes. It's as simple as that. Will this discussion overturn the decision? Most likely, no. But it will hopefully provide some light on a process that has become a bit flawed, and in doing so will perhaps convince those-who-make-the-rules to look into it. K. Scott Bailey 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You fail to quote the next sentence, which states the reason why I oppose, not what instigated it. The flaw in your argument is hilarious. You state that "Bad advice is bad advice", then state "no matter HOW many people "agree" with it". But who determines what is good advice and what is bad advice? If you say it's bad advice, why don't I say "Good advice is good advice, no matter how many people "disagree" with it? Daniel 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Because giving advice regarding WP:RFA that is counter to the instructions on WP:RFA is objectively bad advice. It's not some arbitrary standard I'm constructing ("shrubbery", I believe it's been called), it's objective and rational. It's in black and white at the top of the page. The "reasons" you gave after the sentence I quoted all stemmed from the specious self-nom reasoning, so they are no more valid that the initial "poisonous tree" they sprang from. K. Scott Bailey 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed Rdsmith4's action here and also endorse this RFA as a "no consensus" close. --Deskana (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, and it's not surprising. But the facts remain, and your endorsement does not make the oppose votes any more legitimate. It simply endorses those illegitimate votes. K. Scott Bailey 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are empowered to judge consensus, and they're the only ones. If they feel the opposers are legitimate, that's their decision, and you disagreeing with it doesn't make their interpretation wrong. Daniel 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What they "feel" about the opposes becomes the final decision, but it doesn't mean they're right. It just means they get to make the final decision. K. Scott Bailey 03:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are rather trivializing the issue to "legitimate" and "illegitimate", which misses the entire issue. The problem here is that Hdt has had many nominations for RfA, which historically has caused users to get concerned about the reasons why the user wants adminship. As a result, he received advice, asking him to defer a future nomination until someone else thought he was ready, to avoid this recurring issue. While generally, there is nothing barring self-nominations from RFA, you simply cannot change the fact that he was given specific, good-faith advice, and he refused to accept it. Unfortunately, that will be looked negatively by the users who were concerned about his repeated nominations. The key here is not that he self-nominated, but that he self-nominated repeatedly, against multiple requests not to do so. I cannot say that the opinions held by the opposing users are not valid with that background in mind; you may say so, but I'm afraid I don't agree. And no, I didn't participate in the RFA in any way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The "multiple requests not to do so" were clearly wrong, per the instructions at the top of the WP:RFA page itself. Bad advice is bad advice, no matter how many people give it to you. And multiple RfAs only indicates an eagerness for the mop and bucket, which is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing, as long as the user has no redflags in their contribs, which this one did not. K. Scott Bailey 03:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple RfAs can also indicate that a user perceives adminship as a badge, which is a large negative. Again, you see it as bad advice, but I don't, because the RFA instructions are general guidelines, and the advice was given due to his individual situation. A similar situation would be with a user who continuously kept making two reverts on a page during a prolonged period of time. While 3RR says that the user may not make more than three a day, a user engaging in such behavior is likely to piss off a portion of the community, and may be subject to community sanctions. Hdt pissed off a portion of the community, and received community sanctions in the form of users opposing his RFA. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I echo Newyorkbrad's sentiments of having no personal connection to Hdt. I'm simply someone who was rather appalled by this whole thing. First, the oppose votes, now the 'crats apparent lack of boldness. I have no dog in this fight other than the good of the project. K. Scott Bailey 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hdt pissed off a portion of the community, and received community sanctions in the form of users opposing his RFA." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• If this quote doesn't get at least ONE oppose vote thrown out on WP:POINT alone, nothing will. K. Scott Bailey 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My mistake. Tito didn't participate in the RfA. Even still, the above quote is quite chilling. K. Scott Bailey 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to be blunt, but have you even read WP:POINT? One user is not holding a process hostage, which is the disruption described by WP:POINT. This is several users, about 30% of those who participated in the RFA, to be precise, holding an opinion that Hdt was doing something wrong. You don't agree, but others do; sorry, but that is part of consensus making. You are labeling positions that disagree with yours as disruptive, which only undermines your credibility. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "Blunt" or "incivil"? Either way, I wouldn't link to POINT if I hadn't read it. And more than one user can be point-y at a time, which is what your quote was describing. Users opposing him because he "pissed them off" by not accepting what is demonstrably bad advice is point-y in the extreme. K. Scott Bailey 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • And we go around in circles. You simply keep stating that it is pointy bad advice because a general comment supposedly overrides a specific request, which is the opposite of what 25% of the community believes. And you are not talking about newbies; you are talking about experienced users, with proven track records and an impeccable dedication to the project. Calling them disruptive because they disagree with you is extremely poor form. When many members of the community finds a user's actions objectionable, and the community is the one who grants adminship, well, I'm not sure what other outcome could have been fairly determined. Promotion would be, in my eyes, unacceptable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but it was YOUR quote that said that they voted against his RfA because they were "pissed off" that he had apparently ignored what I've clearly demonstrated was patently bad advice. Opposing based on faulty premises (which "no self noms" is) and to make a point about how pissed off they are that he ignored their "advice" is wrong whether it's done by an established user or a new user. However, as this conversation is beginning to create more and more heat, and less and less light, I will bid adieu to the BN. Carry on, per normal practices, I guess. K. Scott Bailey 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
            • The premise is not "no self noms". The premise was, "You, please, don't self nom again, wait for somebody to nominate you to avoid the appearance of you wanting to get a shiny badge." But anyways, while I can understand that you are defending against something you don't agree with, labeling experienced contributors as disruptive because they disagree with you is not going to make your point believable at all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Okay, this is pointless, and I am certainly leaving this forum after this post. No one has the right to tell an editor not to self-nom, nor to make that the basis of their vote. If people can make this request (order?) of editors as a prerequisite for support, it should be noted somewhere on the RfA page. Otherwise, such a request is pointless and frivolous. As for "labeling experienced contributors as disruptive" I have not done so, and I would encourage you to stop accusing me of doing so. I said IF they had used the reasoning that you outlined in the quote above, THEN they were being point-y. Nothing more, nothing less. K. Scott Bailey 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, it might actually be worth changing the RfA guidelines to state that while a self-nomination on its own is absolutely fine, those considering a self-nomination should be aware that repeated self-nominations in a short space of time is not recommended. Really, though, it is the short space of time between nominations that is the problem here, not the self-nomming. That should be obvious. If the user had been nominted, the short amount of time between noms would still be a problem to some people. If the same user had waited a year between each self-nom, there would have been almost no concerns raised by the self-nomming. So any additions to the guidelines should also mention the bit about how repeated nominations in a short space of time can be a problem for some people. If this is all already mentioned somewhere in a subsidiary page, then the main guideline should retreat slightly and say that self-noms are usually OK, and link to the details. Carcharoth 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a early participant in this thread, I concur with a later comment by Deskana, that the RFA closed with 'no consensus. Rudget _{Contributions} 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would completely concur with Newyorkbrad's assertion that many of the opposes were completely groundless. However, that does NOT mean they should be disregarded. The opinion of every established user, unless given in bad faith, must be counted equally. Many established users in good standing (e.g. JzG) opposed that RfA, and even though they were (in my opinion) wrong, their opinion should not be treated as worthless. Otherwise we lose the principle that the community decides the outcome of RfAs, and we move towards bureaucrat authoritarianism. "Consensus" does not mean "ignoring views one doesn't like". Nor does it even mean "doing the sensible thing". Walton^One 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the 'crats can't disregard "groundless" opposition, then they are nothing more than vote counters. Whether a user is "in good standing" or not, matters not one whit when they place a groundless oppose comment. It should be disregarded if it is without merit. As an example, let's say User:BillyBobJack stands for adminship. User:JaneyJeanJo accuses him of sexism and racism, but provides no diffs, and there is no evidence to be found in his contribs to support the accusation. Should that oppose not be disregarded? What if 14 other people pile on "per JaneyJeanJo"? If this thing is a vote, just say it. If it's not, then frivolous opposes need disregarded. It's as simple as that. K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If the people who opposed Hdt83's RfA gave no reason for opposing, discounting their votes would be fine. However, reasoning an explanation was given in the opposing comments in the RfA. Simply because you do not like a reason for opposition does not make it invalid. Captain panda 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I "don't like" the reason, it's that the "reason" is NOT a reason. The reason many--if not most--cited was that he self-nommed. This is explicitly allowed per the instructions, making this "reason" no better than the one in the scenario I drew up above. Anyways, it's over. RfA is a deeply flawed process, where no one is really sure if we're supposed to be just voting, and giving a reason, or actually discussing the genuine merits of a candidate. As such, I'm leaving the process, as I can't deal with seeing good editors being torpedoed as Hdt was, and as is currently in danger of happening to a couple RfAs up right now, partially because of my passionate defenses of the candidates. K. Scott Bailey 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your earlier comment, it is a vote; this does not preclude it also being a discussion. Basically, every established user in good standing can weigh up the arguments on both sides and make a decision as to where they stand. Vote rationales can, of course, also be challenged and discussed, and this is healthy, because then other users will read the arguments given in the discussion and take them into account when voting. As such, a really stupid rationale will generally not cause people to pile on, because they will look at the arguments and be persuaded by the more valid point of view. But there is absolutely no need for the bureaucrats to have any discretionary power. I trust the community to make the right decisions. If some good candidates sometimes fail, that's because sysops are so difficult to remove once promoted that we have to be cautious as to who is promoted. Walton^One 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You display a clear lack of understanding of what RfA is supposed to be. The 'crats have ALL the discretionary power they want. They can promote whomever, whenever they want to. They don't normally do such things, but it's certainly within their scope of authority. The word "vote" never appears anywhere on the RfA page. Nowhere. It's intended to be a discussion of the merits of a candidate; nothing more, nothing less. That it has come to be seen as some sort of election, where every oppose vote basically equals 3-4 support vote, is part of the problem. It even seems that some 'crats now view it that way. (See above for examples.) Per the RfA page, this is not as it should be. Making it into a vote devolves the process into little more than a popularity contest, where any challenge to an oppose is viewed as a personal affront to the opposer. While I don't oppose often (per the fact that adminship is, of course, no big deal) I never mind when someone challenges my reasoning on an oppose or a neutral I have placed. That's the point: discussion. Not voting. Discusssion. K. Scott Bailey 00:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "RfA is supposed to be", and it's very patronising for you to suggest that I "display a clear lack of understanding". There has never been a consensus on whether RfA is a vote or a discussion. But in any human community, it is an absolute moral requirement that those in power should be elected by those with an interest in that power, and accountable to them. Politicians are accountable to voters; company directors are accountable to shareholders; officers of voluntary groups are accountable to members. Administrators have no legitimacy unless they are elected by the community. The bureaucrats, likewise, derive their authority from being elected by the community - and their authority is no more and no less than we, the community, say it is. I agree with you that poor reasoning in an RfA should be challenged, as I expressly said earlier. But to dismiss voting as a "popularity contest" is to dismiss the entire basis on which democracy in the real world works. I realise Wikipedia is not a state, but it is a voluntary body, and such bodies ought to be run democratically by their members. As such, all RfAs ought to be closed by numerical vote, unless they fall into the 70-75% discretionary range where, it is agreed, some analysis by the bureaucrat may be acceptable. It would be helpful if you would try and explain what, in your opinion, is so wrong with voting, rather than just reciting trite comments such as "it's a discussion not a vote". Walton^One 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<------undent

Admin tools are no big deal, and should be given to any good editor who asks for them. Admins aren't "in power" as you state. They are more like a cleanup crew, charged with making sure the trash gets taken out, the dusting gets done, and the floor gets swept. The real "power" in WP lies in the hands of the community, with policy-making, and in the ArbCom (and Jimbo, of course), with policy interpretation. As for what you find "patronizing", I'm sorry that you felt that way, but my comments remain, and I stand behind them. Both your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of what an admin does and is, as well as what RfA is supposed to be. That is not intended to be patronizing, or an insult of any kind, but rather a statement of the content of your posts. When you make statements like "I dont care what 'RfA is supposed to be'", how else is one to take it? When you compare the mop-wielding admins to "politicians", "company directors", and "officers of a voluntary organization", how else is one to take it? They are none of these things, nor are they even similar to any of these things. Also, with regards to the 'crats, they have the right to make any decision they want. That they exercise this right with discretion in most cases is definitely a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that the RfA process is very flawed. K. Scott Bailey 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a point about the bureaucrats in regards to RFAs, they are charged with determining community consensus. They cannot make any decision they want...They are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I think it's important to keep that in mind. RxS 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that sometimes the 'crats ignore that policy, and promote a candidate with over 100 oppose votes. This is not a protest of that promotion. I have no opinion one way or the other on that promotion. I simply cite it in support of my positino that sometimes the 'crats flout the policy you cite. K. Scott Bailey 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases they operate within a pretty narrow scope, and when they venture past (even a little) the edge there's almost always an uproar. But I think it's sailing pretty close to the wind to say that because sometimes they do skate the edge of policy that they have an actual right to break it. RxS 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (edited to add: where breaking policy = promoting against the will of the community as reflected in an RFA.)

(To K. Scott Bailey) I have been an administrator, and, whether we like it or not, it is a position of power. I agree with you that, in principle, the real power ought to lie in the hands of the community; but because the mantra "voting is evil" has become so widely accepted despite having no logical justification, admins have accumulated more and more practical discretionary power. Some use it well, some less so. But I happen to believe in democracy and majority rule, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's contributors have the right to decide who administers this site. The authoritarian attitude evident in your post is, sadly, highly prevalent among Wikipedians, and it is one of the reasons why I no longer feel any commitment to this project, and therefore why I resigned my sysop tools. Walton^One 18:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch

I'm thinking that this should be closed early, but given that he's an established contributor and knows what he's getting himself into, it would probably be better to have a 'crat decide. User:Veesicle 07:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was eyeing that earlier tonight (and was being pseudo-egged on by another editor). I really don't see it rebounding... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where Bureaucrats can coordinate their activities. Although it is intended for use by Bureaucrats, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here."

I am concerned that we are starting to see the "Bureaucrats'" noticeboard becoming not a place for bureaucrats to "coordinate activities," or anything else except in rare occasions. 'Crats do not need suggestions in this venue as to what they should do in ongoing RfAs. The place for that is:

1. In the nomination itself
2. In the talk of that nomination
3. In WT:RFA.
4. I know many are trying to be helpful, but this isn't the venue. -- Cecropia 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad. User:Veesicle 07:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, with all due respect, although I appreciate that the bureaucrats don't need non-bureaucrats to be suggesting what they could do with run-of-the-mill cases like this, would you agree that comments in extraordinary circumstances (eg. my suggestion as to what to do with the Majorly RfA, above) are acceptable? Or would you prefer to have no input or suggestions (note: not orders or requests) whatsoever from the people that appointed you as to possible avenues of action? Just say the word... Daniel 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the header to reflect what should be the purpose of this noticeboard. It should essentially be the same as the admin noticeboard except that things like name changes and RfA are discussed. If you'll notice, non-admins post to the admin noticeboard all the time. -- John Reaves 08:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and not to sound like a dick, but just how much "coordinating of activities" do 'crats do on a day-in, day-out basis? Even the "'crat chats" that happen every three blue moons tend to be done at the RfA itself, rather than here (though that could be my memory acting up). What else would this board be for? (aside from the occasional "re-promote please" thread like above) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can close the nomination if you want - it's clear that it's going to be unsuccessful.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I regret you have apparently thrown in the towel. However, I don't feel like pulling it off WP:RFA for you - it's a bit like having a tooth extracted without anesthetic right after eating. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and closed the RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cecropia. This is not the appropriate place to suggest closures which is happening at a much higher frequency these days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to carry out these discussions at each RfA's talk page, since it allows for better recordkeeping. I mean, if we want to refer to past RfA discussions, it's easier to refer to the respective RFA talk page than to a particular section of an archive of a noticeboard. Of course, notices of the discussions can be placed on this noticeboard so that B-crats are aware and may participate, with B-crat reserved discussions held in sub-pages of the RfA. I thought that was the norm. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just of note, a crat close is only needed if there is consensus to promote. Otherwise, anyone can close a clearly failing RFA. I've done so in the past. That we we can avoid coming here to ask. Mercury 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between this and a regular WP:SNOW closure is that the candidate is a much more established editor than your run-of-the-mill "I can be an admin with 150 edits to my userpage!" candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WP:SNOW is for avoiding the extension of an unneeded process (waiting the seven days of an RfA when it absolutely doesn't have a chance of passing), not necessarily because its not meeting the famed pass-percentage range. The reason to close this one early and by a non-crat was because the nomination was withdrawn. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia responds

I apologize if I came off as trying to dictate who can say what, where. I agree with the point that the Bureaucrats do not do much with the "Bureaucrats' noticeboard." Ed Poor, when he was a 'crat, launched this board (I guess because there was an admin noticeboard, so he thought this would be a good idea), but most of the bureaucrats have not had much action on it. I visit it because of the handy-dandy RfA summary mostly.

However, dealing with the instant case, I have several objections to this becoming a catch-all for minor issues that editors think the 'crats should look at, largely because:

1. Fragmentation: As I said, there are more appropriate venues, I'm not sure any 'crat regularly checks all the possible places something might end up. 'Crats should be watching and reviewing RfA, if they are actively working. These are the appropriate places to say things or suggest things that a 'crat might need to know.
2. Special treatment: I'm not thinking of any one particular case, but sometimes people think that there is something a 'crat should know about they feel is not revealed in the "votes" and "comments." 'Crats need to keep away from listening to arguments that might, in effect, elevate the opinions of one or a handful of editors, by arguing them outside the place (RfA) where everyone else is discussing. This is especially true after closing time, when some might want to push a 'crat decision one way or the other by rhetoric.
3. Overuse: The more editors that resort to this page (and then reasonably argue out the points among themselves) the more verbiage is put up that really doesn't need a 'crats attention. I mean this "Bureaucrats' noticeboard" should have something to do with things 'crats really need to know. But maybe other RfA participants would like to see the discussion. That is why it should be at the RfA, the general RfA chat, or the chat of the particular RfA.

If someone really, really, really has something that a 'crat should look at right away perhaps leave a note on the Talk of the one or more of the 'crats who are currently active. -- Cecropia 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the crats could be more proactive in moving discussions to the "right place" - for example WT:RFA? This might especially be a good course of action where an initial narrow question belonged here but discussion expanded into something that should be read more widely (I suspect more people read WT:RFA than this noticeboard). It would also prob give people a feel for what the crats do want raised here, and what they don't. WjBscribe 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea. Thank you. -- Cecropia 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that I occasionally use WP:BN to request 'crat actions the same way WP:AN is sometimes used to request admin actions. There are several things that an admin can do wrong at WP:ACC that need a 'crat to fix, and I've found the 'crat's noticeboard useful to ask for quick fixes of such situations (such as accidentally creating an account with a password nobody knows, when the only way to recover the username is to ask for it to be renamed out of the way, but WP:CHU is inappropriate because nobody can log in on that account to request a rename). Likewise, it's been used to report serious 'crat backlogs in the past (although there are fewer of these nowadats). I'm not sure that using this noticeboard as a WT:RFA substitute is at all helpful, though. --ais523 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove access

I am requesting that a bureaucrat remove my sysop bit. Thank you for your time. -- Vassyana (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We cannot. Please contact a steward. --Deskana (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[ec] 'crats can't remove bits, only add them. Try m: Requests for permissions#Removal of access instead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. -- Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MenoBot

Pardon me if this is not the correct place to request this. I request a flag for my bot. Although that I have submitted a request which was approved, yet for some reason the bot is still listed to be in trial period and not flagged yet. --Meno25 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, as your bot is listed as approved by WP:BAG, you may operate it, just keep it under 3-4 edits per min until you are flagged. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are not the people who decide who flags the bots or not, we simply impliment the decisions of the bot approvals group when they put their request for flagging on the approved bots page. Please contact the BAG if you have queries. --Deskana (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. UninvitedCompany flagged the bot. --Meno25 (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag

Could someone bot-flag User:ImageTaggingBot? I'm moving User:OrphanBot's upload-tagging work to this account. --Carnildo (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I can't imagine there would be a problem with the bot, should there at least be a pro forma listing on WP:RBA for the sake of completeness? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but my instinct is that no further approval should be needed - the task is approved to be run on a Bot account by Carnildo, I can't envisage there being a problem with him moving it to a different Bot account. It might be worth renaming the original approval page for the task to the name of the Bot account that will now be running the task with a note of explanation. That way anyone looking for the Bot's approval will end up in the right place. WjBscribe 07:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no approval page to rename: OrphanBot and the task in question both pre-date the current bot approvals process. --Carnildo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

shrubbery delivered: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageTaggingBot — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Deskana. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer

Snow? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at usurptions

Hi

As somebody who is interested in the subject :-) , could I very meekly and politely draw attention to a small emerging backlog at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. There seem to 3 requests that could have been filled dating back to 6 - 8 November - ie eligible for fulfilling since November 14 - 16. Thanks --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done I wouldn't expect you'll have all your contributions allocated yet as it was slow to respond and the database was locked shortly afterwards. It should all be okay within 24/48 hours though. Secretlondon (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another backlog building up... 3 requests pending that can now be renamed. (From another, interested user.) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe someone else will have to start doing them rather than leaving me with them all. Secretlondon (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry my inactivity has frustrated you, Secretlondon. I'll try to get to them later. You enjoy your break, you've absolutely done more than your fair share of the work, having done almost all of them :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that the more I do the less anyone else has to think about them. By doing them all I'm giving myself a constant supply of them. Sometimes you just want to edit ya know.. Secretlondon (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On the plus side, it looks like you'll have help in a couple of days. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding usurpation

Hi there 'crats :) I was hoping someone could shed some light on a certain matter: The Joker (talk · contribs) (who goes by Slade on all wikis except this one), an admin and bureaucrat at the Portuguese Wikipedia, recently helped me with some "emergency" usurpations over there after several vandal accounts were created under the names of established English WP editors. He has asked me whether I thought it would be possible for Slade (talk · contribs) to be usurped; apparently, he has tried unsuccessfully in the past, back when there was no set policy for usurpation. I am aware of the restriction on usurping accounts which have made good faith contributions, but would still like to know whether this usurp is not going to happen anytime soon, because of this (warranted) restriction, or if there is any room for discussion. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is against our policies to usurp this account. Slade has made non-trivial edits to the encyclopedia, and our usurpation policy does not allow these accounts to be renamed. Unforunately, he'll have to wait until single-user login comes around and the account is shifted out of place for him. Sorry, Fvasconcellos. --Deskana (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd say your best bet is to email the user, but they don't have a verified email address. Looks like you'll have to wait for single-user login, but who knows when that'll happen... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. If it's fine by him, it's fine by me :) By the way, is Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines the "definitive" guideline on CHU/usurpation? I'm obviously not a 'crat, but I should be more knowledgeable on this anyway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. Those guidelines are more descriptive than prescriptive though; we wrote them as a description of our practices. If you're interested in learning more about changing usernames, WP:CHUG is the way to go. :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, I'll wait for SUL :) —Slade (TheJoker) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SorryGuy

Don't know wether this is best here or at WT:RFA but the above has had three supports entered in the last few minutes by brand new accounts. [29] [30] and [31] Pedro :  Chat  16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're far too cynical, Pedro. They look perfectly legitimate to me. (signed User:DatesAreGoodForYou)

Yeah. (signed User:EggShell)

I agree (signed User:FrostedFlakes)

Not. --barneca (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Yeah, clearly my AGF went awol just as my trolling detector fired into overdrive. Pedro :  Chat  16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Resolved by WJBscribe [32]. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  16:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Actually resolved by Deskana - see [33] and block logs of the others. He's the one with the magic pixie dust... WjBscribe 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms all accounts are owned by the same person. This is clearly an attempt to disrupt. Accounts blocked (by me), votes striken (by WJBscribe). --Deskana (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved by two bureacrats in reality, it's just one of them has a couple more days for a minor formality to be over. Either way fixed, and thanks to all. Pedro :  Chat  16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want formalities, this was resolved by a checkuser, not a bureaucrat. :-) --Deskana (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cruel checkuser, we hates them. (signed User:GollumIsntAFoodButStartsWithTheLetterGSoThePatternStillWorks) --barneca (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nburden

May be time for WP:SNOW. Dlohcierekim 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Any user can close an RFA per SNOW. I've done a couple myself. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done by myself. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone

Another snow. This one looks like a prank on the part of the nominator. Dlohcierekim 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate withdrew. Hut 8.5 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot Flag Removal

Can you please remove the blog flat from User:^demonBot2? I don't plan on using it anymore. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SNOW closes - guidelines

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship#SNOW closes - guidelines

In response to mounting criticism that users are being too hasty in SNOW closing RFAs, and are doing so due to personal assessments of the candidate's chances, I have outlined some proposal for a more cautious approach to premature RfA closes at WT:RFA. Further input welcome. WjBscribe 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Useight 3

Deskana closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Useight 3 as successful about two hours ago but didn't +sysop the account and hasn't edited since then. Could someone Special:Makesysop? WODUP 06:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Dan | talk 07:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh... yeah, that's kind of important. :-( --Deskana (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's happened before, no big deal. :) NoSeptember 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it was October [34][35]. :-p --Deskana (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering why no extra tools were available after receiving a message from him. Useight (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

There's a bit of disruption by Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

• He's modified a comment by User:tqbf -- [36]
• He's removed a comment, also by User:tqbf -- [37]

I've participated already, so I am not going to involve myself other than bringing this to your attention. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal had already been reverted, but I undid the editing of the other user's comment. Thanks for bringing attention to this, though I don't think it required special rights to handle. Anyone could have done that. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Eyebrow raised

• Oppose - Aramgar (talk · contribs) has never participated in the RFA before, and has 9 Wikipedia space edits (7 in the sandbox).
• Oppose - Kafka Liz (talk · contribs) has never participated in an RFA before, and has 2 Wikipedia space edits.

The obvious question: Did these people discover this RFA and vote 24 minutes apart by chance, or did somebody notify them to go vote? Two such votes could be mere coincidence, but more would be highly improbable. Given that the RFA stands at 75%, we should be watchful. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the CU data, it seems very obvious that they are socks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Circumstancial, but it certainly doesn't look good. - Taxman ^Talk 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Circumstantial, agreed. I've been checking the support voters aswell... - Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed some fairly obvious on-wiki canvassing that really should have been spotted sooner [38]. Posting to the talkpage of an article where there is considerable disagreement as content that one of the participants is on RfA seems a pretty sure way to skew the process. WjBscribe 18:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:PHG for 24 hours for this, as attempted harassment. Unblock him if you wish. I can't tolerate such behavior. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

These two votes may very well play a role in Elonka's nomination, and since the user you blocked has been an outspoken opponent of Elonka, I am sure that a 24 hour block means nothing to him if it sinks Elonka's shot at the tools. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WJB and Bearian, I think you are both blowing PHG's statement on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance out of proportion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:PHG. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly canvassing and clearly inappropriate. I make no comment on the merits of the block, as I am clearly involved in the RfA. I defer on that to the judgment of other admins. WjBscribe 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• It was linked twice: I had to fix this. Acalamari 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• There has been a discussion at ANI that seems to favor unblocking, and per Bearian's invitation, I have unblocked PHG. As far as canvassing is concerned, it seems like there is a case for giving PHG a warning, which I have done. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I havent looked carefully at these two users but you could also add this support to the list. EnsRedShirt's contributions show that they've come after a period of absence to vote on Elonka's support (this one and the last [39]) or her family articles (Antoni Dunin [40], her personal article [41] and Kryptos as well [42]). I feel this is as suspicuous as these other two users, if not more, especially if you see the gaps in editing. Aramgar's claim of having common topics with Elonka (Mongols) may be true, however I have no idea about the other user. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He was off-wiki for eight days, as he made an edit on an unrelated topic on the 4th of December. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All I mean is, that if these two users look suspicuous in any way (and I have not evaluated them), then this one looks a couple of times more suspicious. WjB asked them how they learnt of this RfA. I would ask this user the same question. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those two were confirmed sockpuppets. He's not. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. I had the same suspicions and honestly tried to see if they had edited the same articles (that would confirm somewhat). I couldnt see any similiar article names in my quick glances but the CU proved it. However, my comments about EnsRedShirt remain as before. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't envy the crat who closes this RFA. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bug in Special:DeletedContributions

Special:DeletedContributions is showing strange "&lt;" and "&gt;"'s. See this screenshot. Please tell the developers to fix and/or tell me where the developers' noticeboard is. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the devs about it off wiki, so hopefully it will be fixed soon. Cheers Roger, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, there isn't a developers' noticeboard as such - bug reports are made on a separate Wiki, see Wikipedia:Bugzilla. You can also raise technical problems at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) which is watched by some devs (and by people who already have Bugzilla accounts who may be able to make a report for you). WjBscribe 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Close?

Could a bureaucrat please close Slakr's RFA. Thanks. — Rudget _{Contributions} 11:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been done by Deskana. Prodego ^talk 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A hypothetical question

I thought about this after a recent off-wiki discussion I had. What would happen in an RfA that was not a self nomination, if the nominator struck the nomination? Keegan^talk 08:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is purely hypothetical. Keegan^talk 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Procedural note: This should probably go on WT:RFA, since this is a noticeboard for important matters similar to WP:AN and WP:ANI.

But, to the question: I could be entirely wrong, but this may have happened before. Theoretically, the request should continue -- the nomination is strictly a procedural issue, going back to the times when self-nominations were rare. That being said, if the candidate did something so bad that even the nominator had to withdraw support, then it's probably going to fail anyway. Ral315 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Ral. If the nominator withdraws his or her support, the RfA continues normally. It ends if the candidate him or herself withdraws. Normally, losing the support of the very nominator will cause substantial rejection of the candidate, and it reduces considerably the probability that the RfA might be successful. In the worst-case scenario, it could cause the RfA to end prematurely, if it snowballs. But the nominator's withdrawal does not end a RfA.
And indeed, it has happened before, although it is rare. Redux (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Userrights

On Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal, it is currently proposed to start create a Rollback flag to give to normal users (the flag would be given out by Administrators). Part of the proposal involves the Special Page that will be used for doing this. It was originally proposed to use Special:Giverollback, a page similar to Special:Makebot and Special:Makesysop for this. But it is currently proposed to use Special:Userrights (thanks to the $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups settings). This will allow Admins to access Special:Userrights to give the Rollback flag should it be implemented. I am creating this discussion to see if the Bureaucrats support admins using Userrights as opposed to Giverollback (should a rollback flag be created), and if they are interested in deprecating Makebot and Makesysop to use Userrights for giving the bot/sysop/bcrat flags and revoking the bot flag.

From this discussion on the Rollback proposal's talk page (code added to the discussion by User:Mr.Z-man):

$wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback'] = true; 
$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['userrights'] = true; 
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['userrights'] = true; 
$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bureaucrat', 'sysop', 'bot' );
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot' );
$wgAddGroups['sysop'] = array( 'rollback' );
$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'] = array( 'rollback' );

That would would do the following:

1. Create a rollback flag with the rollback permission.
2. Give admins the ability to give and revoke this thread using Special:Userrights
3. Give bcrats the ability to give the bot, sysop, and bureaucrat flags using Special:Userrights.
4. Give bcrats the ability to revoke the bot flag using Special:Userrights.

Are you bcrats in support of starting to use Special:Userrights? FunPika 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but I wanted to note that (because I oppose admins granting rollback, feeling that it should be done by bureaucrats instead) the above could be done without giving the ability to grant rollback to administrators. (Simply remove the three lines that say "sysop", and replacing "sysop" with "bureaucrat" on the "remove" rollback one.) - jc37 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't feasible giving only the crats the ability to give rollback - there will simply be too much work for them. Administrators are fully able to handle this task. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's a fallacious arguement. ("too much work" ??) If there are enough BCs to handle RfA/BAG then there should be enough for this. And if not, then I'm sure that there are admins out there who would make good bureaucrats, let's nominate some and see. - jc37 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've used Userrights before... it's a nice enough interface. There's very little practical difference between Userrights and Makesysop: both appear in the log under the "User Rights Log" section. I think Userrights is the way to go. It's a more versatile interface and it leaves room for further expansion. --Deskana (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Userrights is actually the Steward interface. It is "dormant" in all projects but Meta because Foundation policy dictates that Stewards shall exist only on Meta, and there shall be no local Stewards. If it is possible to modify that tool in order to give it a more limited rights management capability, that could be really interesting.
But on the main issue, and I might be somewhat out-of-date with the current discussions, I should note that granting Admins the ability to change rights (grant and revoke a flag, in this case) is a question that most probably goes beyond the boundaries of the English-language Wikipedia. It is a Foundation issue, I would say. Under current practices in use by the Wikimedia Foundation, which controls Wikipedia, there are only 2 classes of users that can grant and/or revoke rights (not counting Developers, who can do pretty much anything, since they have access to the servers themselves): Bureaucrats (locally, limited to two levels of access and the bot flag) and Stewards. The proposed change would affect solely the en.wiki, clearly, although it involves granting a user class with +1,000 members the ability to grant and revoke a level of access (albeit a very limited one) — it could be more practical, and safe, to have the Bureaucrats handle the requests (perhaps through the tool suggested above, to be created).
The bottom line is: check with the Board of Trustees if this will be endorsed by the Foundation if approved by the community. Ultimately, if the Board vetoes it, it will simply not be done.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Userrights is indeed a more practical interface than the specific Bcrat tools. So if the Foundation supports it, so do I. Redux (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Foundation issue. Please think about it for the moment. Just because rollback is being implemented as a user right, that doesn't make it somehow magically different from any of the other things that aren't user rights that administrators can already give and take away. There's no "can edit" user right – but administrators can grant and revoke the ability to edit, via blocks. There's no "can edit own talk page" right – but administrators can grant and revoke that, via page protection. There's no "can use AutoWikiBrowser" right – but administrators can grant and revoke that. There's no "can use user scripts" right – but administrators can grant and revoke that by editing the user's user javscript page. All these things are similar in nature to rollback but just happen to be implemented in a different way. User rights just happens to be the most convenient way of implementing this. I do not see why the Foundation needs to get involved at all – Gurch 12:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I still believe it is a Foundation issue. The comparisons you made are flawed. Admins can block and thus affect the ability of others to edit, in general or specific pages (protection). Rollback, however, is a restricted tool. Granting and revoking access to restricted tools means changing levels of access to the system, i.e. changing user rights, which is, under Foundation rules, done by 2 user classes only: Bcrats (locally and limitedly) and Stewards. That notwithstanding, Rollback, if given separately, is indeed a very limited access level, and so it should be ok. But the Foundation Board still has to sanction it, since it essentially means, if approved, a new access level. And if it is to be activated by Admins, it means giving en.wiki admins the ability to change user rights, albeit even more limitedly than Bcrats.
The practical issue I see is granting a user group with many, many members the ability to grant and revoke access to a restricted tool. If there were 150 admins, that'd be one thing. But with almost 1,500 admins (albeit not all of them active), it could get somewhat problematic. Or not, but from a foundational point of view, if a new type of access level (meaning: access to restricted tools, such as rollback) was to be created, the logical path is like that: either it is something only Stewards can implement (like CheckUser and Oversight) or it is something that can be handled locally, and that means the local Bureaucrats (or the Stewards, if the Bcrats are inactive or don't exist).
And it would be good if the Foundation followed this closely: if the experience of granting solely the Rollback function to trusted non-admins, via a simpler process, works, this could even be extended to the other projects of the Foundation — exactly what happened with Oversight: at first, it was created to handle issues on this Wikipedia, but in time it was decided that Oversight would be made available on all projects. Redux (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're making no sense. Why does this have to have Foundation approval? I can find nothing written anywhere that says only they can decide who gets what user rights. Also, why is it "somewhat problematic" to give all administrators this ability? Just repeatedly saying it is really isn't going to convince me – Gurch 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with admins having this ability, taking away someone's rollback rights is no worse than blocking them. Although soon we will see new ANI threads like "Abusive admin X unjustly took away my rollback rights" ;-) It probably would be too much work for bureaucrats to do every add and delete of rollback rights, just as it would be too much to have only bureaucrats capable of blocking and unblocking users. NoSeptember 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize a lot of discussion has taken place, but it would be complicated to answer this that much further down the list. Gurch, the Foundation controls Wikipedia. Ultimately, the Foundation, through its Board of Trustees, is the one to decide what kind of user classes can exist on any or all Wikimedia projects and which restricted tools might be assigned to each flag. There has been discussion about "customizing" (for each project, even) which exact group of tools might be made available to any given user group, and especially to administrators. However, the notion of granting Admins the ability to grant and revoke access to restricted tools seems to be new, and I do not know if the Foundation would approve it. It is entirely possible that the Board of Trustees might say something like: "whatever the community decides, just run it by the devs". That would mean that the Board approves it, as long as the community has consensus to grant this kind of ability to Admins.
Now, I really, really don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but the Board of Trustees does not need the permission of the community to make a ruling, either way, on this. It is, indeed, absolutely up to them to decide who gets which tools — "who" in terms of user groups, not individuals, since that is decided through votes or discussions by local communities on each project —, I am not selling the possibility, I am explaining how it works.
In terms of the discussions that have been going on at the foundational level, this would be closer to them if we were discussing the possibility of, say, make it so that Admins on en.wiki could no longer implement full-protection, and only semi-protection could be used. But as it turns out, the discussion involves giving a capability to a user group that is, up until now, restricted to only 2 other user groups Foundation-wide. What I am saying is that I don't know if the Board (ie, the Foundation) would approve it. I would think that they would, if anything to see if the experience would work out. But my opinion is that we need to check with the Board of Trustees.
But again, it is entirely within their scope to decide whether or not any given user group will be afforded access to tools representing certain capabilities, namely changing user rights to grant access to restricted tools. A green light from the Board would mean that we can continue the discussions as is, and that we can ask the devs to implement the technical changes necessary when discussions have evolved to that point. A red light from the Board would mean that we can't grant Admins the ability to give and remove access to restricted tools — notice that the ability to edit, or to move pages, are not restricted tools, since anyone can edit and any registered user can move a page.
Other than that, NoSeptember has already hinted at the problem with having almost 1.5 thousand people with the ability to grant and revoke access to restricted tools. The problem is logistical, and it is the reason why the Foundation created the position of Bureaucrat and that of Steward to handle user-right adjustments. Redux (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a little worried that administrators will overreact and revoke rollback rights when someone makes a one-off mistake. But the exact same thing happens with blocks and we seem to tolerate it. Though in the case of rollback it might be harder to get it back. I've twice been blocked for "vandalism" while trying to revert same, but both blocks were subsequently undone without discussion; if the same thing happened to someone with rollback I wouldn't put it past some of our administrators to refuse to give it back because the user now has a block log. Anyway, administrators are clearly more qualified to carry out this process than bureaucrats. They have plenty of experience of actually making decisions, as opposed to bureaucrats who for the most part do nothing but act on percentage figures – Gurch 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course all of our bureaucrats are experienced admins, but on a specific case, they would have to be brought up to speed on why someone's rights should be removed, which could be a quite tedious process when repeated hundreds of times. NoSeptember 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What about having admins giving the ability to give the rollback bit, and bcrats given the ability to add/remove? --Charitwo ^talk 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything it should be the other way round. Removal of rights would be under urgent conditions, having to take the time to find and explain to one of the quite few bureaucrats would greatly expose the project to more abuse by an out of control rollbacker. NoSeptember 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's an emergency, just block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking in cases when all that is needed is rollback removal is an invitation to additional drama. Every admin's view of just what constitutes an emergency is going to be slightly different. NoSeptember 16:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? As I've explained at length on the proposal's discussion page, the only plausible abuse of this tool would come from edit warring (and even that is unlikely), which merits a block anyway. Use of it to vandalize by undoing good edits is also possible in theory, though I believe nobody will ever bother – which also merits a block – Gurch 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't even a process for getting rollback yet as far as I know, considering there isn't a group yet, let alone a consensus for one. If this does go through, we could always do a RfR, like RfA except the expectations are one for someone who is not yet ready for an RfA but is on the right path for one. Given the similarities, 1 extra extra tool compared to 3, and the support given by the community to grant such a tool. I doubt you'd see any abuse, if at all. Look at it this way. Rollback is a built-in tool, WP:TW is a similar way to do it but it's less resourcefully efficient on the server. --Charitwo ^talk 16:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it would be a mistake to base the Request for Rollbacks process on RFA; many users have indicated that they do not want an "RFA-lite". Something like WP:UAA or WP:RFPP would be great – except with a certain required interval until the request can be fulfilled, similar to WP:USURP. Gracenotes^T § 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle can easily be removed, and I've done that a couple of times myself when users have abused it. RfA lite is a bad idea - we simply don't need it. We need a simple process to give users who need the tool and scanning their contribs gives no cause for concern. An admin checks the contribs and if there's no problems, they grant them. If there's misuse such as in edit wars, then the tool gets removed after a consensus on AN/I (that's the prerequisite for removal) - so we won't have people running to the admin board if they get the tool removed, it'll already be up there with a consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I still am not totally convinced on admins being able to remove this tool. However, granting it, I will totally support. --Charitwo ^talk 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An RfA-lite would make the whole thing, in my opinion, not usefull at all, as probably those who would pass such a process would pass a normal RfA. RFPP should be, in my opinion, the model, an admin comes around, take a look at the user and grants or rejects the request. If somebody has something to add, then it does, otherwise there's only the simple request. No big deal. As for the delay, well, we should, in my humble opinion, make the process very immediate and simple. Rollback should came simply and simply go. No big deal if it comes, no drama if it goes away. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The delay is only intended to be a way for a sufficient number of users to see the request, not a bureaucratic hurdle. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow": and so is possible abuse (e.g., a normal user and an admin coordinating a request over AIM or MSN so that the user's request gets granted without neutral review). Gracenotes^T § 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shush, unless you want people demanding that all administrators who possess the contact details of any Wikipedia contributor are desysopped in case they attempt to communicate with one. You're not allowed to acknowledge the existence of non-Wikipedia forms of communication on-site, in case people get ideas – Gurch 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I think she forgot IRC too, but beans are not part of a Wikipedia balanced diet. --Charitwo ^talk 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the original topic, I have just committed, in r28650, the requisite changes (mostly enabling interwiki rights changing) to Special:Userrights for it to replace Makesysop as our tool for user rights management. I should note in passing that the code above is wrong, and would grant sysops the right to change arbitrary rights (to appoint ordinary users as stewards, for instance). — Werdna talk 02:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say: "Granting the userrights privilege allows arbitrary changing of rights." - Do you mean it allows the changing of individual rights, or groups of rights? - jc37 09:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual rights. They could flag anybody with any permission, even founder, checkuser or steward. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course, remove any permission from any user (apart from stewards since they have the flag on meta). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So the correct code would be this?

$wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback'] = true;  
$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bureaucrat', 'sysop', 'bot' );
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot' );
$wgAddGroups['sysop'] = array( 'rollback' );
$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'] = array( 'rollback' );

The $wgGroupPermissions lines have been removed that give bureaucrats and sysops the userrights permission (as it appears userrights now gives full access while $wgAddGroups/$wgRemoveGroups will give limited access). FunPika 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The code presumes community consensus on admins adding and removing rollback. I'd like to see community consensus on "sysop" being ever given such access to userrights.

What exactly is the difference between consensus to allow admins to add/remove rollback and consensus to "give access to userrights" when the only access that will be given is the ability to add and remove rollback? Special:Userrights is just an interface, just the way that MediaWiki implements user access levels. Things like blocking are only different for reasons of convenience (it would be quite possible to add and remove users from an "edit" group in order to block them, but just having a 'block' button is easier). Please, stop making such a big deal out of it – Gurch 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)`

I've noted this before, but it's a shame there isn't something like $wgBlockGroups['sysop'] - array( 'rollback' ); - To work like blocking instead of removal. (I have no idea what the actual code looks like, just extrapolating from the above.) Admins (sysops) may currently block, but they don't add or remove. I think it's potentially contentious enough to suggest that bureaucrats can remove a userright (something which they currently can't do, AFAIK). - jc37 11:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking? So they'd be able to rollback on their user talk page, but not elsewhere? (Great for removing complaints of abuse!) I think we're getting trapped in a web of semantics. "add" and "remove" is the most succint and accurate means of describing rollback granting/revoking. Gracenotes^T § 16:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot is a userright and bcrats can remove it. FunPika 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a little annoyed, but I've had enough of this nonsense. There is nothing inherently special about "removing a user right". Bureaucrats can't remove the sysop user right because we've decided that is best left to stewards. That is neither here nor there when it comes to discussing the implementation of a completely different access level – Gurch 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we simple use Special:Giverollback? It would allow sysops to add and remove only the rollback permission. What's the problem with that? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MZMcBride wrote on Wikipedia talk:Rollback for non-administrators proposal: Bureaucrats use Special:Makebot and Special:Makesysop, and Brion Vibber, the CTO for the Wikimedia Foundation and the lead developer of MediaWiki has stated that there is absolutely no intention of adding another extension as that would be silly. This implies that they are happy to implement any access levels that we may wish to add in another way – Gurch 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Snow an RFA that isn't open

(Also posted at WP:AN#Questions but in a different form, regarding conduct)I found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LisaTierney and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simba on my trawls through new pages yesterday. I was wondering what the usual procedure is for these kind of RFAs. Snow close or just plain delete? Woody (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly deletable under CSD G1 or G2. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could some nice 'crat flip the switch back on me? I resigned after a, um, fit of outrage and despair at goings-on here. Now I am still outraged and despairing but want to help with backlogs. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done as requested. — Dan | talk 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the second uncontroversial flip. Will it become controversial after further similar iterations? –Pomte 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we'll just get exasperated and say things like "Make up your mind already". — Dan | talk 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some poor newbie

Please, take pity on this newbie, and do something with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bass Speaker III before he is bitten. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It already got removed from the main page.[43] I'm going to give him my standard RfA closure notice (I added the edit stats, but I generally don't close RfAs without at least some activity...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFA needs closing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whiteandnerdy111 was withdrawn 7 hours ago. Can someone please close it properly (last time I tried one I messed it up). Shame on the 6 people, many of them admins or other long time users, who have continued to pile-on, the RFA has received 6 more opposes since it was withdrawn. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Way to go, guys. :( ~ Riana ⁂ 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was harassed by my former account

Hi. Could some one here take a look at the endgame of the thread at WP:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old account and advise on the possible and proper sorting of my concern about edits by an impersonator that would appear to a casual user to have been made by me? Thanks. Jack Merridew 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Please specify a username for the impersonator account to be renamed to — doesn't necessarily have to incorporate the exact original username in it, but it must make it clear that it was an impersonator account that was renamed. You can also post it at this forum, so that any Bureaucrat can carry it out (using the template listed there will make it easier for the Bureaucrats to carry out the change exactly as needed). If you'd prefer, we can recreate the account immediately after renaming it, as it was pointed out on the AN#I. After that, the password can be e-mailed to you (and you must change it immediately upon loggin in); you can choose to leave it dormant or ask that it be blocked indefinitely. You can also recreate the account yourself, which would eliminate the need for any of those last steps I mentioned. You should request that a Bureaucrat do it for you if you have reason to believe that the username could be taken over yet again before you could have a chance to recreate the username yourself. Redux (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take this to WP:CHU after I have a bit more clarity on this. I'm surprised that you're offering to let me select the name; something like: User:Senang Hati (impersonator) or User:Jack Merridew (impersonator) — I would think there would be a convention and I am fine with anything reasonable. nb: there is another prior impersonator: User:Jack..Merridew although I doubt it is the same person.

From what I'm seeing on the AN/I page, the contribs would move to the new name and those user/talk pages would get a box that says "naughty blocked user" and User:Senang Hati+talk would look as they do now but with no contribs.

As for re-creating the User:Senang Hati, ya, please do it for me as this user is still out there and busy; see User talk:71.107.186.223. It would be silly to have to do this all over again. I do not want this account, really, the only thing I would do with it is possibly post an explanatory note on the user page. I am not part of the Senang Hati Foundation; I visited there about a year ago and started the article on them; I simply made a poor choice of username. I would be fine with the account being recreated and me not getting the password; block the thing forever. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to take it to WP:CHU. I have already taken care of everything. Redux (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'm impressed; the new pages are automatically on my watchlist. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

addendum: I manually edited the signatures on

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali and
• User talk:Skifastridehard (a welcome message)

to point at the impersonator account.

--Jack Merridew 14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• see: WP:ANI#User:Cyric the All - harassment. --Jack Merridew 10:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit restoration.

Please restore the bit on this account. Regards, Mercury 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick question, will you be restarting the recall process (you ended it early) or would you be willing to go through an RFA before getting the bit back? Thanks. RxS (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not restarting. Those who wished recall can use dispute resolution. Regards, Mercury 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't see what recall has to do with it. It isn't policy and no-one is obliged. The only question from the 'crats is whether he left in controversial circumstances (=controversy where he might have been desysopped). Since there was no RfArb, and not even any talk of it, I personally would say, that isn't the case. But not my call.--Doc^g 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly controversial, he stormed off after a failed arbcom bid, then he got embroiled in a bunch of controversy in a recall, then stormed off. He resigned under controversial circumstances, IMHO, and I respectfully ask the bit be not restored to the account. Maxim_(talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Never said he was obliged to. Never even hinted at it. It's a voluntary process. I take it you (Mercury) won't be adding yourself to the recall cat if the bit comes? RxS (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances of your resignation were plainly controversial. I'm afraid I must turn you down. — Dan | talk 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mercury, for the record. Daniel 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring the pot, does this mean that bureaucrats assign some weight to the recall process? Mackensen (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to speak for the 'crats, but even if there wasn't a recall process itself, it still would have been a voluntarily de-adminship that was under controversial conditions. Compare it with someone that retires with no prompting whatsoever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Our job as bureaucrats is to evaluate if the candidate in question has the support of the community for promotion. If the candidate resigned or relinquished his/her adminship under non-controversial circumstances, and remains non-controversial in the interim period, we flip the switch. If not, we decline. We are given the mandate to gauge community consensus when promoting a suitable user. That is and will be the core part of our job. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would hold that we are empowered to judge consensus in RFA only. That is the point of refusing summary resysopping to users who resigned in any sort of doubt: we are sending them back to RFA. My decision here was not any sort of a judgment of consensus: rather, it was a consequence of my being unable to gauge community sentiment well enough to make a decision. Tradition gives refusal, with implicit referral to RFA, as the default outcome in these situations. (I have just re-read your comment, and I'm not sure we are in disagreement after all, in which case never mind.) — Dan | talk 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Through two edit conflicts:) I gave weight only to the kerfuffle that attended his cancellation of the process. Had the general reaction been "Very well, that is your prerogative", my decision would have been opposite. I see and respect that he regrets his decision to cancel the recall, and I am strongly inclined to think that he would not do it again, but I make that judgment as a fellow user, not as a bureaucrat. — Dan | talk 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I certainly hope another bureaucrat doesn't hesitate to rightfully give Mercury his bit back, regardless of your own personal hesitation. He left out of frustration, not because his admin actions were being called into question. "controversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama". That completely misses the point. He can still be trusted with the tools, despite the immature comments coming from users who want to scold him for not being perfect. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That would contradict a principle as old as the position: that no bureaucrat reverses a formal decision made by any other. This has served to prevent 'bureaucrat shopping'.

Mercury's admin actions were clearly being called into question: this is why the recall began in the first place -- but that is not important. What followed that event certainly looked like a controversy to me. I am not empowered to judge in this context what comments are "immature" and what complaints trivial. I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Wikipedia) that contradicts 'controversy'; both apply to this business. No, this was a controversy by any reasonable definition; and whatever we call it, it should be enough to give any bureaucrat reservations about a summary resysopping. — Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but now that there's a new RfA afoot, it's an entirely moot point... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't say I agree with your view, but I can see it as a reasonable conclusion. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to close the loop for future reference, the RfA has been withdrawn. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aqwis

Could someone fix Aqwis's RFA, the parsing has failed on the RFA report? Thank you. Best regards, Rt. 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. This post should probably have been made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship - it doesn't need a bureaucrat to fix the formatting of an RfA... WjBscribe 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

True. Sorry. Thanks anyway. Rt. 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA closing rationales

[44] Just a note, Mercury 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlisted, accepted RFA getting votes

I don't really want to get involved with this further, just posting here as a notification: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shibumi2. Lawrence Cohen 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think saying "votes" is a little inaccurate; it's garnered just one, the rest is all discussion (and there's no rule against discussing before transclusion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi2

I'm taking it upon myself to delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shibumi2, which can at best be generously described as a pointy hoax. The nominee is a confirmed sock, has not accepted the nom and could not since blocked.

Since it's not linked to the main page, and is currently serving as a magnet for trollish behavior, I thought it best to nip this in the bud. Feel free to revert me if you think I've overstepped. — Coren ^(talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin bit

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, I resigned uncontroversially after nearly a year as a sysop on 3 October. I had an RFA about a month later, which I had to withdraw because of false allegations being made about me. However, I think any bureaucrat can see that the RFA probably would have passed had I not withdrawn it, and the accusations hadn't been made. Since the RFA was voluntary in the first place, and at least two bureaucrats (namely Raul654 and Deskana) have stated their intentions that I need not have another RFA (and another RFA would just cause too much drama), I'd like to ask for my sysop bit back. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. I believe the prior withdrawn RfA creates controversial circumstances; and that, having once submitted oneself for re-judgment by the community, one cannot later ask for the bit back through summary means after withdrawing that RfA. Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I was not aware that such kind of restrictions were placed on users who stood up for re-confirmation RfAs. Reconformation RfAs are voluntary, just like "admins open to recall". It is finally up to the volunteers whether they stand by them or not. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno whether it makes any difference to the crat, but I endorse Majorly's comments, and believe he should be fully able to regain hsi bit at any time he desires. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • • To expound, I think we should really question whether Majorly himself is terribly controversial, and whether his RFA was failing before Gmaxwell made that rather rash and controversial comment that caused Majorly's RFA to sink, and caused him to withdraw. Also, as Majorly has stated, his RFA would still probably have passed, despite the fierce arena it had become at the time of closure. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Xoloz, please appreciate this problem. I'm in a catch-22 situation here. If I request people will complain that I'm running again, and oppose me. If I don't run, people will complain that I'm not running, and object to resysopping. What am I supposed to do? Majorly (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I do appreciate the difficulty, but I believe that the community's judgment always deserves paramount consideration, and that the failed RfA creates significant doubt whether its judgment on you is (or can be) known without another RfA. If a b'crat says you must go to RfA, I don't believe any reasonable commenter would hold that fact against you. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • To be even clearer, I don't blame you for asking here for your bit back -- the situation is clearly confused and unprecedented (I think, anyway). I simply object to the granting of the summary request, because I believe that controversy does exist, and that a new RfA is the best, most transparent, most accurate way forward. Xoloz (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• I think Majorly probably just qualifies as non-controversial and that this request can be granted. However, this does conflict with my general belief which is: if in doubt => WP:RFA. GDonato (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to restore Majorly's admin bit per my comments in answer to question question 7 on my RfB. I think I'm too close both to Majorly and to the events of the reconfirmation to be seen as impartial in making such a determination. I would like to make a couple of points, firstly I would note that although Raul654 and Deskana have expressed opinions supporting the restoration of the bit without RfA, Cecropia and Secretlondon came to the opposite conclusions: [45], [46].

Secondly, I personally support Raul654's assessment of the situation [47]. Majorly's reconfirmation contained a clear consensus that he should be an amdinistrator up until Gmaxwell (a developer and Commons checkuser) made an accusation that Majorly and User:Matthew were the same person. Such an accusation is highly prejudicial and prompted a growing shift of opinion that caused Majorly to withdraw the RfA. Gmaxwell's conclusions, will made in good faith, were not supported by the checkusers who reviewed them on-wiki (Raul654 and Deskana). They are also contradicted by the fact that a number of administrators (myself, RyanPostlethwaite, Steel359 and Wimt) were with Majorly at a meetup in Manchester when Matthew made a number of edits to Wikipedia and between us are certain Majorly could not have made those edits. Accusations of abusive sockpuppetry from a trusted source have a serious chilling effect. In this case, I support the view that it would be wrong to treat Majorly's reconfirmation RfA as a withdrawn attempt. In m opinion, it should be regarded as a nulity given that the accusations that derailed it have not proved possible to confirm (quite the opposite). I would be entirely happy with another bureaucrat restoring Majorly's admin access. WjBscribe 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering: do you believe that the community is incapable of judging the (in)validity of GMaxwell's case against Majorly? Is that judgment not best made by consensus at RfA? I'll add that several commenters, including myself, raised issues with Majorly's judgment wholly unrelated to GMaxwell's accusation, also, and that the peremptory withdrawl prevented those (debatable, but open) points from being heard for seven days. Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I thought tthat would pose a problem - an RfA would be needed. Bureaucrats should not approve the returning of rights to people who are likely to have trouble reaching consensus at RfA. I don't think there's going to be any such problem here and a large section of the community opposes reconfirmation RfAs that are not necessary. In this case I believe the result of the next RfA is pretty much a foregone conclusion, that the last RfA was likely to pass in any event and that the concern which lead to it being withdrawn has now proved unfounded. There a good reason to regard the RfA as void and I don't see anything positive coming out of a further RfA. Which is why were I free to act, I believe I would return the tools. WjBscribe 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but thought I may add from another perspective. From what I remember of Majorly's RFA, a number of users were concerned that he had gone through the RFA process - was talk of it being more of a slap-on-the-back process than anything else. I believe I opposed on those grounds, as I felt at the time there was no need for the RFA as he could just have been given his bit back as he gave it up under uncontroversial circumstances. However, due to the fact it did go to RFA (and ignoring the GMaxwell allegations) I would now feel uncomfortable if it didn't go to RFA this time. The recent Mercury situation has, if nothing else, reminded that the community has to be able to take such decisions. Just my thoughts, take them or leave them. Whitstable (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting Mercury resigned under a cloud of controversy. I didn't. The only controversy was because Gmaxwell thought it necessary to claim I was a sockpuppet. That isn't my fault is it? During an admin's time, he or she is bound to make errors, as I have. Some people won't let these minor slips go, and look at the positive side of things. I performed well over 5000 admins logs iirc. I never once abused my tools, and wouldn't dream of it. The concerns other than Gmaxwell's were incredibly minor ones. Particularly regarding Kurt Weber's block, whom I spoke to in private about it. Xoloz, who has been particularly vocal here, has opposed both my RFBs, only just went neutral on my original RFA and opposed my RFA (and steward candidacy too). Perhaps that says something about him. Not only that, he opposed per Friday, another editor who has always opposed me, whose rationale was an incredibly poor one, in my view - it makes it seem like I blocked Kurt - all I did was agree a block would be fine, if he never edited the encyclopedia. As it happened, he had not been editing it at the time, and was only opposing self nom RFAs. Majorly (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Majorly is entitled to resysopping on request under the circumstances. There was no controversy regarding him at the time he resigned, and there is no allegation that he resigned to avoid something like an impending arbitration against him, which is really what the "controversial circumstances/under a cloud" rule was designed to deal with. Meanwhile, I hope we have learned something about the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! WjBscribe 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the admin bit should be given. Only if B's decide otherwise a RfA would be in order. This is no where near the Mercury situation and a RfA would be a waste of peoples time. Agathoclea (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While the RFA would probably have resulted in a pass, while I have no doubt the accusations were wide of the mark, etc, it still remains true that the RFA closed early and did not result in Majorly being appointed an admin. My personal view - and it is only that - is that by using the RFA method Majorly lost his chance of using this method, of just asking for it back. This situation raises questions - is it now being suggested that "confirmation" RfAs are not relevant and can be overruled by Bureaucrats? If 300 had opposed the "confirmation" RfA and just 10 supported, would this method now being used still be acceptable? I have no problems with Majorly getting the bit back, there is no risk at all of any abuse of the tools, etc, and I would support at RFA. But I cannot stress enough how much I feel the RFA process is needed for the sake of transparency and clarification. Whitstable (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Whitstable, although I appreciate your concerns, I would like to disagree with your opinion. There is evidence abound that the RfA process is broken, and it is not be as transparent as you might assume it to be. To illustrate, I could request a desysop on my account right now, and then stand for reconfirmation. In all probability, the RfA would not pass. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - the system is flawed and needs fixing, and urgently. But it remains the only system we have. Anyway, I'm sure we all have more important things to do than worry about whether an ex-admin who would make a good admin should be made one or not! Whitstable (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate is unneeded. Majorly was an administrator and he resigned voluntarily. Now he is asking for the tools. There was no controversy with regard to the usage of admin tools. The controversy was created because there was difference in opinion. There is no evidence of sysop abuse among many other things. I urge the bureaucrats considering this request, not to delay this any further and not deprive the encyclopedia the services which it can receive from a capable and dedicated user. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no cloud of controversy regarding Majorly. The AfDRfA was not lost, it was canceled. I see no reason why the admin bit should not be returned. 1 != 2 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD = Administrators for deletion? This admin thing must be riskier than I thought ;-) NoSeptember 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to, reluctantly, go against the general consensus here. Although I strongly support Majorly's return to adminship, I think that he should go through an RfA. It is essential that all administrators should have the full support and confidence of the community. The fact that the participants in this discussion have not been unanimous, and that some people have opposed the immediate return of the tools, suggests that there is some controversy involved. If Majorly chooses to go through an RfA, I will vote Support; however, I must express my opposition to the return of his tools without an RfA. This is a point of principle, in the interests of democracy, accountability and transparency. Admins are servants of the community and must always, always, defer to the will of the community. Walton^One 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Give him the bit back and save the drama. It's only a website boys and girls. Pedro :  Chat  19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, there seems to be some confusion to what is controversial in my thread and this one. Give it back to him, there was no cloud. Mercury 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support the return of Majorly's tools and object to some points made by Walton. A significant portion of opposition against Majorly's last RfA was that he was, essentially, a narcissist and needed "a pat on the back," which is not a legitimate concern here. If we were to take the last RfA and apply it in the current atmosphere, the removal of "oppose because he wants to feel good" votes would leave a legitimate consensus. Unanimity is unnecessary, a single oppose does not spell a death knell to community support. This isn't the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and the votes are not equal for good reason. Thirdly, admins can override community consensus if it contradicts policy; while this is a rare action, it has happened before. Adins are not slaves to the community, but they serve first and foremost the encyclopedia, then the community. —Kurykh 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I received many of the same kind of opposes (i.e. the "no pat on the back" ones) in my reconfirmation RfA. I agree that it is not a strong rationale, but editors are entitled, in good faith, to vote however they wish on an RfA. In the cases of myself and Majorly, some editors (e.g. User:Neil, who opposed both RfAs) felt that our choice to seek reconfirmations was evidence of some kind of insecurity or of an unsuitable temperament for adminship. While I strongly disagree with them, I did not, and do not, believe that such votes should be removed or discounted. Every vote made by an established user in good faith should be counted equally. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer on an RfA, only different opinions; there are no fixed criteria for adminship. And so the outcome on an RfA should be determined democratically.
  • With regards to your third point, yes, admins should apply policy where policy conflicts with the consensus on a particular discussion. However, the reason for this is that the policies are the result of a much broader consensus than that which exists in any individual discussion. Ultimately, all legitimate rules on Wikipedia derive from community consensus (except those relating to Wikipedia's legal obligations). There are many issues where editors can disagree, in good faith, about what is best for the encyclopedia. In such a case, an admin should not do what they personally believe is best for the encyclopedia; they should obey the community consensus, even if they believe that the consensus is wrong. Walton^One 11:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Firstly, I think it's fair to say that Majorly's RfA would have passed prior to the incident involving Gmaxwell. At 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC), the last revision before Gmaxwell's post, the RfA sat at a comfortable 152/22/15. All major apparent issues had been extensively discussed (arguments about the merit of the RfA, which in any case should be ignored at this juncture per Kurykh at 20:57; the block-endorsement of Kmweber; accuracy with blocks; and a handful of others). Therefore, I personally feel it is safe to say that without the checkuser investigation the RfA would have continued along a similar line and ultimately been successful, hence why I suggested the RfA be suspended pending further investigation when the issue developed on November 8.

Normally, I'd agree that having an RfA nullifies ones' ability to simply ask for the tools back, especially when said discussion results in there being no clear consensus to (re-)promote. However, while I personally don't know if they're true or not, the allegations have yet to be proven. There is no consensus amongst checkusers that they are sockpuppets, or said consensus hasn't been announced and acted on if one exists, as if there was the Matthew account and very likely the Majorly one would be blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Without this consensus of those "with the information", Majorly should be afforded the assumption of good faith. Looking at this in hindsight, there is absolutely no way that a block on the Majorly and Matthew accounts would have stuck based solely on behavioural evidence, and I suspect the administrator who took any action like that would be desysopped. What we have is an inconclusive result of a checkuser investigation, insufficient evidence based on behavioural contributions, and the fact that Majorly should have a right to be treated in good faith.

So, we have an RfA which would otherwise have passed (see paragraph one) which was unfortunately derailed (with no intention of partitioning malice on anyone involved, especially Gmaxwell, because assuming good faith applies there also) by an unfortunate incident involving accusations of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry which inevitably wasn't endorsed by consensus (see paragraph two). I think these extraordinary circumstances should mean that the RfA be nullified when considering it in this situation. If Majorly was a run-of-the-mill candidate and a similar situation developed, I'm sure there would have been grounds for the RfA to be restarted without the input of those citing the checkuser evidence. The equivalent here is to ignore the result of the RfA, which was withdrawn and not failed (although this is, admittedly, less of an important distinction from where I sit compared to the other two points), and repromote as there is no doubt that Majorly resigned under non-controversial circumstances.

All-in-all, I support Majorly getting administrator access returned without an RfA, although given there is some dispute over it ( whether it is non-controversial is disputed), it may be a better idea to have a consensus of bureaucrats agree that this case falls under the speedy-repromote criteria rather than one bureaucrat acting on their own judgement.

See also: "Private discussion versus drama"

Respectfully, Daniel 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I previously stated that Majorly is welcome to resume adminship at any time (on his steward candidacy), and I intend to keep that promise. Input from other bureaucrats first would be ideal. --Deskana (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your, WJB's and Raul's assessments. — Dan | talk 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Majorly being granted the tools, having mistakingly opposed his RfA. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An observation: Since there seems to be some conflicting opinions among 'crats, I would absolutely recommend that in this particular case, a formal consensus check be carried out and consensus reached and stated as such. Normally the "one crat doesn't overturn what another one says" works great, but not this time. Given the (deplorable) edit warring over footnote applicability that was occurring on Wikipedia:Former administrators about this matter, I suspect that crystal clarity would be highly beneficial here. Further, perhaps the 'crats might want to review the footnotes being used on that page to see if they convey exactly what they ought to with as little ambiguity as possible. Note I personally express no opinion on which 'crats I agree with in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No someone just give him his bit back already. No need for all this fuss. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Were there not two revelations of sockpuppetry? One of which was rejected, but one of which was acknowledged. Though it's claimed that the use of the latter was "legitimate sockpuppetry" has this been investigated and determined to be the case? I do realize this is complicated by the circumstances under which it was revealed and unsure how this relates to whether or not the sockpuppetry was legitimate. I don't know how to discuss this without being vilified, and probably blocked, so I won't comment further until I have guidance from someone else on whether or not discussion of this topic is permissible. --JayHenry (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No more formal process is needed. This is one purpose for which the BN was set up for. We have participation of multiple crats in this thread, There is no quorum requirement, so no need to contact any inactive crats, and all the non-crat opinion is appreciated as well. NoSeptember 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't being specific enough. Do I have permission to discuss the second case of sockpuppetry or would doing so be considered a privacy violation? Is it illegitimate for an editor such as myself to discuss because of the circumstances under which it was revealed? Is it simply considered irrelevant to the case at hand. --JayHenry (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My reply above was to Lar. As for your question, not knowing the nature of your information, I'd suggest you email it to Raul654 and Deskana, who were previously involved as checkusers in this case, and they can advise you. NoSeptember 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no information that is not present in Wikipedia logs. Therefore I am unwilling to discuss anything in secret. I have made clear my concern and if discussion of the behavior of the acknowledged sockpuppet is verboten than so be it. I do feel that Majorly was treated unfairly by Gmaxwell and I'm unwilling to exacerbate that situation with secret memoranda. The best disinfectant for a dark and moldy room is never more darkness. Respectfully, --JayHenry (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Majorly announced his retirement from Wikipedia in September 2007. He continued to edit sporadically under Majorly, but at the same time, he was editing (RC patrol, mostly) under a legitimate sockpuppet account. He "retired" his sockpuppet, and returned to his normal level of editing as Majorly. The sockpuppet account was not controversial by any means, and Majorly did not violate any part of WP:SOCK. Majorly did not give up his tools under controversial circumstances, and his RfA would have surely passed, had the sockpuppetry accusations (from Gmaxwell) not been made. I know that some people have issues with Majorly's attitude, but if you examine his admin logs, you will see that he has never abused the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not feel that the sockpuppet was used completely within the bounds of WP:SOCK. Both participated at the RedirectCleanupBot RFA in which one left a support comment, and the other initially removed an oppose vote and mocked the opposer at a noticeboard. While the main account was still editing the other initiated an editor review that, considering the primary account was an active administrator, could be considered a sham. Both participated at WP:RFA and WT:RFA in September and October. Other than the one mentioned above they refrained from commenting on the same RFA, but significantly in my mind, both opposed attempts at reform on WT:RFA. In some of the sock's last edits it had a conversation with the main account. My main concern is that both were active in RFAs at the same time. I see no legitimate reason to have multiple accounts participating at RFA more or less simultaneously. --JayHenry (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(I should clarify that the comment removed from the RFA ultimately did turn out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user and it was correctly discounted.) --JayHenry (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't participate with my main account on the bot RFA, and I'm unsure where you think I did. I specifically made sure I didn't do things like that. I had intended to drop Majorly, but didn't, for reasons I don't know. It was wrong of me to continue editing with Majorly, but I made sure I didn't skew consensus in any way with my comments. Your last point about the conversation. It was a case of using the wrong account, and forgetting to log in. I admit that it was a mistake to use a sockpuppet, especially continuing to edit. I had wanted to start over and drop Majorly eventually, but never got round to it, hence the editor review, but that is a minor point really. However, I never double voted, or backed myself up with the other (with the exception of when I used the wrong account), so I believe I followed the policy perhaps not to the letter, but in spirit. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems I did. But I never actually left a comment there, so it's minor in my view. Majorly (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting rather protracted now, but as I was just looking at it myself, here is your edit Whitstable (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Diff. I'm willing to accept that this was a relatively harmless lapse. If the higher-ups have no concerns then I'm not going to push this any more. I have no axe to grind, and I think you were a good admin. --JayHenry (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I struck my above comment. I supported with Majorly, and with my other account I removed a trolling comment from a SPA. I personally don't see it as a problem. What would be a problem is if I had supported with both, or voted with both, or left comments with both. But since I only did with Majorly, I personally think it's not a problem. Whatever the case, it's extremely minor in the long run of things. As I said above, I never abused my admin tools, and that is what this is all about. Majorly (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Before it happens I'd like politely ask that no one to mention my other account's name. Everyone who needs to know knows already, and I'd rather it wasn't revealed here. Thanks in advance. Majorly (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno

While I personally have no opinion on whether User:Majorly should be trusted with the tools, this discussion seems a bit hazy.

While I personally think we should allow bureaucrats the leeway to use "administrative discretion" (or, if wanted, "bureaucrat consensus"), that hasn't been the general consensus in the past (the carnildo controversy, for example).

I also think that it's been contentious as to whether an admin who has given up their tools, and subsequently gone through a (presumably needless) RfA, may still be granted the tools after that RfA fails or is withdrawn.

So, as the header says, I dunno... Though it seems to me that any action outside a new RfA would be controversial at the very least.

With all that in mind, perhaps Majorly should just consider going through a new RfA to spare the community the disruption? I dunno. It's a judgement call, and one where I'm not sure any answer is "right". - jc37 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the only controversy involved here (and the reason for the RfA being withdrawn) was a statement that has been proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt, to be false (and the RfA was passing until the false information was presented, which tainted the RfA). I consider the matter to be muddied only by irrelevant details, and would consider yet another reconfirmation RfA to be more "disruptive" than just giving him the bit back. My two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i know

Someone press the button, more no more process is required here. I don't think it will set precedent. Mercury 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you mistype and mean "no more process"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I typed fast. Mercury 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit restored

Pursuant to my previous comment (that the RFA should have and would have passed, had it not been for Gmaxwell's allegations which later turned out to be unfounded, and thus is null and void) and to the discussion here, I have restored Majorly's admin bit. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Raul. I'll take all concerns from above into account, and from my RFA also, and will hopefully make me a better admin, and editor. Regards, Majorly (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent decision, Raul654. Acalamari 04:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fine choice. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.