Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	1
BRFAs	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Significa liberdade	162	31	10	84	Open	22:18, 21 September 2024	2 hours	no	report

It is 20:16:44 on September 21, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([1][2][3] [4] [5] [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • "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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]