Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

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	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Numberguy6	0	0	0	0	Open	01:36, 1 June 2024	5 days	no	report

It is 00:50:30 on May 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Greenman RfA

Main page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman

At the discussion on DQ's talk page about the close of Greenman's RfA, one crat (Xeno) has said a crat chat would have been beneficial, and one crat (DQ, the closer) has said consensus was clear enough. Would any other crats like to weigh in? DQ indicated this would be a better forum than her talk page. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 04:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC) (!voted support)

(continuation to talk page discussion) Of course, the other side to all the concerns raised at DQ's talk page is that at least some opposes (like me) wouldn't have bothered voting there towards the end as the curve looked nowhere near reaching 65% by closing time, and there was no good reason to further pile on opposes on a productive editor's RFA which is only NOT YET, not not ever. The RFA had a healthy amount of opposes with solid reasons from experienced editors in very good standing. If an RFA is likely to be routinely IARed down to 60 or 50% for whatever reason, what's the 65% cutoff about. If there's opposes to be struck, do so before it closes, but the merit of unstruck opposes is to be discussed at BuChat, not in the discussion of whether to start a BuChat itself. Is that not so? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a hard cutoff, this was confirmed in the recent RfC on the topic. And I wouldn’t say that opposes needed to be struck, but they did need to be evaluated and weighted based on (among other things,) whether they had a strong basis in policy and guidelines and provided evidence to back up their position. Upon being asked to provide examples of controversial edits that violated the COI policy, those participants remained silent. It’s not clear that DeltaQuad performed such an analysis, and certainly having a bureaucrat discussion would have ensured that a transparent and collaborative examination of this nature could occur. Failing that, DeltaQuad should provide a detailed closing rationale, which I’ve asked them to do so. –xeno^talk 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that Xeno has opened this door, even though I opposed, I agree that the rationales accusing Greenman of dodgy paid editing were poorly supported, unfounded even.

@Usedtobecool: Only clearly invalid votes on RfAs (e.g. votes from sockpuppets or duplicates) need to be struck. Bureaucrats have the discretion to "attribute less weight" using some unspecified methodology to rationales which they consider to contain less substance. Back in the day people used to say "RfA is not a vote" but that mantra is something I have always been extremely skeptical about because I think it was engineered to enable gaming of the system, anyway... the threshold, which is now 65%, has never been a solid red line but a fuzzy one which allows a bit of leeway, so 61% with a "rising trend" towards the end of the RfA is a reasonable situation for a crat chat IMO. (But this user is not a bureaucrat and does not wish to be one) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I was also bemused by DeltaQuad's decision to close without a crat chat. The community very clearly decided recently that RfAs are not straight votes, but consensus building exercises like any other. This one was unusual in that a large number of opposes cited a COI issue that IMHO does not stand up to scrutiny. Does anyone seriously think correcting sourced factual errors about your own employer is harming the Wiki, or that just leaving known errors in place would be a better choice than fixing them? Because that's all the "COI" was. It didn't cross any lines into subjective wording choices or adding opinions to the article, which shows that the candidate understands what they should and shouldn't do. Opposers were challenged on this point and failed to give further evidence that the candidate had done anything harmful. In any other venue, a thoughtful closer would have given less weight to those, and that may well have resulted in a consensus to promote. I'm sure DQ acted in good faith etc, but their decision to bypass the crat chat, and their decision to simply rely on a vote count, was wrong,particularly given that a former another crat has queried the close above as well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the circumstances this looks like a hasty, impetuous and ill-judged close by a newish 'crat keen to press the close buttons for the (first?) time. It might not be overreach - certainly over zealous. "I closed it after I was up for the day" looks like excuse making. DeltaQuad should consider their future participation in obvious close calls. This just looks bad. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm stunned by the level of bad faith that is being extended to DeltaQuad here. There are suggestions that she has closed the RfA early, that she was somehow involved after stating that she did not see a need for an extention. May I remind people that the role of the bureaucrat is simply to weigh the consensus of the RfA. There is no requirement for a 'crat chat if the closing 'crat can see a clear consensus. What's more, a WP:CRATCHAT is not a formal process (as in, we just have an information page to give us an idea on how to do it), the answer is not binding. By putting these sorts of requirements in we are simply making RfA more of a big deal than it already is. The discretionary range is down to 65% and there is a statement on WP:RfA that almost all RfAs below 65% will fail. It's not unreasonable to ask DQ for an explanation of her thinking, she has given that on her talk page, and I am satisfied with that response. Worm^TT(talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not evoke bad faith here. There is clearly enough genuine concern expressed by very experienced members of the community. You swinging by and sprinkling your magic Arbcom dust after the year you have had won't wash with me. This was at best a dubious and rushed decision. These elected office holders are accountable - please allow that to happen without YOU assuming bad faith. In my case it's not so much about bad faith - it's about no faith at all. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, Magic Arbcom dust? You do make me chuckle. I am a crat and was commenting as such, but glad to know I'm quite so typecast. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, If the cap fits. You are keen to cast aspersions on the likes of me despite it being as plain as day here that any 'crat choice other than the immediate, undocumented close of no consensus was likely to be provocative. We don't want 'crats behaving in a way that creates controversy when a more measured approach would ameliorate the situation. It is not bad faith to point out that other, calmer, considered options existed, including allowing it to run a bit longer to assess the swing taking place. When you turn up you carry a lot of authority. It is a shame where that authority is clearly slanted towards a fellow long term functionary. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That was an extraordinarily presumptuous and bad-faith series of accusations you've made toward DeltaQuad. Other people may have expressed genuine concern, but nearly the entirety of what you've said, with perhaps the exception of "This just looks bad", would be better off struck. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I was the one who suggested that Amanda closed the RfA early. That was based on the timestamp of the nominator which (at least on my browser) reads as "12:12 pm, 5 October 2019" while Amanda's close is time stamped as "9:56 pm, 12 October 2019". Looking at the edit history this appears to be the result of a technical error by the nominator in setting up the RfA. As regards the appearance of involvement - yes, I still think that a 'Crat who has given an opinion on a point in a RfA is not best placed to be the one to make a final decision on that point. I don't see that as an assumption of bad faith - I see it as a discussion point. These points have been discussed directly with Amanda on her talkpage, and I am satisfied with her response, and that she has provided a rationale on the RfA. My take on assuming bad faith is when someone implies motives behind an action which are not evident. I don't see how asking for clarity, or disagreeing over valid points can be bad faith - but if you look over my comments again and find I have implied inappropriate motives, I will strike them and apologise to Amanda. SilkTork (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, At the point that I wrote my comment about bad faith, the discussion was in a different place. You and Amanda have discussed things reasonably, as have most participants after my comment - I don't think there's anything left to be concerned about. If I felt there was, I would be taking it up with individuals on their talk page, as is my wont Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• This was an unusual RFA and an interesting call for a crat. There aren't many RFAs that drop below 50% mid way then rally and end at 60%. Personally I think the direction in which a discussion is going is important, and that there would be a case for a Crat to convene a cratchat for an RFA that was below the discretionary zone, but clearly heading in that direction. However I'm not seeing this rally as being strong enough to justify both a cratchat and eventually a controversial pass. So even though I was in the Support column, I think this was a sensible call by DQ, and hope that the candidate comes back early next year for a less contentious RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Opinion by a supporter) As far as I can tell, we've never determined that crat chats are mandatory for every contested/marginal RfA, although there has been discussion in the past on the topic (e.g Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34#Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe). And if we did neither Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship say anything to that effect. Now I'd probably have put in a closing statement had I been the closing bureaucrat but it's not really an unreasonable conclusion that that RfA had no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• From what I have seen before, some bureaucrats would put the closure on hold before writing a detailed closing rationale in a contentious RfA. This is what should have been done here, as even though the closure was within discretionary call, the sensible move (given there is a controversial precedent not so long ago) would have been to provide a detailed rationale on how the community consensus was assessed and weighed by the closing bureaucrat prior to closing the RfA, not afterwards after being challenged by several editors. This would have saved everyone time and stress. Whether or not ‘crat chat was necessary is not precisely the main point here I think, but I think the concern should be on whether or not a bureaucrat should be closing contentious RfAs with absolutely no rationale; if that was the mindset, then we probably should be talking about that. Alex Shih (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's pretty clear that this RfA ended in no consensus to promote. If we're now talking about bureaucrats consigning a large number of opposes to the shredder just because they disagree with them, why not just have bureaucrats decide the outcome without even having an RfA? That, at least, would prevent RfA participants from getting the mistaken impression that their views count for anything. I opposed this RfA, but not for CoI reasons-- I don't actually agree with those particular opposes but do recognise that it's a view someone can legitimately hold. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  The community clearly decided, in a recent RFC, that RFAs are WP:NOTAVOTE. That means that opposes should in some cases be given less weight, not because the crats "disagree with them" but where, as with any other on-wiki discussion, it's deemed that the !votes are based on a dubious reading of policy. Now in this case it seems like the policy on gnomish edits to pages where one has a COI is not well-defined, and we should probably have an RFC to decide that - if only so that the matter is put to bed before Greenman's next run at RFA... but you're wrong to say that crats should never give some !votes less weight than others.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Look, we're not talking about troll opposes here. If the opposes in question were, "prima facie power hunger" or "we have too many admins" or "this candidate has edited articles I find uninteresting" then I would agree with you. What we're talking about here is pre-empting the result of that CoI discussion you mentioned. I don't think the crats have that much discretion to toss RfA !votes out. Reyk _YO! 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• As a (no extra bits) supporter at the RFA, I want to endorse DQ's close, and emit a pained shriek of exasperation at this community's increasing tendency to back seat drive and criticize the decisions of those we have chosen to make decisions with discretion (crats for consensus determination, arbcom for solving intractable conduct issues). And while certainly many of those criticisms taken individually are well-intentioned and without bad faith, there are some that are most definitely bad faith (one loud, vocal case above), and the combined effect is one of community bad faith towards decisionmakers, and deleterious on both those who we want to make the decisions, as well as on run-of-the-mill users who hesitate to become full-fledged members of such a fractious community.

As far as this RFA: there were strongly held opinions on both sides, generally (not 100%) discussed sensibly. The COI issue did appear to generate a shift to oppose at first (with <50% cumulative S:O part way through), and then somewhat fade away as many people felt it was less serious. But not all, and in the last few days, new !votes were S:O only about 2:1, with significant if minority opposition continuing due to both this issue and numerous others. I write this since it is very hard to see under what theory anyone could have found consensus to promote, except by discounting an issue and all opposes related to it altogether.

Finally, bureaucrat chats are optional, when bureaucrats feel the opinions of their peers are helpful to divine consensus. They are not there to presyndicate possibly contentious or potentially unpopular decisions or provide some sort of "united front" to a divided community. DQ was acting well within her discretion to decide a crat chat was not necessary in this instance. She has responded sensibly to questions; perhaps she could have hewed closer to tradition in presenting her rationale immediately while closing in the RFA close statement, but that is neither here nor there, and the argument can be made that the numbers themselves presented the rationale, with merely an implied statement that while the RFA was somewhat contentious, there was nothing special enough about it to warrant extensive discussion beyond the recognition that there was an absence of consensus to promote. Martinp (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Opinion by a supporter) I don't think DQ did anything wrong at all. I'd still support a crat chat because the numbers were trending upward and there were multiple opposes that might have been given less weight if crats had assessed them. It's quite possible that in the end, those wouldn't be enough to swing it to consensus for support, but it would probably be useful for the community to see the assessment. --valereee (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Opinion by am opposer) - Tbh I endorse DQs closure which I believe was correct - There was no consensus to promote, and Extending the RFA for one would mean they'd have to be extended for others which shouldn't happen. –Davey2010^Talk 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Can I just point out a major flaw in the “movement” argument: it was well below the discretionary range for a while, so people just stopped commenting oppose so as to not be jerks. This happens when RfAs are significantly in the “not passing” range. I think the volume of votes (intentionally leaving the ! off) is significant here, as it’s one of the lowest number of supports in years. You’d have to go pre-watchlist notice to find an RdA passing with 104 supports, and bares out the theory that people kinda just ignored this because it was in the red.
  All that to say: a crat chat below the discretionary range has to be an extraordinary event, and I don’t see that here. Just because some people don’t like some oppose rationales doesn’t mean a crat should have a discussion over whether or not to ignore them. DQ closed this correctly, and I was still a supporter at the end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  It’s not that people “don’t like some opposes”, it’s that most of those opposes remained completely unsubstantiated even when asked to do so. –xeno^talk 13:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I stand by my wording: you don’t like the opposes, so you want to discount them. You’re a crat, so the community says you have the right to do that, but the idea of “policy based arguments” and the like in an RfA is a bad argument used when people don’t like consensus. People only argue “not a vote” when they’re on the losing side, both in RfAs and any other discussion. The outcome here was so obvious that any crat who closed it otherwise would have been transparently putting their view of what should have happened over the view of the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I never said to discount them. I felt they needed to be given due consideration and appropriately weighted according to whether they have an evidentiary basis and grounding in the actual policy as it exists. DeltaQuad says they did that, and I’m willing to accept that, while still being of the belief that the community would have been better served by this going to a bureaucrat discussion. Also I’ve never said that this RfA should have been closed as successful or “taken a side”, simply that it should have been given^{would have benefited from} a more rigorous examination by multiple parties, for several reasons including to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There is no guarantee that I would have found for consensus if it went to a bureaucrat discussion. You seem to be of the mind that it’s a straight up vote (misapplication of policy be damned), the community has already confirmed that it’s not. –xeno^talk 14:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC) ^{Correct rushed wording choice, with apologies to DQ. –xenotalk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)}

  A crat chat in these circumstances would be a bureaucrat saying they know more than the rest of the community and that they think crats should consider disregarding votes because they don’t like that a substantial portion of the community has a different interpretation of policies and guidelines than they do. It would have been inappropriate to say the least. Not a vote has never meant that closers get to pick which policy interpretation they think is right, which is what you’re arguing. If this was one or two people arguing a crazy interpretation that would be one thing, but it wasn’t. This was a substantial body saying they viewed guidelines differently than you. In any discussion, a closer who wishes to throw those votes out should just vote rather than close. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I’m of the belief that a substantial amount of those claiming a violation of the COI policy didn’t actually look at the candidate’s edits to the article in question. This was borne out by the fact that no one, even when asked, could point to a single edit that actually violated the COI policy. –xeno^talk 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I respect that, and actually agree with it to some degree. The correct place for you to raise those concerns is as a participant in the RfA, not as a bureaucrat. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I raised it multiple times, and was met with either silence or the individual shifting their position to a different rationale. Unsubstantiated positions should be weighted accordingly, this is enmeshed in the consensus process. –xeno^talk 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  That makes the argument against a crat chat stronger: people raised it, and most opposers weren’t convinced to change. You have one reading of the guideline and others think it’s much stronger than you. That’s a fair disagreement, but it’s a good faith disagreement on how strictly a policy should be enforced. Crats have no business deciding who is right in those circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  It’s not about being “right” or “wrong”; even with the “strict” application, one should still back up their position with actual evidence, else the argument remains weak. –xeno^talk 14:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I view it differently, and don’t think we’re going to agree. Thank you for engaging, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm surprised to see this argument coming from you of all people, Tony. You yourself were victim of one of the worst aspersions pile-ons I've ever seen when you requested CU/OS permissions, and despite the notable level of opposition, Arbcom very pointedly ignored all of it in appointing you anyway. That's because the accusations were unsubstantiated. Due weight was given to the opposition. From my perspective, this RfA was no different than that. There was a serious allegation, resulting in a pile-on of opposition, but despite strenuous efforts to find anything substantiating the allegations, nothing was found. I find it hard to believe that you think such opposes should just be taken at face value. Any random non-admin closer would be expected to recognize and acknowledge these situations when they encounter them, it's an important part of our consensus-based system that sets it apart from mere mob rule. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Swarm, I don’t think my argument is that aspersions should count. It’s that people can read the same series of events in a different way, and that generally we should give deference to people in how they read things. For some, the editing of an article without disclosing a COI is an issue, even if the content itself isn’t harmful. Others don’t view it as such, and I think that is a legitimate disagreement where two people can view the same edits differently and come to different conclusions, all in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have no problem with the opposers who had a problem that he didn't disclose a financial COI as he was technically required to, that's a valid reason. However the bulk of opposition was not for that, but for vague allegations of "COI editing" following Lourdes's first oppose. These opposers did not articulate that they were concerned with that minor aspect of WP:PAID (that an editor must disclose being an employee of an article subject). They simply opposed per "COI concerns", and could not articulate further when asked. There was no evidence that the edits were actually biased, in violation of COI policy, or any sort of existence of a real COI. Just the pure technicality that the editor has a COI automatically (because they have a job). Usually you can't even accuse someone of having a COI without evidence, even though we all have them. But the fact that this particular COI has to be disclosed, which the editor complied with, resulted in a pile-on of vague accusations of wrongdoing where none (apparently) exist. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: There is evidence. The fact that opposers' understanding of where the line is drawn for financial COI edits doesn't match your very specific interpretation of the guideline is not a reason to discard our opinion. Nor are we obligated to answer all your questions for our votes to count. Really, this is a very worrying mindset for a crat. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I’m not sure where I wrote any vote would be discarded. However if I can’t be sure that the participant had done an actual review of the candidates edits, then my concern is that people are piling on without adequate diligence. All they were asked to do was point out the edits they found problematic. If they pointed out some of those incredibly boring version edits, then I’d say “okay, they feel the COI policy prohibits those edits” and take it at face value. All I’m looking for is for evidence to be presented; I understand your feeling is ^{some feel} that evidence is not always important to be presented to the body public - I don’t feel that way. –xeno^talk 17:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)^{02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)}

  I understand your feeling is that evidence is not always important Excuse me, this is completely misrepresenting what I said. I hope you'll find that my RfA votes are always substantiated, perhaps more so than average. In this case, Lourdes presented diffs. As far as I'm aware the facts of the COI wasn't disputed by anyone. The question was its significance – a legitimate point of disagreement. Again, neither I nor anyone else is obligated to reiterate our point until you are personally satisfied that we are not "piling on". Absence evidence to the contrary, that should be taken on good faith.

  While you have your crat hat on, this attitude of dismissing arguments because you find them flawed has echoes of the RexxS fiasco and strikes me as a slippery slope. Yes, RfA votes should have some basis, but ultimately the process is asking us for an opinion about a candidate's suitability. Expecting an exhaustive factual dossier is unreasonable. Probably if someone tried it they would (rightly) come across as hypercritical. There's also the question of how evenly this scrutiny is applied. In this case, it's an oppose argument you obviously strongly disagreement with personally. What about opposes for more run-of-the-mill reasons, "not enough AIV reports", etc.? Or the supports? Rarely do we see anyone badgered to substantiate exactly why they think someone is "not a jerk, has a clue". – Joe (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: I'm not dismissing any arguments, though I do think we have a different approach to bureaucratship. It's not simply straight up-and-down vote counting on any opinion whatsoever (cf.). Rational arguments backed with evidence will always carry more weight. You'll note in my bureaucrat discussion history that I have also down-weighted 'bare supports', and in the immediate discussion you can see me asking supporters to substantiate their position as well. As we see below, there were no diffs provided. Not that it matters, but my "from the hip" estimation is that I would have also had difficulty finding consensus given that most of the COI-based opposes were down to the failure to disclose onwiki rather than controversial COI edits per se, but that's just a guess - I did not have the opportunity to do a deep dive, and that's okay. I'm allowed to have a different opinion on the best closure path for an RfA, that doesn't mean DQ was wrong.

  Please note I did find above an unintended wording choice that I have amended with this edit. My apologies to DeltaQuad for the rushed edit there: I blame the tryptophan - Happy Thanksgiving! –xeno^talk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  ← Joe Roe: could you show me where the diffs were presented? I must have missed it. –xeno^talk 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  [1]. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe that diff is an edit to their user page that appears to enhance the candidate’s compliance with policy. Were there any article diffs presented? –xeno^talk,

  The article linked by Lourdes in the same question contain numerous edits by Greenman in their immediate history. Again, nobody in the RfA disputed that Greenman had edited subjects he had a financial COI with, the issue was only whether they crossed the line. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  So we’re in agreement that no diffs were presented? Okay. –xeno^talk 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Except the diff in the diff that I just linked. Are you calling me out for using the plural here, or...? – Joe (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: what I meant is that we're in agreement that no specific mainspace diffs of concern were presented. You've linked me to a diff that shows an edit to a user page. –xeno^talk 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's worrying to see an Arbitrator defend aspersions and condescend those speaking out against them. That's what's worrying. Being able to differentiate between evidence-based commentary and aspersions is a very basic expectation for anyone tasked with assessing consensus, so it's unsurprising a crat would be concerned with an apparent failure to do so. There is not evidence, that's the whole point. Looking at the RfA itself, people who claimed to have actually reviewed the edits in question said they found nothing controversial, while COI opposers were repeatedly asked to demonstrate otherwise and none could. Not a single diff was produced. This isn't about esoteric interpretation of policy. Being an employee is inherently classified as a financial COI. That's something we all have. The policy is very simple in only allowing uncontentious edits where a financial COI exists. In other words, in terms of our own standards, no one could actually demonstrate that there was a problem, and yet everyone was claiming there was. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  These points were all raised and responded to at the RfA by Lourdes and others (and on my talk page, to put some context into why I'm "defending" the "aspersioners" here). If someone doesn't explicitly say "yes I've read this latest round of oppose-badgering and no I haven't changed my mind" it doesn't necessarily mean their opinion is fact-free. – Joe (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any responses by you, Lourdes, or anyone else that even tries to substantiate the allegation of what Lourdes described as "COI editing". In fact, per your own words, you were not opposing because there was any actual problem, you were opposing because of the mere existence of a "financial COI". In this case, the "financial COI" was merely the editor having a job. Having an automatic COI just because you have a job is not actually any sort of violation of policy, thus it's not a valid reason to oppose a candidate by our own standards. There's literally nothing wrong with it, by our own standards. If you arbitrarily decide in your mind that that's a problem, that's fine, but it's not policy based, and weight of arguments is literally judged relative to how policy-based they are. Being an employee and thus having an inherent "financial COI" is obviously not the same as being a "paid editor". You said, basically, "we don't know that they're not a paid editor", which is the same thing as saying "they might be a paid editor", which, without evidence, is an aspersion. You cast aspersions, failed to prove any non-compliance with policy, and then have the audacity to belittle a highly experienced crat who questions how your and other opposes were weighted. That's just wrong on so many levels. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Having a job + regularly editing your employer's article. You're missing a key part of the equation. Nobody wants to read an encyclopaedia article maintained by its subject. If there's one thing I've taken from this RfA, it's that a shocking number of otherwise experienced admins apparently haven't read the COI policy. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia... COI editors should not edit affected articles directly. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  ← Speak for yourself. I’d rather an article be kept factually up to date by an employee of the company editing of their own volition than an out of date article. You understand the word “discouraged” has a meaning, right? It does not say “prohibited”. The policy goes on to say that COI editors may make uncontroversial edits. So the onus would be upon those indicating they felt the editor made controversial edits to actually provide differential evidence of same. –xeno^talk 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe, as a developer, I think the edits ought to be uncontroversial. The version history of a database is impossible to represent in a non-neutral way. However, I think version history updates aren't one of the six types of edits listed at WP:COIU, so I would interpret that section to say that the edits should have been on the talk page instead. On the other hand, IAR, I guess? Any one of us would've made the same edits in the same way. I think the only reason they're controversial is that Greenman made them.

  Which makes me ask this: when we judge if an edit is controversial (in the context of COIU), do we also consider the identity of the person who would make it? "Yes" results in a more expansive definition, and I think it's one of the points of disagreement here. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it isn't in the list. There's also the fact that editors with a financial COI are specifically excluded from WP:COIU. Or consider the scenario where a few people go inactive and version numbers go stale across database articles. Except for MariaDB, which has an employee diligently keeping them updated – the same employee that writes the release notes he cites in those edits. Now readers get the impression that MariaDB is more up-to-date than its competitors. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it shows why uncontroversial should be narrowly understood in the context of COI editing. – Joe (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: I think we can agree that there are substantial disagreements as to how the COI policy should apply in this circumstance - just as you are questioning my interpretation, I am questioning your interpretation. That being said, it's not really a topic for BN and we should probably pick it up at WT:COI. I've more to say on it and significantly disagree with your position (e.g. COIU is a permissive, not a prohibitive section), but again - wrong venue. –xeno^talk 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I did not partcipate in the RfA.

1) On keeping the RfA open: There is no consensus standard for that, so it is left to the discretion of Amanda.

2) On holding Crat Chat: there is no consensus standard for that, so it is left to the discretion of Amanda; what's not left to the discretion of Amanda is the discretionary range itself.

3) On COI, I think any argument that the candidate was WP:PAID must be rejected as without known foundation in fact. But and nonetheless, current WP:COI guideline does counsel that interest disclosure "should" (WP:DISCLOSE) be made at the time of the edits, for any type of edits to the affected article. I have not gone back to see what the COI guideline was when Greenman started doing the editing, and I take it he thinks he did sufficiently disclose and only did noming edits, but even so, that seems too much for crats to dismiss concern completely (eg. why was explicit user page disclosure only done in 2019?). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support DQ's close, would have supported a crat chat too, agree totally with Tony, and would also like to add that the said edits were not PAID; however, if any edit (yes, any edit) by a CoI editor is challenged by anyone, however trivial the edit may be, it is taken to be a controversial edit – and this is as per current guidelines ("If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit."). And in this case, as Tony says, it's not a handful of such editors – so to simply wish away the opposes, however unreasonable you may believe they are, would be a supervote. Lourdes 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• In 2015 the community expanded the RfA discretionary range to 65–75%. The admin policy sets the expectation that almost all RfAs below 65% support will fail. This RfA was at ~61% during the closing. To even get it up to the lowest level of the discretionary range 10 opposition !votes would have needed to be completely discarded. If given more time, 19 more support votes without any more oppose votes would have been needed to even get it up to 65%. "Crat Chats" are never mandatory, and restarting or extended an RfA is a very exceptional measure that would need some very exceptional reason presented (this is more of a safety valve condition). I don't see that such an exceptional situation was in place for this discussion. As an aside, I'd like to draw attention to the ire we receive when RfA's are not promptly closed (e.g. this one from last year). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Noting for completeness, at the same time the community expanded discretion, the community explicitly rejected expanding discretion down to 60%.[2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  (Opinion by an supporter) 10 opposition !votes would have needed to be completely discarded ... true, but I count more than 10 !votes based entirely on the aspersion of PAID editing (not COI, but PAID). After discarding the PAID aspersion !votes, it's well into discretionary range. – Levivich 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Opinion by an opposer) This was a good close. Don't forget to discard or discount the seven or so "moral supports" in any calculus, which pushes the !vote results even lower below the discretionary range. Many valid issues beyond COI were expressed in the oppose column. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, that there are votes of different weights on both sides. I guess I would have liked a crat chat to discuss those, or barring that, a detailed closing rationale. One of the benefits is that it'll educate RfA voters about how their votes are interpreted by closing crats. (One of the reasons I like crat chats is that you get the opinion of multiple crats instead of just one.) – Levivich 17:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DQ has now posted a detailed closing rationale. I'm not seeing the issue here. There's no argument to be made by any stretch that a consensus to promote exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad ought to have posted a more detailed rationale, but that's about all she did wrong; I don't see any reasonable weighting that would push this deep into the discretionary range. There are throwaway !votes in both sections. RFA is a consensus-building exercise, yes. Opposition and support needs to be weighted, yes. That doesn't imply all the !votes you don't like can be thrown out; the question is only whether the !voter has provided (or identified) policy-based evidence for their opinion, not whether that opinion is valid. Furthermore; any attempt to extend the RFA, or to incorporate temporal trends in support into evaluating the outcome, would be moving into extremely dangerous territory. RFA is already a difficult environment. We shouldn't make it worse by giving editors a reason to tactically delay !voting (do folks realize this would encourage everyone to !vote at the last possible minute? Or worse, to !vote one way, and then switch at the last possible minute?). Nor should we extend the duration of what candidates have to endure; close RFAs are already difficult enough for candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think closing this directly and without the extra couple days suspense of a crat chat was the right call. While I supported the candidate, I agree there was nothing close to a consensus to promote, and the well-attended oppose section had several valid points. Crat chats shouldn't be used if the outcome is clear. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Note: I supported) As Vanamonde93 has so cogently explained above, sticking to bureaucratic procedures is a good thing because it brings certainty into a process and makes it harder to game the system. Still, something good has probably come from the pushback against this close - hopefully we'll see more rationales posted along with RfA closes when the close is somewhere within "crat chat" range. Though I !voted support, I don't see how this could have passed, but a nice summary of positive and negative comments is useful for the candidate if they plan to go through the process again at a later date. --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, what is crat chat territory? Crat chats are "used only as a last resort mechanism", though the current resysop RfC might change that. Crat chats are distinct from the crat discretionary zone, which any individual crat could close but normally (perhaps always since the RfC that changed the zone) goes to a crat chat. In this case this was BELOW the discretionary zone which doesn't mean it's impossible to end up passing (see RexxS) but suggests it would be truly extraordinary. I see no policy basis that suggests that between 60-80 (as presumably some range above the discretionary zone would also call for one) needs a crat chat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I was going to add a "whatever that means" to the "crat chat range" and should have done so. I meant, whatever looks like, fuzzily speaking, might need a crat chat rather than the discretionary range since we don't have a well defined rule for when a crat chat is required. Not that I'm saying this one needed a crat chat (I, unequivocally, don't think it did), but there were enough comments indicating that some editors thought so and therefore a closing rationale would have been a good idea. Ideally, of course, every good faith RfA deserves a closing summary of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just for greater certainty, now that DQ has posted a detailed closing rationale, I support their closure (though not necessarily ‘endorse’, as I’ve commented to DQ directly). –xeno^talk 19:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, despite this I have to tell you that your actions here are why I am have become more skeptical of individual crat action (as opposed to crats reaching good decisions as a group). I can find nothing that Amanda did that fell outside of policy and, as I noted above, crat chats are supposed to be "used only as a last resort" according to our information page. Yet rather than just noting that you think a detailed close was called for "only" on her talk page, you choose to call into question Amanda's actions and the strength of oppose editors (voters) statements. I want a bureaucrats that act conservatively in their application of policy not attempting to contort policy because they disagree with people's opinions or to otherwise achieve a "desired" outcome. I try to be very respectful of when people have to make decisions and think that the legitimacy of all crats was slightly undermined here and that is, on the whole, something I think makes the project worse off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I wouldn’t have gone it alone here anyway. Not sure how it’s “contorting policy” to ask or expect editors to substantiate the claims that another editor has violated policy (it’s considered casting aspersions to accuse someone of violating a policy without evidence). Also: I had no ‘desired’ outcome but for the candidate to receive a fair and measured result with a detailed rationale for their benefit, which has now happened. –xeno^talk 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Contort policy is perhaps too strong for saying on Amanda's page, in what appears to be an official capacity that, "I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion." because, as you posted here, "It’s not a hard cutoff". This second sentence is true. Also true is that CRATCHATs are not demanded for any closing let alone one that falls outside the discretionary range. So I reaffirm that your actions were not the conservative use of policy that I would hope individual crats would engage in and serve to collectively harm rather than help crats as a group, but will also acknowledge that contorting policy goes too far in the opposite direction in characterizing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you’ve completely lost me. I offered my opinion as requested by another user while confirming that DQ’s close was within policy. Feel free to drop by my talk page and we can hash it out further. –xeno^talk 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I continued the discussion at Xeno's talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (in response to Special:Diff/921122300): I think there has been a miscommunication - ^{except for the unintended word choice corrected in this edit} I don't believe I ever said DQ was wrong in their closing, or that a bureaucrat discussion was required (and I say both of those things in the edit you've cited). I am allowed to have a different opinion as to the appropriate closure path for any given RfA than any given colleague. DQ was able to divine the consensus without going to a bureaucrat discussion while I was not so sure that having one bureaucrat "go it alone" was the best course here. That doesn't mean DQ's decision to close without sending it to a discussion was wrong or against bureaucrat procedure, but I was curious if they had considered doing so. Bureaucrats are "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request" (WP:BUR). My opening question to them was mainly to seek such an explanation about their consideration of closure paths and tease out DQ's summation of what I perceived to be the major turning point of the RfA, since it did not have the benefit from a wider examination on the merits. I was a bit surprised that a closing rationale had not been provided, and I think in future DQ will probably take the time to include one on knife's edge RfX's which is a positive. Personally, although I often engage as a bureaucrat during the RfA, I don't seek to divine the consensus on a potentially contentious RfA until after the timer expires - it appears the DQ's approach is different - but entirely reasonable and justified if they were following the discussion edit-by-edit and had already taken the appropriate steps to determine consensus. If I had decided I was able to close this RfA on my own, my approach would have been to put the 'on hold' wrapper on it while I went back over the entire discussion de novo (to mitigate potential bias) and composed a detailed rationale. DQ is a relatively new bureaucrat, and my goal was to gain an understanding of their thought processes both in approach and in the consensus evaluation, and I'm satisfied with DQ's approach and response following the addition of the detailed rationale even if I would have not personally taken the same approach, as reasonable minds can differ on this and DQ clearly felt more confident going it alone than I did. Bureaucrat discussions are never required if the closing bureaucrat feels they can determine the consensus without convening a bureaucrat discussion. I do consider it a best practice to include a detailed closing rationale both for the benefit of the participants and the candidate.

DeltaQuad did nothing wrong. Hopefully this helps clear things up. Feel free to follow up for further clarification. –xeno^talk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just throwing in my two cents here: This was an interesting case of an RFA zigging and zagging, but the reasons why are almost certainly as follows:

• lots of support at first as candidate seems pretty great
• then the COI thing comes up and a number of users find it compelling, RFA swings hard into negative territory
• Outcome seems obvious, so users decide to invoke the "mercy rule" and not pile on, while others add "moral support" which basically means "I think you could pass at some point but not right now."
• For whatever reason the RFA rallies back in the other direction right at the end, but it isn't enough to put it in the discretionary range

Add all of that up and I also think it's pretty clear what the consensus was. I'm sure DQ will be more thoughtful about adding a detailed rationale in the future, but there isn't a real case to be made for a crat chat or any sort of special treatment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have never observed this "mercy rule" phenomenon people are speaking of, nor have I ever heard it described before. RfA is a dynamic discussion, and the way it trends is directly influenced by the points being made in the discussion. These trends are always directly influenced by thoughtful, logical endorsements or opposes. They don't play out arbitrarily or randomly. An RfA that tanks suddenly is indicative of a pile on, which is something that happens when a very serious issue is discovered (not the case here), or when someone makes an appeal to fear and causes a panic. We see these hysteria episodes often when BLP, copyright, and, you guessed it, paid or COI editing is invoked. An RfA that tanks suddenly and then continues trending upward is indicative of such an episode which was stopped. Those who were piling on could not actually explain why they were piling on. People scrutinized the allegations and found nothing of note. People saw that play out, and stopped piling on. Cooler heads prevailed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I for one absolutely have refrained from putting an oppose in for a nomination that I knew wasn't going to succeed. Reyk _YO! 20:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I feel like we used hear it called the mercy rule more often maybe 10-2 years ago, and it was also used as a reason to close RFAs and other discussions early, but now NOTNOW or SNOW are used instead. It might've helped if it were written down, but as far as I can tell it never was. I also would like to point out that a significant number of opposers had additional reason besides the apparent COI, or like myself had entirely different reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• DQ did nothing wrong. I concur with Martinp's assessment above. GAB^gab 20:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sadly I have to support the close: but like Swarm, I believe the piling on was ridiculous. Also despite all efforts no malfeasance was found. I hope the candidate comes back after healing their ego. I was in the support column and so I hoped for a different result, but I cannot fault DQ's close. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I switched from oppose to support during the RfA; however pretty much nobody else did. I saw the support rising during the last 24 hours of the RfA, but also the oppose rising. The conclusion I reach is that the community cannot agree on whether Greenman should be an administrator at this time, and discussion on it is divisive. Hence I endorse the close as given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: Just for the record, I support Amanda's close. While she could have called for a 'crat chat, that is never a requirement. Yes, perhaps another 'crat would have called for one, but Amanda is the one who closed it, and I see no flaw in her evaluation of the discussion. You can't please all the people all the time, especially on Wikipedia. Her decision was well within policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

break

For those hunting for the stats on the MariaDB editing:

Greenman edits to MariaDB

• here
• nearly all edits revolve around the version information (I noticed one (proper) removal of a disputed tag)

top edited pages (MariaDB is 5th)

• here

article stats

• 59.9% edits Greenman: - next highest is 8+%
• 15% by text size: (3rd highest)
• here

make of it what you will. — Ched (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

current article stats

• 2,158 characters of the current entry, or 9.4%. [3]

I presume this is because they often update version numbers, thereby deleting characters they themselves had added before. For info, adding references sends the character-count through the roof. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've only recently become aware of this handy gizmo that helps track voting patterns at RFA. May be of some interest to parties int eh above discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  (Aha, I don't have to plug it myself!) Yeah, I would say the percentage sort of looks like it was leveling off in the final 24 hours, even with the people applying the mercy rule (and thus suppressing potential opposes) as Tony was suggesting. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  ​The gizmo must be surely AI driven. It doesn't show my !vote and name. Lourdes 05:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Lourdes, if I had to guess I would say it is because you put your timestamp inside of your signature, which likely throws off the bot. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yup, I expect that markup will cause lots of problem for bot time-scraping. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request return of admin rights (GB fan)

Resolved

GB fan (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I am requesting my admin rights back. I requested they be removed in June 2019. ~ GB fan 12:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Everything seems to be in order here, standard self-requested removal ~4 months ago, last admin actions ~4 months ago. There is a standard 24-hour hold on restoration requests to allow for commentary. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Done, welcome back. –xeno^talk 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request return of admin rights (GB fan) (discussion)

• Of course, there were other, non-admin actions since then, were there not? This episode, for instance, where GB fan edited logged out in order to make a point, and was advised aganst it by both Iridescent and Bonadea. ——SerialNumber54129 13:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't log out to make a point. I was logged out and made an edit and then was reverted without comment. I then logged back in to ask a question if it would have been reverted without comment if I had done the edit logged in but never got an answer. ~ GB fan 13:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• SN or GB fan: Could you point me to the ANI thread mentioned at the TH discussion? Thank you, –xeno^talk 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC) I see it was a hypothetical thread, I misread. –xeno^talk 14:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  As far as I know there was never any ANI thread. ~ GB fan 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed: you made this edit logged out, no problem whatsoever. But you then made [4][5] to make a point, and in the knowledge that you were logged out to do so. You were advised by Iridescent not to do so. You then filed at the Teahouse where, not only did no one agree with you, but you were informed by an independent editor that you had become a "pest". Yes, your attempts at gaslighting (by continually repeating the mantra of whether you would have been reverted, etc) have been noted, but your persistent refusal to acknowledge that you did anything wrong or that your behaviour was in any way problematic leaves much to be desired in a so-called administrator. Even one that is logged out. ——SerialNumber54129 13:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: If you mean this reference to ANI, I hadn't filed, I was answering GB fan's question what would you have done if I had logged into my account and made the same edit (i.e., that if he'd edit-warren at JW's talk like that logged-in, that was what would have happened), although only hypothetically. Incidentally, it indicates that although GBf is even now claiming that this never got an answer to that question...he clearly did. Gaslighting or disingenuity, the difference may not be that relevenat by now I'm afraid. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I found that to be an interesting exercise in WP:BITE, and the avoidance of answering GB's actual question (if he had made that initial edit with his logged in account, would you still have misused rollback to revert it without an explanation?) while throwing around terms such as "gaslighting" and "disingenuity" also interesting. Fish+Karate 14:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Rollback was neither used nor abused, and and I have pointed out above, I did answer his question. I find your agreeability with such behaviour being becoming an admin equally interesting. ——SerialNumber54129 14:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Rollback, undo, semantics. Where did I say, or even imply, such behaviour was becoming of an admin? Fish+Karate 14:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So you don't condone logged-out edit warring? Excellent news. As I have said, the issue was not with the first logged out edit: it was the subsequent reversion against multiple advice. ——SerialNumber54129 14:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So where did you answer the question "would you have reverted the original edit without explanation if I had done it with my logged in account?" I have never seen an aswer to that specific question. ~ GB fan 14:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I have never gotten an answer if you would have reverted my original edit without an explanation if I had done it originally from this account rather than origanlly logged out. I didn't originally ask my question in the right way and got an answer that wasn't really about what I was really asking.I still believe the edit is helpful but I wouldn't do it again because I have gotten explanations. I was never making any point other than trying to get you to explain why you were reverting the edit. I wasn't in the right and neither were you. We were both obstinate about it. ~ GB fan 14:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you had admitted that at the time, GB fan, so doubtless would I! ——SerialNumber54129 14:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

- Regardless of the "tit-for-tat" discussion, I'd be surprised if any crats found any "weather" to be considered in the request. — Ched (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to write a similar thing. Serial Number 54129, I don't see anything here that you have brought up that would preclude a resysop. Everyone does dumb things from time to time, and while I haven't done the most thorough look, there does not appear anything that would approach anything sanctionable. At this point, frankly it looks like you had a dispute a few months ago and you're using a thread here as an excuse to throw some mud. Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the aspersions Maxim, thank you. This is precisely the point at which such issues need to be discussed, and I am ambivalent as to consequence. As far as I am concerned, GB fan having now admitted that he was both obstinate and (quote) "not in the right" (i.e., wrong) is a satisfactory conclusion, as we can consider him to have adjusted his behaviour accordingly. I never considered it egregious enough to demand his head for—and indeed, who has?—but to suggest that, ergo, it should not be mentioned at all is foolishness, to say the least. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's not egregious enough to demand his head, why pick up the stick in the first place? The purpose of a thread like this is to determine if there is something that should preclude an automatic resysop. And by admitting that you "never considered it egregious enough to demand his head", you're reinforcing my comment that it appears you are throwing mud. Maxim_(talk) 14:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't; others might. Perhaps you would deny the possibility of discussion. Please do not oversimplify my remarks, or otherwise misquote me, which I will assume was accidental. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request return of admin rights (general discussion regarding scope of consideration)

Maxim, I think it's a reasonable concern to raise. Undisclosed alternate accounts are not to be used in internal project space discussions. If it's an isolated incident, then it might not preclude restoration but to suggest it not be raised for consideration? Inviting comments as to the suitability of the request is the main reason for the hold period. –xeno^talk 15:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, to me the purpose of such a thread is to help bureaucrats determine whether there is a reason to preclude resysoping. We're not here to do RfA-lite. I don't find the thread particularly helpful, especially as the original comments suggested a much bigger issue than there really is/was. I get the angle of mentioning something just in case, but in all honesty, nearly everything past 13:16 UTC today here makes everyone look bad, myself included... Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From a strict reading of WP:RESYSOP, it doesn't seem to me that even if a former admin's edits (post de-sysop) would result in sanctions of some kind, that that would be relevant in restoring the admin's bit. That is to say, if an admin doesn't "resign under a cloud" but instead "resigns and later creates a cloud" that former admin would still be eligible for re-sysop (barring lengthy activity and compromised accounts, of course). Item number four of WP:RESYSOP notes the 24-hour period for checking/discussing, but my interpretation of that has been that it was for checking/discussing if a cloud existed at the time of resignation. Do other bureaucrats have the same interpretation? Useight (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So hypothetically, an administrator hands in their tools, and behaves poorly on a wide scale (but doesn’t get Arbcom or community restricted from resysop), they could successfully request restoration? [A commenter might not know the whole scale, do we want to discourage commenters?] –xeno^talk 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That was my interpretation, yes. That, for example, technically speaking, that even if the former administrator (who resigned without a cloud) went around vandalizing, 3RR, or whatever, and got blocked for 24 hours, this former administrator would still be qualified to get the tools back upon request (as long as we could confirm that the account wasn't compromised and there was no lengthy inactivity). Common sense would suggest IAR depending on the egregiousness of the former administrator's behavior, but I don't like to IAR in my bureaucrat position, and my understanding is that there isn't supposed to be a subjective line like "behaved too poorly to qualify for resysop" within the scope of the bureaucrats. I was asking if other bureaucrats interpreted the existing mandate for resysop the same - behavior post-desysop is not to be considered within the scope of "under a cloud." Useight (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In such a case, extending the hold period and seeking clarification from the committee would be prudent. –xeno^talk 16:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The episode occurred after the resignation of admin flag. This means that the resignation was not in any way under a cloud, and the restoration of the flag is the only option. The crats are not elected to reject the flag restoration except for a situation when the candidate resigned under a cloud, or if the candidate lost a flag for inactivity and fails the criteria. After the flag restoration, if someone wants, they can open an ANI discussion, and, if the conclusion of the discussion is that the behavior of the administrator is unbecoming, file an ArbCom request.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There is another option, which would be asking arbitration for a temporary injunction which has been done before. But I didn’t suggest at any point that restoration should not proceed. Merely that the concern itself is not outside the realm of consideration. –xeno^talk 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• A discussion about whether someone's behavior after resignation of the tools could lead to a refusal to resysop would be interesting and useful, but perhaps it should occur elsewhere? I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks it applies to GB fan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Added section break, thank you. –xeno^talk 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with GB fan, but I'm really dismayed at the discouragement people bringing up concerns here gets. SN brought up a concern, I assume because they wanted to make sure there weren't a dozen such concerns out there that others had been reluctant to bring up because of the probable pushback on their right to do so. If someone has a concern about the possible appropriateness of resysopping, we should be thanking them for bringing that concern up, even if ultimately we decide it's not a barrier to resysopping, not scolding them for bringing it up. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  To discourage bringing concerns forward seems dangerous, as even what may seem like a minor issue may reveal wider-reaching issues that would require attention of another body (no one is suggesting bureaucrats should act as arbitrators). –xeno^talk 13:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)