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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:55:19 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Self noms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

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

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

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

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

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

Three things, related to the above RFA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion: Suspend or extend discussion

See also: User talk:Gmaxwell § Majorly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majorly can not possibly be Matthew. I was with him on 9 June at the Manchester wiki-meetup, so how was Majorly supposed to make all these edits ([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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is who may use CheckUser on Wikipedia[23] I don't see GMaxwell listed, as if that is not bad enough he gives Majorly's IP out on his RFA page and then now it looks like he has made huge mistake and Majorly is inocent anyway - he should not have been doing the check at all. This is one very good reasom why the CheckUser should be confined to tried and trusted users. Giano 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was Raul654 [24].--chaser - t 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where we stand

As far as I can see, Gmaxwell stands by his allegation and continues to assert that his evidence is strong (as recently as this edit), while Raul finds the connection tenuous [25]. Majorly's RFA is at present withdrawn. In pursuit of some resolution, I suggest that those with checkuser permissions (on either en.wiki or commons) who have participated in this business, and perhaps one or two who have not, discuss their findings privately on IRC or by some other medium, so as to be sure they are all looking at the same data. I have no doubt that the contradictions thus far between Greg's and Raul's conclusions result from some misunderstanding or asymmetry of data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore access

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acceptance of nomination withdrawn

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

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