Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Gracenotes

Closed as withdrawn by bureaucrat by Cecropia 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) due to an inability to determine consensus based on the information available at this RfA and the candidate's desire to not renew or extend the RfA at this time.

For more information, see this page's talk page, The Bureaucrat chat on closing this RfA and the the talk page for discussion of proposed resolutions of this RfA.

Nomination was suspended for bureaucrat action by Cecropia 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) at (201/71/4); Original end time 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes (talk · contribs) - I am honoured at being able to nominate Gracenotes for adminship. Since he joined in September 2005, he has gained over 11,000 edits, although he only really became active in October 2006. His edits are firmly spread across a wide range of namspaces, with nearly 1,500 of those being in wikipedia space. Some may argue Gracenotes is the parser king with his excellent template work, the mop would help perfect all those protected templates. His MediaWiki talk space edits show he has a firm understanding of how wikipedia works (how many people can say they actually have any MediaWiki space edits?!). He is active at the help desk showing that he assumes good faith and steps in to help all those users that have problems. He's got very good contributions to XfD's and I think Grace's home will be closing those neglected TfD's. His mainspace contributions show that he has a firm understands of our inclusion criteria/guidlines and would be quite capable of enforcing policy when required. On top of all that - he's a nice guy! I really hope you can help me give Gracenotes the mop - he will be more than an asset to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Snowolf: Nothing unusual, just I wanted to nominate Gracenotes but Ryan did it before me ;-). As always, I think that we can trust this user with a couple of extra buttons ;-)Good luck! «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs): It was just in fact a few days ago that I asked why Gracenotes did not want to nominated for adminship. I mean, from what I saw, he was better qualified than most of our admins were when they went up for adminship. As Ryan stated, Gracenotes has a thorough knowledge of the inner workings of the Wikipedia interface, and he definitely can be an asset in editing MediaWiki pages. As for admin chores, one can easily see that Gracenotes will be very helpful at closing TfDs, granting/denying RFPP requests and handling AIV requests. Gracenotes has the experience that we look for in our candidates, and he surely demonstrates a need for the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept. Gracenotes^T § 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I prefigure that most of my admin work will be maintenance: for example, deleting broken redirects and temporary user pages, looking for high-risk templates that need protection or semi-protection, reviewing Special:Protectedpages for pages for which unprotection is overdue, several other janitorial tasks, and essentially whatever comes my way. I plan on going through CAT:CSD, and helping fellow Prometheuses with the task of clearing it out. :) Fulfilling or declining protected edit requests, seeing if administrator intervention against vandalism is needed, and responding to requests for page protection are things I'd be excited to do. I also plan on continuing my non-admin wikignoming, template work, et cetera. Gracenotes^T §

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My general attitude regarding contributing to Wikipedia is helping where assistance or improvement is needed, and then looking for more places to help when I'm done or when I feel that other editors can handle the problem without me. My contributions to mainspace are mostly wikignomish in nature, but I am nonetheless proud of them. I am particularly fond of the early development of 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (diff, diff), wikifying, and expanding several articles. I'm also a copyeditor: for example, see Zaireeka, Maine Summer Youth Music, Red rain in Kerala, Einstein-de Haas effect, just to mention a few. I also work to ensure compliance, trying to keep Wikipedia connected with other WMF projects, and formatting refs. All of this is pretty minor, but there's a lot of it, and I feel as though I've overall made Wikipedia more useful and complete as an encyclopedia.

Another area of my contribution is the template namespace. I thoroughly enjoy trying to get templates to work with ParserFunctions: for example, {{Template shortcut}} {{User warning set}}, {{Infobox World Series}} (most recently), and {{Infobox School}}, among others. More importantly, I am a member of the user warning project, where I've had the opportunity to create, modify, and otherwise improve the templates that Wikipedia's vandal-fighters use every day.

And last but not least, I help clean up vandalism. Certainly not least: I believe that, by volume, I have more vandal reversions and user warnings than any other sort of edit. Maintaining the integrity of our articles is, I believe, very important (although less important than writing them), both for quality-related and legal reasons. I've written a couple of scripts that I've used to (well, I hope I've used them to) improve Wikipedia, including this one for reverting vandalism. Gracenotes^T §

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Most of my work is improvement, and I tend to dislike wikipolitics, so, as the Scottish RFA puts it, I don't often "feel that ither uisers hae caused ye pain". I do remember my first conflict, over my 6th edit (thankfully not indicative of future interactions with editors); a record of the discussion can be found at Talk:Newton#More Newton Definition Things. I do attend TFD debates often, and can get into disputes about whether templates should be kept or not. However, both at TFD and in general, I try to keep discussion logical and based upon improving content and reaching consensus (preferably, though, the consensus I want :]), not on other users' faults or strengths. I usually only become wikistressed by observing wonkery, a subjective phenomenon. However, I do not see that often, and have neither reason nor desire to recall such actions or hold grudges against those that did them. Gracenotes^T §

4 (additional question from SlimVirgin):

Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Certainly. I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia.

I came to view the proposed WP:BADSITES as an extension of our policy on No Personal Attacks, as several others did. Personal attacks are restricted on Wikipedia, but not on other websites, where nonconstructive criticism has no consequences. (This can be compared to Wikipedia, where action can be taken upon personal attacks.) If posting a link to an attack site is intended, in any way, to be a personal attack in itself, then Wikipedians may wish to rephrase or remove their comments. If the issue brought up by the attack site is valid, surely Wikipedians can discuss it on-wiki.

In the discussion at WT:BADSITES, I thought it unhelpful for editors to either add or remove links merely to make a point; I was also frustrated by the enforcing of a proposed policy for cases without a clear personal attack.

To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...) Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith. Both adding and removing links should be justified by logic, and not by enforcement merely for the sake of enforcement (something I see way too much in real life). Temperance, rather than prohibition, is the best route. (There has not been an amendment enforcing morality since the 18th, and for good reason.)

To conclude, it is an interesting fact that (to my knowledge) MeatballWiki has no articles on dealing with external sites of criticism. Wikis are meant to be their own self-sufficient world, taking care of their own problems, not meant to be in the real world. However, Wikipedia no longer has that option: the recognition of this is helpful in dealing with such sites. Now, if these comments seem without focus, it is because the issue has many, many facets. Hopefully I've explained my views on the facets you're interested in. Gracenotes^T §

Perhaps I should re-outline, but without awkwardly interpolated rationale (which seems to muck up the clarity.) Here goes: I think that Wikipedia could do better without criticism sites, and that valid criticisms should be covered on-wiki. However, now that attack sites exist, it is quixotic to ignore them completely. I discourage (that is, do not support) the introduction of links to criticism sites, but removing any link at all should only be done according to the degree to which these conditions are met: 1. If the act of adding the link could be considered a personal attack. 2. If the link contains personal information (that is not common knowledge) revealed against the subject's will; this may require oversight 3. If the removal of the link will cause more controversy (and produce more "oxygen") than keeping it. That's all. Gracenotes^T § 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

4a (clarifying question from Geogre:

For the record, I'm not thrilled with those links being part of WP:NPA, but your answer above conjured a situation where links to attacking/non-encyclopedic sites were made in good faith. Can you think of an example where such an addition has been made, or can you describe a hypothetical where such a link could be made in a way that it adds to encyclopedic coverage? I have not followed all the debates on the subject, and I would imagine some of the voters have not, either, so an example would really help. Geogre 11:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope Geogre won't mind if I jump in here. Any example should be either hypothetical or given without details that would violate someone's privacy. My stalker's website, with his sexual fantasies about me, his references to parts of my body, his speculation about my menstrual cycle, and various other personal (including contact) details for me and members of my family (some accurate, some not) was taken down after a year of severe real-life stalking in which people other than myself got (badly) hurt, and after the stalker was arrested by police. But to use my case as a hypothetical one, if that site were still up (and yes, it did have some pages that weren't of a stalking nature), it would be completely inappropriate to post a diff here of someone linking to it, in order to discuss when links might be appropriate or inappropriate, as that would simply be a continuation of the violation of me. We had an RfA a few months ago in which the candidate repeatedly named a website so that voters could find it and see if he had been right to link to it previously, as he was getting oppose votes as a result of his previous linking to it. The site that he was naming gave the real name (or what may be the real name) of a Wikipedian who was trying to remain anonymous (and had various attacks on Wikipedians), and the RfA had to be deleted and partially restored. Musical Linguist 11:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Musical Linguist, with all due respect, I don't know if your comment here belongs underneath of a question intended for an RfA candidate. Moreover, the ordeal you went through sounds horrific, but note that I have learned more about your incident from you than any other source on the internet. daveh4h 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I don't think Musical Linguist's concern is that you shouldn't find out what happened to her; her concern was simply that it happened. The point is that editors who have been stalked and harassed need to know that admins will protect victims of that kind of behavior, and not increase the readership of the attackers' websites by linking to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, SlimVirgin. Dave, I assure you I'm capable of thinking this through. For over a year, I never posted publicly about this, partly because I knew that people could become curious and start looking for my stalker's site, but mainly because everything I posted was being tracked, and I would be likely to get a gloating, sexually sadistic e-mail about my post, with a copy to my superior, and perhaps even a copy to the media. After more than a year, and knowing that the man has been arrested (though not over his harassment of me), I have started speaking out, mainly because I don't want other people to go through what I went through. And I will say that the greatest distress caused to me by Wikipedians other than this sexual predator came from administrators (a very, very small number) who were callous and unsympathetic, and who didn't think his posts should be reverted or that pages should be semi-protected to prevent him posting about me. Musical Linguist 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Geogre, the example that comes to mind is where encyclopedic coverage is needed. If, through a bored reporter or two, Encyclopedia Dramatica became notable enough for an article (with reliable sources), we'll make one. It is our custom to link to websites in the infobox. I'm interested in building an encyclopedia, and think that we should exercise caution in censoring these links out of mainspace (an activity some have suggested below).

To digress, I do believe strongly in the right to anonymity: it is a right that everyone should have (and I am grieved that Musical Linguist lost it), and it is one that should not be defaced by abuse thereof. As Milan Kundera said, "curtain-rippers are criminals" (although there are counter-examples, e.g. Nixon). Thus, instead of keeping all links, sensitivity should be applied. Completely removing all such links can lend itself to abuse in enforcement. (The appropriateness of Kelly's Martin blog is how much you like Kelly Martin; the concept of an "attack site" can be a means to an end.)

Kelly Martin criticizes; she doesn't defame, she doesn't out people, she doesn't stalk them or encourage others to do so. There's no comparison. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The point that I was proving is that enforcing WP:BADSITES can be a matter of subjectivity, depending on the person enforcing it. Gracenotes^T §

Actually, yes she does, if we use the definition of defame as to harm the reputation of someone through false statements, which she does do off-wiki. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not have to face this years ago. Though I adhere to it, the WikiWay is dying, and in this brave new world, no one found the time to mourn for it. I am not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites; if needed, others may do that. I protect Wikipedians by advocating them if I believe they need help; I support Wikipedians by sharing with them knowledge of MediaWiki and Wikipedia policies; I respect Wikipedians in argument. But ask me to censor in murky situations, and I may not be able to help you. Not everyone can be both a lover and a fighter: thankfully, the admin work I plan on doing does not involve much of the latter. Gracenotes^T §

4b Followup from Will Beback

I see you call the removal of links to attack sites "censorship". How would you characterize the removal of IRC logs? There's no Meatball page prohibiting their posting. How are they different? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the removal of links can't not be censorship. Censoring isn't always bad: it's merely removing content that is deemed morally objectionable, just as the ancient Roman censors did. Removing links to pages wherein stalkers describe their sexual fantasies about a victim, and oversighting the edits, is more than fine, because that sort of behavior is morally appalling (and, though I am not sure, possibly illegal).

The posting of logs has less to do with moral problems. May I take this quote from Milan Kundera? "But one day in 1970 or 1971, with the intent to discredit Prochazka, the [Russian] police began to broadcast these conversations as a radio serial." Here, the conversation refers to private conversation between Prochazka and a friend during the Prague String. Kundera does on to note that in private, "a person says all sorts of things, [some parts of the list removed, not to extend fair use too much], makes a companion laugh by shocking him with outrageous talk, floats heretical ideas he'd never admit in public, and so forth." Unlike Wikipedia, IRC is not meant to be an Akashic record: while discussion often does not get as dirty as Kundera describes, people often spout their feelings about an issue into an IRC channel, realizing "that we act different in private than in public is everyone's most conspicuous experience." Now, in Wikipedia IRC channels specifically, people often repeat or delineate exactly how they feel about issues on-wiki. Just to make sure that we aren't invading any traces of this social contract, however, it seems to be a courtesy to ask someone if they want to release IRC conversation into some sort of Akashic record, like Wikipedia. Licensing under GFDL is irrevocable, and only the author should be able to do that. Gracenotes^T §

Thanks for your reply. The concept of Akashic record appears a bit too esoteric to be relevant here. Getting back to the heart of the matter, would you object to links to IRC logs posted elsewhere? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about the Akashic record; I only meant to draw a comparison (very vaguely related to the WikiNow|WikiNow, ignore the meatball link!). Linking to logs should be discouraged, as they contain data that can easily be forged, and also provide a means to circumvent the "social contract" mentioned above. To continue the the thoughts of Kundera, "Thus only gradually did people realize (though their rage was all the greater) that the real scandal was not Prochazka's daring talk but the rape of his life". Such logs, and links to them, should be regarded with sensitivity. Links to logs that give away the IP addresses of Wikipedians should be avoided, because such is against our privacy policy. But, for example, this should be fine. Overall, it's a complex issue, and removings should be handled on a case-by-case basis; if you want something specific, please ask it. Gracenotes^T § 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

5 (additional question from SlimVirgin):

Sorry if this has been answered already, GN, but can you explain why you redirected your user page to Gurch's a couple of weeks ago? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A It's an inside joke; when I accidentally got a message he was supposed to receive, we reverted it. Gracenotes^T §

Can you say more about what you mean? It looks a bit odd, and I don't know what "we reverted it" means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it "odd"? Gracenotes^T §

What does "we reverted it" mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Communicating over IRC, Gurch and I decided it wasn't the best idea after this. The redirects were certainly not meant to be permanent. As an admin, accountable for blocks and needed for similar communication, such a redirect would be unacceptable. But I wasn't an admin. Gracenotes^T § 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Simply south

6 Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Simply south 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A If by "not proud" you mean ashamed, I don't feel ashamed that often. Most of my contributions are committed without review or comment by fellow editors, as a wikignome, and I do what I feel is needed or desirable for improving or maintaining Wikipedia, according to policy, guidelines, and encyclopedic value.

Now, one thing that pains me somewhat is the article Flat Earth. It's a good article, and I tried to improve it by gathering references. I looked for sources on the internet, took out books from the library. I wanted to essentially do a complete rewrite. However, I never quite got to do it, since I found myself unable to reconcile the good content that was/is there with my ideal for how the article could be. I like working with small or faulty articles and building/improving them—maintaining large good articles is somewhat of a weak point for me.

Of course, I have made stupid mistakes here and there, none of which I feel particularly proud: for example, this :) Common sense must have escaped me. From that, I learned to check the page history when tagging an article for speedy deletion, and to refer to what I know in making decisions. If I don't feel proud of an edit, there's usually a reason why, and usually I can learn from it. Gracenotes^T §

7 (from SlimVirgin)

Could you say something, please, about your bot use? I can see that you're using one, and it's obvious from your edit count (nearly 5,000 edits in May alone), but I always thought bots had to be registered as separate accounts, or else had to be used quite slowly. Yours seems to make edits very fast, yet it doesn't have its own account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Contrary to your assumption, I have approved every single edit that I have ever made. The only major scripts that I have used are for anti-vandalism and tagging redirects. As for cleaning up vandalism, that can be a necessary evil: surely you don't expect me to leave vandalism once I find it! As for tagging redirects, all of the edits were manually initiated, and I reviewed the content of each page before making the edit. If no one remarked anything about it until you, that's a good indication that I didn't "flood" recent changes. On a technical note, it may also ease your mind that a developer has commented, "I would have no problem with edit rates on the order of 100 per minute" for scripts that check lag, as mine did. Hardly all of my edits are script-assisted: my edit count is mostly a result of hard work and long hours :) Gracenotes^T §

I'm not talking about fighting vandalism, but about very low-priority edits such as these. These artifically inflate your edit count, so can you say why you're not using a separate account for them? Also, are you saying you sat for five hours doing nothing but hit a button hundreds of times to make these changes — and doesn't this kind of editing affect server speed for other users, which is in part why bot approval is needed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Artificially inflate my edit count? Why, is my edit count remotely useful even if I don't inflate it?

Now, The edits may have been "trivial", but if I didn't tag them, who would do it? Shall we be satisfied to have an incomplete category when it could be comprehensive? I saw a neglected job to do, boldly completed it with no server problems; no one complained, someone complimented me, so I moved on. That's how Wikipedia works. Gracenotes^T § 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying you sat there for five hours doing nothing but press a button hundreds of times?

As for edit count, you've made 5,700 edits to the encyclopedia, and most of your edits were made this month. [2] If thousands of these were bot or bot-like edits, that's clearly relevant. The number of talk page edits is illustrative: only 343 to article talk, but 5,700 to articles? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed less than 2335 redirects; this means that a more than 3428 of my mainspace have been vandal reversion, article improvement, or an insignificant amount of mistakes (mentioned in Q6). As a wikignome, I do not often participate in talk page discussions (although the number of discussions is not trivial): just fix it and go. No use wasting time discussing the fixing of typos.

Yes, I did sit there for some time (with breaks, of course) and, going through dozens of pages of api.php and a simple script, tag with {{r from shortcut}} every redirect that did not have the template. I gave consideration to every edit. None of my contributions are bot edits, and I have spend hours crafting some of the semi-automated scripts that I've used. Gracenotes^T § 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

8 (from Jakew)

I understand that you 'don't often "feel that ither uisers hae caused ye pain"', but I wonder whether you could discuss "interesting" interactions which you've had with with other editors? I'd be particularly interested in situations in which you've found it necessary to refer to and discuss the application of Wikipedia policy. Diffs would be greatly appreciated! Jakew 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A: The most recent debate that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations (discussing consensus, scope). I contended that the pages were out of the scope of Wikipedia: similar to what I did here, except the latter was not controversial. I felt that certain image templates inhibited free content. This was essentially my thesis. In this debate, I tried to apply some of our behavioral policies (vote). A number of editors (including myself) expressed discontent about the template, so when the debate ended as no consensus, I tried to take everyone's concerns into consideration. A slow content war followed after that, which I was not involved in.

At this TFD, I made several arguments based both on censorship and utility. That debate was not that heated, however. This was an interesting conversation about NPOV and utility. I was also somewhat involved in the AACS key controversy controversy. For example, this comment about the encyclopedic value of the decimal respresentation. Also see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Essjay Issue for an interaction with a Wikipedia outsider about Essjay. If you need more, I'd be glad to provide it. Gracenotes^T § 22:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from LessHeard vanU

9 Are you aware that not responding to specific requests is sometimes a means of not escalating situations, and that adminship sometimes requires only stating policy and then proceding on that basis? Are you able to withdraw from a discussion, once you have exhausted all options, and allow matters to then progress to a conclusion (within application of appropriate policy)? LessHeard vanU 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A: I'll answer your question as a whole, rather than in parts. I accepted the nomination for adminship because I wanted to help clear some of backlogs that most contributors wouldn't give a second thought to. Some take for granted what goes into keeping our site organized. As a sign of good faith, I will make myself less visible here. I'm weary of trying to prove my integrity, and it's having the opposite effect (due, in part, to some creative assumptions). I always thought that the ideal RFA would be an honest conversation, lacking disingenuous politics, between the candidate and the masses. Adieu. Gracenotes^T § 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "ideal RfA" is an oxymoron – Gurch 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ssbohio

10 I'm impressed with your dedication to making the small but crucial improvements which often are overlooked in building this project. On that basis, having admin powers would be of clear benefit to the project. That said, I'm concerned about situations where you might become narrowly focused. Such focus is admirable when reverting vandalism or tagging articles, but not so much when hammering out consensus, as in this MfD (here & here). None of this is intended to detract from the thousands of edits you've made which are, in sum, a great contribution. Specifically, if (as appears to me) a small (even insignificant) matter in userspace can't be let go, I would have modest concern over what would happen once you get the extra buttons. As relates to my concerns, how do you feel about administrators being open to recall? Would you commit to being recallable? Why or why not? --Ssbohio 12:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Although sometimes I disagree with this notion, Wikipedians should follow consensus, not policy. This is hard for me in AFD debates, when people vote to keep or delete an article against guidelines to the contrary. (For example, there is a minor character in a fictional work, and there appears to be no reason to not merge). But, consensus is consensus. In the MFD, the nomination was a malformed WP:POINT: the better solution, perhaps, would have been to remove the orange bar and leave the page be. However, I decided that the page may as well go, partially in response to the nominator (maybe not the best idea).

If others viewing this RFA would feel reassured by it (although I'm more of the bold-discuss-revert type than bold-revert-discuss, and have no history of edit warring that I can recall), I could add myself to the category of admins open to recall. However, I would prefer that other editors in conflict with me seek other means of dispute resolution first. Gracenotes^T §

Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)

11. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A: I'm not as familiar with this debate as I'd like to be, given that it's one of the Big Things that the Wikipedia community is currently discussing. If you require me to form an opinion, I weakly oppose the inclusion of spoiler templates. They strike me as unencyclopedic, in that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should be expected to be a compendium of human knowledge, including "spoiling" content. Usability is an important issue, but (to draw a comparison) Sparknotes does not have spoiler warnings, as far as I am aware. People go to Sparknotes because they want an objective, straight-forward summary of a book. I imagine that people go to Wikipedia for the same thing. Once they get to the "plot" of an article, there should be no reason why they wouldn't expect to understand the full plot. The same logic applies for articles about a character.

I am also sympathetic towards the position that spoiler templates should only be included only if there is a really key plot twist, but only a compromise, if absolutely no other consensus on the issue can be reached. (Once again, I am unfamiliar with the issue; if I have assumed something incorrectly, please correct me.) Gracenotes^T §

Optional question from Clayoquot (talk · contribs)

12. Under what circumstances would you unblock a user who had been blocked by another administrator? Kla'quot 00:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A: The only circumstance under which I would unblock a user who had been blocked by another administrator is if I disagreed with the block. But I am quite aware that wheel warring is an extremely nonconstructive activity, and would try to discuss the issue with the blocking admin first. If the blocking admin were away, or if I felt that I needed community input on the matter, I would make a post to the admin's incident noticeboard. I would likely overturn a block without asking the blocking admin if it were maintenance (that is, removing an autoblock on a widely shared IP and reinstating it as a regular block), or if the admin blocking had gone crazy (that is, blocked Jimbo, etc.) I would contact the blocking admin in other cases: for example, I might disagree with a username block, or I might note that the admin was involved in a content dispute with the blocked user prior to blocking, etc. Gracenotes^T § 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs)

13. Concerns have been raised about your position on "attack sites" such as Wikipedia Review, which you have described as a "mixed bag" before withdrawing the remark as "hasty." You joined Wikipedia Review in March and posted there through May. I was wondering if you could share with us why you post there, what you feel your bring to the table at that site and how you feel your Wikipedia Review posting and membership enhances your qualifications as an administrator of Wikipedia. Do you believe other Wikipedians should join Wikipedia Review, as you have, and, if so, why?--Mantanmoreland 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out something here raised on the talk page also – should Gracenotes choose to answer, the uninvolved voter cannot draw much conclusion from this without actually seeing the posts in question. This is exactly the sort of situation in which a link to a page on an "attack site" would not be a personal attack at all, but actually helpful in determining whether to trust the candidate – Gurch 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'd be happy to email to anyone interested a link to GN's posts on WR.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. So openly offering to email links to attack sites to anyone is accepted, while opposition to a rejected policy about dealing with them is not? Am I missing something here? Has everyone really lost the capability for rational thought? – Gurch 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear from Gracenotes on this question and then we can carry on in Talk.--Mantanmoreland 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A: You may not know it, but I am a big fan of MediaWiki software. Sure, it does have its pitfalls, but it nonetheless it continues to fascinate me. I originally registered for the Wikipedia Review to answer a question about oversight, which is an extension to MediaWiki written by Brion. Then, I made a couple of trivial comments here and there: you'll see that I didn't make any essentially useful points. I hardly feel like even a minute part of their community. I was not as familiar with the WR when I had signed up for it. Now, I am more dubious of their intentions, although some valid (if not bitter) criticisms are provided there (if you don't believe me, please email me about the issue). I hope you appreciate my honesty in answering this optional question; I will appreciate your good faith in replying to my answer. Gracenotes^T § 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you want a reply I'll give it - I belong to the "sack of shit" school of thought when it comes to WR, and I am aghast you find it to be the mixed bag with "valid (if not bitter) criticisms" there. So ends my good faith reply.--Mantanmoreland 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But a sack of shit has its uses... as fertilizer for instance.  :-) Now, I'm one of those who has blasted that site pretty seriously, calling them "Wiki Whiners". But I still agree with Gracenotes that valid criticisms do occasionally show up there, though usually expressed in an obnoxious way. One shouldn't shut one's mind totally to potentially useful input from any source. *Dan T.* 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As a site, I wish it didn't exist, and that all discussion about Wikipedia should happen on-wiki. I think that Wikipedia is overall hurt by having discussion about Wikipedia off-wiki. I have withdrawn my "mixed bag" comment, and still do not defend it, for this very reason. However, if you wish, I can email you a link to a single post containing a valid criticism of Wikipedia. Gracenotes^T § 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, dang, what about that really great poster who brought truth and light to those ignorant schmucks over there at WR? He seemed like a well-adjusted, sensitive individual and a really nice guy! I think Fred Bauder has also shown some light over there as well, and say what you will about the Essjay controversy, WR broke it.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to kind of disagree with the idea that all Wikipedia-related discussion should only be on Wikipedia... I think every organization and community needs an independent discussion place that's not controlled by the power structure, rules, policies, and taboos of the main community... this can prove valuable in cases where the community imposes some ill-advised restriction and squelches discussion of it. Now, I wish there were such a forum that didn't have the obnoxious tone of that one, but I'll have to take what I can get. *Dan T.* 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with shit is that when it hits the fan

As far as I can tell, Gracenotes has never linked to an "attack" site. You have. That makes it a little hard to take you seriously when you say he's "detached from reality and totally lacking in empathy." Frise 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

*That strikes me as distinctly unfair, Frise, as Mantanmoreland has stated that he believes his doing so was a mistake. JavaTenor 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

::::everyone gets hit. So, can somebody advise me the difference between posting in good faith on an off-wiki site, which includes attack language in some of its postings, and a "mistake" (or at least the belief(?) it was) in providing a link to one? Admins will make mistakes (mea culpa) from time to time, but it is all part of the learning curve. There is no indication of wilful disruption by posting on a ill-regarded off-Wiki site nor accidently linking to an attack site. Perhaps the moral high ground some people take is just a pile of sacks of shit, after all. LessHeard vanU 09:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Gracenotes's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Gracenotes: Gracenotes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• This user is not Grace Note (talk · contribs).
• Statement by candidate. Let me make a clarification here, if I may. There has been a lot of discussion about websites critical of Wikipedia. I feel as though my comments have been misinterpreted; others may believe I have deepened the wounds they have suffered.
• Now, you may notice that sometimes admins can fit vaguely into groups. There are image admins, who deal with advocating free images and keeping non-free ones to a minimum. There are anti-vandalism admins, who could block, revert, and semiprotect all day long if they wanted to. There are wikipoliticking admins, who like to congregate around controversial issues. There are article admins, who improve content and use their tools to protect and then start discussion in disuptes.
• While I dislike partial adminship, let me say that I plan on being a template admin. One who you'll rarely see doing what he's doing. One who improves, protects, unprotects, and deletes templates, among other menial tasks. I do not labor so that I can one day win a cabal of users who follow me around and support me. I do not pour dozens and dozens of hours of my life into this project so that I can place a collection of glorified hunks of digital metal on my user page. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to maintain an encyclopedia, and to help keep what I can running smoothly. I can do this with or without adminship. For all else, I hope that my contributions stand for themselves. Thank you, Gracenotes^T § 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gracenotes before commenting.

Discussion

• From what I read Gracenotes does not support using external sites to attack others. So that issue looks to be moot to me. Contribs look good, check. No behavior problems that are of any significance, check. I can't find any reason not to give the mop, and by reading the comments Gracenotes gave I am confident he will enforce our policy on no personal attacks, should it be done on here directly or on another site and linked to. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Gracenotes has provided an answer clarifying the oft-misinterpreted Q4 answer here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes#Ambiguity_of_language. -- nae'blis 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think the proper place for spin of the kind attempted above is on the discussion page. It's really unseemly here. Please move it to Talk. Thank you. Perhaps Gracenotes or one of the other supporters of this RfA could do the honors.--Mantanmoreland 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If the moral panic below can get 30k, I'm confident you can begrudge me 3 lines. Thanks. -- nae'blis 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, well since you want to move the discussion from Talk to the top of this section, I'll play along. In response to Eagle101 and yourself, no the "clarification" issued by Gracenotes did absolutely nothing to resolve the concerns of this opponent and the others who have responded to you.--Mantanmoreland 23:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • He may not have provided the answer you wanted, but he did clarify a grammatical point with considerable bearing on the controversy in question.--G-Dett 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I see no change in position or "clarification" from his answer. His entire approach to the "attack sites" issue has been cold, clinical, detached from reality and totally lacking in empathy. Yes, you are correct, that is not the kind of response that I want to hear from a potential administrator.--Mantanmoreland 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Do you not know what "clarification" means? It means that some people didn't know what his position was, so now he's tried to let people know what it is. "Clarification" doesn't mean, "saying what Mantanmoreland wants to hear". Now, can you please take this discussion to the talk page, as nae'blis tried to do? Bladestorm 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As far as I can tell, Gracenotes has never linked to an "attack" site. You have. That makes it a little hard to take you seriously when you say he's "detached from reality and totally lacking in empathy." Frise 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
            • That strikes me as distinctly unfair, Frise, as Mantanmoreland has stated that he believes his doing so was a mistake. JavaTenor 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Hmm. I'll yield to your judgement in this case. Frise 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Even if he changed his mind about it later, it would seem that his own use of such a link (to give evidence of the character of somebody up for RfA through showing their own off-site words) is a case in point to how it's in some cases perfectly reasonable for a good-faith editor to find there to be a sensible reason to link to such sites... after all, he did it himself. *Dan T.* 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm glad you feel that every mistake I make should have the force of Wikipedia policy, and should be recounted ad nauseum and used as precedent. Not even the Gods find their mistakes so exalted.--Mantanmoreland 04:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Important note: It's official – Gracenotes removes links to attack sites. See? So you can all stop opposing him for not doing so, now – Gurch 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Consensus not numbers: I disagree a little with GraceNotes on attack sites, but his thoughts are an important component of legitimate debate on Wikipedia about a complex problem. His actions and expressed thoughts have long been a fixture of Wikipedia, and long may that continue. There is no doubt in my mind on the important question: he can be trusted with the mop, so I propose that we promote him at the end of this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Proposing that the candidate be promoted is what the nomination is for, I think you're a bit late for that. :) This entire page is (supposedly) discussion of that proposal – Gurch 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  I always propose promotion or non-promotion as a way of indicating my opinion. I don't vote. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• --> bureaucrat tips on talk page. Bureaucrats are more then capable enough to make proper decissions on this. We selected them based on those qualities. Let's keep that particular discussion on the talk page. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support strong opinions, nice answer to Q4, and should be useful esp on tricky policy issues, SqueakBox 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Already, wasn't, you know the rest. --Slowking Man 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Excellent contributor who will make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Definitely a nice guy, should be good. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Gracenotes is an excellent contributor, a funny and genial collaborator and a great guy who will make a great admin. :-) --Iamunknown 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support as nom - best of luck squire! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support—at the risk of sounding cliché, I was under the genuine impression this user was an sysop already; nevertheless, Gracenote's contributions speak for themselves, and I have every confidence in him and I hope the community thinks likewise ... oh, and I suppose the icing on the cake is such a trustworthy nominator ;-) good luck ~ Anthøny 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Gracenotes is an excellent contributor and would make a really good Admin..----Cometstyles 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Sean William 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support had interactions with him before and he seemed like admin quality for sure. Let's give him a mop. —Anas ^talk? 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I reviewed his contributions over the past month and am impressed with the range and civility of the edits. Would be an asset. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support This user is in my Top 3 non-admins who should be... hopefully not for much longer. GDonato (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Support-Certainly. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet of banned user Molag Bal. Riana ⁂ 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

13. Support per nom and what I witnessed from this user. Seems pretty much alright. —AldeBaer 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Can't wait to see who's eventually going to show up and oppose for what reason. I'm so excited, I just can't imagine who that might be... —AldeBaer 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    I can't say I am thrilled to be an example of a standard (and so quickly, too!) :~[ LessHeard vanU 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

14. Support, won't abuse tools. Has TONS of experience on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia could benefit from him editing protected templates (like Ryan said). *Cremepuff222* 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I seem to recall I had a bad interaction at one point in time, but I can't find anything wrong with him as an admin. Actually thought he already was one. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support I don't foresee any significant problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose, confused the hell out of me while trying to get me to edit a protected template for him Support, of course. Picaroon (Talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Absolute Support for him! Great editor. Definitely deserves it. ~EdBoy^[c] 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Yow! (aka support). Done deal for me, good job, good luck. The Rambling Man 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Strong Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Gracenotes isn't already an administrator?! :O Funpika 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support-Great user, great edits (and now he can make all those protected templates better without having to ask someone to do it for him). --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
23. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
24. Support - good candidate with an excellent track record. Go for it! - Alison ☺ 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support-Seems like a great user. Lεmσηflαsh^(t)/_(c) 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support: I've seen this user on #vandalism-en-wp. He could use the tools. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Excellent candidate. With respect to gaillimh, I'll point out that April Fool's Day has confused more than its share of fine admins over the years. Unfortunately, this place just enters the Twilight Zone for those 24 hours. :) Xoloz 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Impressive record. the_undertow ^talk 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Now that I see you're the "good one" (see comments below)...just kidding. — MichaelLinnear 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Strong support I should have watchlisted the page. Gracenotes has been reasonable in discussions and accurate in AIV reports. —dgies^t_c 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
31. SupportThis user's broad experience and work with templates is impressive. His willingness to assist others seems well documented. JodyB _talk 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. My experience with Gracenotes has been the exact opposite from Gaillimh's. I've seen Gracenotes display good skills, good reasoning and a good sense of humor.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Amazing grace! The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine, but God who call'd me here below, will be forever mine. --Deskana (AFK 47) 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    ROTFLMAO! List this at WP:MOTD ASAP! :-PReal96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

34. RfA clique #1 G1ggy! 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support This user is patient with others and would be fair towards others. Real96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, This user meets my criteria. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support for my favourite janitor, hoping that he will be one of the additions that the admin team desperatly seems to need. Be as little an admin as you can :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong Support, A great editor who will use the new tools wisely. --Mschel 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support I like what I see. Jmlk17 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support - very active editor who consistently finds useful areas in which to involve themselves. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I know this user, he has strong technical expertise and good experience. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support An excellent candidate for the mop. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Changing From Support to strong support in light of this debate. I'm echoing User:Oleg Alexandrov's comments below on the BADSITES issue, which definitely do raise concern about the issue of online censorship, which is all this "policy" would become if it went too far. Aside from that, there's nothing at all wrong with being careful about what you do, remove, delete or what have you. These issues also seem irrelevant to what Gracenotes plans to do as an admin, and therefore can't overshadow his good editing (and also good handling of this RfA) in my vote. Best of luck. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 12:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Excellent editor and will be great admin. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Strong support An excellent user from what I've seen of Gracenotes. He is always civil and respectful. This user will make a great administrator. Acalamari 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support My experience has been positive, although ST47 and Gurch may have a point. alphachimp 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support – Has demonstrated an excellent breadth of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Always willing to participate in discussions. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support, surely. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Wait, you aren't an admin? bibliomaniac15 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong support A user's disagreement with other users on a particular issue (even if it is policy) isn't grounds for opposing his request for adminship. An admin can be a good admin even if he doesn't enforce all policy, but only some of it (and it seems like Gracenotes will enforce any policy anyway). Yonatan ^talk 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Strong, strong support. I ran into Gracenotes several months ago at the help desk, where he was courteous, informative, and ... well, helpful. Thus, my personal experience leads me to view him as both "easily approachable" and skillful in communication. Not long after that, Gracenotes was kind enough to correct a template I had tried to create (the important word here is "tried" ... at the time, my knowledge of templates was limited to "If I poke around here, I can cause changes elsewhere"). So, in now considering this RfA, I am struck by three things: (1) Gracenotes has an excellent contributions record; (2) I am more than satisfied with the responses to the questions; and (3) you're not an admin?!? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    By the way, I am curious: what's this about? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gracenotes is clearly a sockpuppet of me and must be banned immediately – Gurch 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

52. Support - I think he will be a productive and helpful admin ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Good candidate. Disagreed with him last time we crossed paths on AFD, but still I found his approach there to be thoughtful, as well as a willingness to acknowledge the concerns of those who disagreed with him, and that is a very positive attribute which bodes well for responsible adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. A4 is a valid viewpoint, and this is not trolling. –Pomte 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
55. $upport. I've seen you around, and you deserve the chance. Good luck, Dfrg.msc 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Sounds reasonable. But perhaps your userpage could make clearer that you're really not Grace Note? >Radiant< 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Should make a good admin. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Strong support will not become a fine asset, already is. ^Khukri 08:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
59. I have faith he would not abuse administrative abilities nor make rash decisions, so why not? He looks like a well rounded guy that knows his stuff. Matthew 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
60. I know him from WP:UTM, and I think his adminship will be very useful for template administration. Phaunt 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Jumping up and down on chairs support, if this is what he wants. – Riana ⁂ 11:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Pile-on Support From what I've seen, the user's net effect on Wikipedia would be overwhelmingly positive as a result of having the tools. Anybody else thinks this'll make the Wikipedian 100? Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Wow, This guy has clocked in alot of edits in the past two days alone. I believe he would make a great admininstrator. QuasyBoy 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Nice answers to questions, plenty of experience and I think you'd make great usage of the tools. Good luck! Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Strong Support per his promise to help out at CAT:CSD. Believe me, that's one area where we need all the help we can get. Walton^Assistance! 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Weak support I'm not thrilled with your policy on attack sites, but I think you'll make a fantastic admin. —METS501 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Support -- good record. Should make a good admin. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support on the blance of arguments. Also, a quick check of contribs shows a clear ned for admin tools. Will do lots of good and , IMO, no real harm, with the bit. Eluchil404 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
69. Support. Can't see any downside here. —Xezbeth 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Support - GN is a fantastic editor. He doesn't 'support attack sites', but supports using your head about links and not just going 'oooooh, think of the children' and hitting the delete button. He'll be a great admin, I have no doubts. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
71. Support Can't say that I agree with extracting an unbreakable blood oath from every prospective admin about any issue, if nothing else because admins should be flexible and who knows when doing something might be a good idea in the future? I'm not even sure what site's we're talking about beyond Brandt's, and that's easilly findable with Google I'm sure, this seems like a symbolic effort that would restrict people's free speech but not really accomplish much. At any rate, the candidate is a good faith editor, no one disputes that, and we need admins who'll get their hands dirty with CSD and other actual work. It just doesn't seem like there's a very compelling reason not to promote here. --W.marsh 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Gracenotes is certainly a well known and respected editor, and I must admit that I was quite surprised to see this RfA, as I had always assumed he was an admin. The opposition here would be wise to compare the their opinions to the most unfortunate of opinions found during the Cold War. --Constantine 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
73. Support because of the willingness to express an opinion of attack sites. Ever for those who disagree with it, I don't see how being an admin would cause problems this way. I think it shows a welcome distinction between pages attacking unfairly particular individuals in a damaging way, and those discussing--however unfairly--WP. Divergence from the WP orthodoxy is sometimes a good thing. DGG 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    So you think that there should be links to sites which not attempt to, but in fact actually do, disclose the real names, addresses and work locations of users on Wikipedia, for the sole purpose of real-life harrassment of those people? Corvus cornix 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    Huh? That isnt what DGG said, SqueakBox 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

74. Support. Differing opinions on one issue that many people feel strongly about aside, answers are well thought out, contributions are impeccable. Lexicon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
75. Support, I thought he was already an admin! Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
76. Support he is a hard worker whose contributions are of excellent quality; he is allowed to have his own opinions, as is any admin, provided they do not interfere with administrative actions. I don't think that Gracenotes will have a problem with making bad decisions based on his views and I certainly do not think there is any chance of abuse of tools on his part. — Editor at Large^(speak) 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. Far as I'm concerned, Q4 is a plus. --Gwern (contribs) 22:30 23 May 2007 (GMT)
78. Support I'd also like to ask people opposing on the basis of Q4 to reconsider their opposition. I happen to disagree (to a certain extent) with Gracenotes on this subject but why should that prevent him from being a competent sysop? It's not like he's advocating his right to link to these sites in disregard for the consensual policy. I'm afraid a lot of people are opposing giving Gracenotes as a way to make a stand against his position on this particular question. I'm not sure what this will achieve other than forbid Wikipedia from having an extra competent admin. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
79. Strong support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. He also appears to be very patient when dealing with other users.Frise 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
80. Support I'm confident this person would use the tools well, and I applaud their clarity and openness in their personal opinions on an area which I'm sure many people have differing opinions on. What's important is that consensus is followed in any key debates, and that's something that every admin signs onto regardless of their personal opinions. Robchurch's comment at the bottom is also worth a read. Orderinchaos 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Robchurch's comments have been moved to the talk page of the RfA.. (diff) -- daveh4h 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

81. Strong Support. Seems qualified, and the attempts on the part of an extremely vocal minority to impose a litmus test regarding the "attack sites" policy (which seems to be the Wikipedian equivalent of the War on Drugs... a moral panic that's pursued in opposition to all semblances of common sense, and all opponents are heavily vilified) only make me more inclined to support him as an advocate of rationality on this issue. The suppression of a link to Daniel Brandt's site in a Signpost article about him is just one of many examples of silliness perpetrated in the name of this idiotic policy. *Dan T.* 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
82. Support - I trust this user. — mholland (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
83. Strong Support - Good answers to questions, especially Q4. One's personal opinions on off-wiki attack sites doesn't affect a user's ability to be an admin, nor should it affect community trust, unless they're the user actually running the site. Gracenotes is long overdue for the admin bit, and I admonish SlimVirgin for attempting to deny that over trivial and unrelated grounds. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
84. Support Answers to question four/4a indicate that the candidate considers context, intent, and effect to be relevant and intends to use judgement. Those are qualities I want in an admin. GRBerry 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
85. Strong Support The only moral distinction to be made in the "attack sites" debate is that making references to such in NPA or any policy page suggests their existence to random individuals just visiting or blocked per those pages. Otherwise, whatever users want to do when they come across a link to an off-site attack is up to them per the circumstances, and I highly doubt Gracenotes would get in an edit war with anyone who decided to remove an off-site link. Gracenote's answers suggest pragmatic awareness of and concern with personal security issues, and that is enough for me.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
86. Support. Majoreditor 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
87. Support. Answer(s) to Q4 seem very sensible to me; no other serious concerns appear to have been raised. -- Visviva 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
88. Support common sense over unbending rules, yes! SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
89. Support I am happy with his(?) response to the BADSITES bit. Viridae^Talk 07:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
90. Support Smart user, has a sense of humour, and says what he thinks instead of what he knows people want to hear. Kla'quot 08:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Switching back to Support from Neutral. I'm impressed by the poise with which the candidate has handled this difficult RfA. Wikipedia needs a diversity of opinion amongst its administrators. Plus everything Mackensen says below. The Talk page of this RfA reminds me of a certain scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. Kla'quot 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

91. Support I note he is quite candid as to where his interests and intended work are directed, and where the extra buttons will most likely prove useful. As for his views regarding "attack sites" I can only direct interested readers to the 'Crats comments regarding my own very recent RfA. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
92. Support per above. Bucketsofg 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
93. There's way too much me-too-ism going on in the Oppose section. People are opposing because Gracenotes wants to take a nuanced, not-one-size-fits-all approach to a problem. I'd say "unbelievable", except it's all too believable. I support Gracenotes' request for the sysop bit. -- nae'blis 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
94. Support. If nothing else, to balance out this unfair exercise. I'm not going to see another RfA go down because of a SNOWball on one of SV's opinions. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
95. Support Appreciate the nuanced and careful responses to questions, and appreciate the extent of this user's contributions to the encyclopedia. JavaTenor 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
96. Support Why do I even need a reason? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
97. support seems like a trustworthy editor, my few prior encounters have been positive. I particularly like the nuanced resposne to Q4. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
98. Support Appears trustworthy to me, and objections below don't seem to have a lot to do with use of admin tools. - Ehheh 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
99. Support. I wasn't crazy about the initial answer to Q4 but am satisfied with the clarification provided by the candidate. Also, on a more general note, what's with all the co-nominations? This isn't a High School yearbook and I fail to see the point. Expressing one's support is all fine and good but let's not overdo it, please. -- Seed 2.0 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
100. WP:100 support, per nominations, good communication skills and honesty. --Guinnog 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
101. Support I have interacted quite a bit with Gracenotes and always found to be helpful, polite and friendly. One of those "I thought they were already an admin. MECU≈talk 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
102. Support. While I'm not a huge fan of the attack-site stance, there's way too much weight being put into it plus me-tooism below by folks like Grace_note. It's a big issue, but it's not enough to blast an RfA for. If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place. It's more important to have reasonable folks who are trustworthy in the position (even if they have different opinions on stuff) than people who will say what others want to hear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
103. Support. Conditionally. You are welcome to hold a minority view, as long as you agree to honor the consensus if people disagree with you. If you feel unable to do that, say so now. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

     • Comment I think Gracenotes' demeanor here more than indicates he is willing to listen and respond to minority views without compromising his own ethics. I should hope that consensus is honored in this case.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

     I have, in several occasions past, been on the "wrong side" of consensus, and have accepted it or tried to reach a compromise with the other side. I see no reason to discontinue this, whatever consensus turns out to be. Furthermore, I do not see this specific issue (and my personal views on it) affecting my actions as a janitor. Gracenotes^T § 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

104. Support. Assume good faith. — CharlotteWebb 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
105. Support based on past editing history, and thoughtful answers to RFA questions. Abecedare 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
106. Support based on sensible answers to questions and no apparent other issues. With all respect for Wikipedians whose privacy has been violated by pages on so-called attach sites, Gracenotes position to take a nuanced view on what should and should not be linked to is I feel a positive approach. The Arbcom resolution of the ED issue was probably a fine first step to a specific problem, but the realization that there are instances of sites on which a) behaviour by some users which goes against our basic tenets is tolerated, but b) where there is also potentially worthwhile criticism/discussion to explore in improving WP is a valuable one. There have been discussions on WP where it is exactly an analysis of what is being said on part of such a site is particularly valuable (the hoopla over removing a link in a Signpost article comes to mind), and the kneejerk (though understandable) reaction of certain editors to stifle that discussion has been counterproductive for improving Wikipedia, and the omission of the actual link has likely had negligible impact in terms of amount of traffic to the actual pages which deliberately violate editors' privacy. This last sentence of mine is supposition and may be incorrect, but I am disturbed that the fact that a respected and thoughtful user appears to share it (but promises to abide by consensus, whatever that happens to be) would disqualify them from adminship. Martinp 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. Gracenotes' view on attack sites doesn't seem to be as utterly criminal as some have made it out to be. Even if Gracenotes "supports" links to attack sites, which is a conclusion I don't know how anyone could make from his answer to Question 4, would it matter? Consensus seems to go in the other direction, and he is entitled to a different opinion. Does that mean he'll act against everyone else as an administrator? I don't really see that happening, and the rest of his abilities are just too good to pass up. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
108. Support. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
109. Support Gracenotes is an experienced and trusted user, and has expressed interest in a wide range of admin chores. I will not oppose for something so trivial as a subset of the external linking guidelines, even if I disagree. YechielMan 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
110. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
111. Support. Everybody has a right to his or hers own POV. I am convinced that Gracenotes will be able to separate his POV from his use of the tools. Being an admin isn't an obligation to be active on all the issues admins can help with; it is perfectly OK for admins not to interfere in some matters, and leave it to other admins. I am convinced Gracenotes will not abuse the tools, and that's what counts. Errabee 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
112. Support. I was going to oppose, but that was because I didn't realise there was a User:Grace Note and a User:Gracenotes. After looking over Gracenotes' contributions, he (she?) seems sensible enough. The attack sites thing seems like a whole lot of hoo-ha entirely unrelated to whether Gracenotes having the sysop tools would benefit or disbenefit Wikipedia. I don't want 1300 admins who all think the same and act the same, and to oppose based on a single ideological difference (which is all this is) seems disingenuous. Neil (►) 10:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
113. Although I disagree with Gracenotes on the Attack site issue, I highly doubt he will enforce his point of view to an obscure level, or disrupt Wikipedia to make his point. Upon view of his previous contributions, the good outways the bad, and I am inclined to support him. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
114. Support. I disagree with Gracenotes on the attack site issue, but I agree with DGG, Chairboy, and Neil, that this is simply not a big enough deal to withhold support from a qualified candidate over. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
115. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
116. Good user. --- RockMFR 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. One of those folks I thought was an admin already. Clearly "gets it." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
118. Support Gracenotes is exactly the kind of guy we need. Come on, im agreeing with Jeff, that's consensus.-M^ask? 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
119. Support Clearly a reasonable editor. I am profoundly uncomfortable with the railroading below. The statement that Gracenotes "supports linking to attack sites" is really, I believe, a misrepresentation of this editor's views. --JayHenry 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

     Comment. Nobody is saying that, and I notice that a number of the people in support also disagree with his views on attack sites. The question is whether the disagreement is enough to oppose this RfA. That is up to every individual editor's judgment.--Mantanmoreland 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

     I'm actually referring to direct quotes where people most explicitly are saying that (Diff 1, Diff 2, and Diff 3, for example) sorry if that wasn't clear before. I understand their deep concern about attack sites and I believe that their concerns are justified and warranted. What I'm saying is that I disagree with their interpretation of Gracenotes's statements as being any form of support for these sites, I disagree that any of Gracenotes's previous actions would provide oxygen to these sites and I disagree that these opinions Gracenotes holds are relevant to the admin tools. I share the deep concern that everyone has with regard to attack sites, cyber-harassment and cyber-stalking. And from his detailed and thoughtful response I really think Gracenotes does too. --JayHenry 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

120. Support, excellent user. AW 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
121. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
122. Strong Support Support, for having what it takes to be an admin. Strong, for realizing that a notable link doesn't suddenly become non-notable, just because the subject isn't friendly to Wikipedia. Bladestorm 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
123. Support Intelligent, independent but not grandstanding, process-oriented and circumspect. Likely to treat adminship as a responsibility rather than a personal distinction or club membership. Very impressive performance throughout this RfA process.--G-Dett 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
124. Support The oppose comments do not sway my initial impression, that this user will use the tools to improve the encylopedia. There is no evidence that he supports attack sites, merely that he does not subscribe to an exclusive opinion regardless of situational variables.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
125. Support. While I am concerned by the issues raised in oppposition and I do not agree with Gracenotes about attack sites, my experience of his contributions and interactions with him have been overwhelmingly positive. I believe he would make a good adminstrator. WjBscribe 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
126. Support as argued by the honorable User:Martinp above. As a community, we must begin to deal with the intransigent illogic of the Opposed votes below that 1) create an absurd standard and then 2) vote against a good candidate by that absurd standard. This is a community problem and can be dealt with only by individual editors taking personal responsibility for judging the issue at hand, which is this RfA in this case, rather than merely following the arbitrary off-topic meanderings of the bellwether. --Rednblu 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
127. Strong Support I admit I am shocked that there were any significant number of people who wished to oppose this user's becoming an administrator. I find absolutely no reason not to support, not to mention the numerous strengths of skill, dedication, and hard work that make him a fine administrator. Ninja! 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
128. Support Per rationale set out on my userpage. Edivorce 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
129. Many issues have been raised with this nomination. After much thought and consideration, I think that giving Gracenotes the mop will, on the whole, improve the encyclopedia. Since that's what we're all here to do, I support this nom. -- MarcoTolo 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
130. Support A user that can be trusted. CJCurrie 04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
131. Strongly support, good editor, and everything suggests he would make a good admin. Everyking 10:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
132. Support Assests swamp any possible criticisms.--Brownlee 10:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
133. Terence 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
134. Support J. Spencer 14:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
135. Support! PeaceNT 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
136. I've run across Gracenotes several times, and each time I felt that he was already an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
137. Support! Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
138. Support I don't find any of the oppose reasons convincing Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
139. Support and i think to those who think WP:BADSITES is a good idea... well - think about this: All it takes for something to be called an attack site is for someone to claim it is, and then anyone saying it's not is beaten into submission. --Random832 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
140. Support - I thought Gracenotes was an admin already. I'm certain that he will make an excellent one. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
141. Support - I believe Gracenotes will be more closely scrutinized on the attack site issue, and will be ever more careful that links conform to Wikipedia policy. The Transhumanist    20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
142. Support - A tireless "mop-and-bucket" guy, it would appear. Semifreddo 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
143. Support - would benefit project with access to admin tools. Catchpole 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
144. Support. Whatever his position on attack sites, it doesn't change that he'll make a great admin. How can all these people oppose based on someone's stance on an issue that won't affect use of admin powers at all? Opposing based on someone's stance on some minor policy is just an absolute disregard for things that actually matter on RfA. --Rory096 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
145. Support. Seems level-headed and nice in the discussion on this page. Haukur 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
146. Strong Support Gracenotes seems to me as a great user! Even though very few times I have encountered him, I still get that strong good expresion of his experience on Wikipedia and his future as an admin. Concerning all those oppose votes per the answer on question 4, I really believe that isn´t a good reason for opposing a candidate, especially if the policy in question (whether the candidate agrees with it or not) is not officially a policy. By the way, Gracenotes has got tons of edits and I´m glad he has considered being a template admin. Best of luck, ♠Tom@sBat 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
147. Support. Already doing a lot of mop-and-bucket work, and I see no reason to believe that he would be dangerous with the tools. Honestly, I already thought he was an admin. William Pietri 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

     Support a very effective editor. I don't actually see how the questions about attack sites matter, regardless of what one thinks of the question. There is nothing a single admin can do that would cause problems in this regard. Assuming he had been an admin earlier--how would things have been worse? DGG 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

     Strongly though you may feel about this, you have already voted (see support #73) – Gurch 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

148. Support. Will not abuse tools. There's no reason to think he would abuse the tools, ergo adminship. ➪HiDrNick! 08:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
149. Support —Ruud 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
150. Support; Gracenotes has long demonstrated a good attitude towards and solid understanding of Wikipedia, and can be trusted with some additional maintenance tools. -/- Warren 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
151. Support - Arguments and discussions such as this are why people keep leaving WP. And let's leave aside all the pretty language, the real discussion is "Is Gracenotes going to do exactly what he's told?" If someone posts a link to a site that has violent threats or clearly objectionable material, I'm confident Gracenotes will get rid of it. If, on the other hand, it links to some criticism of Wikipedia or a particular person's poorly thought out actions, it shouldn't be struck. The problem here, for me, is that I've been stalked, and very nearly killed, and it was a lot worse than my address, or someone's sick fantasies. There are legal and technical avenues for handling this sort of problem, and the RfA of a good editor is not a proper forum for it. He will use the tools better, and have better judgement and a more pleasant demeanor, than 80% of the people currently admins now. This entire mess reflects poorly on WP as a whole. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
152. Support Courteous, knowledgeable and conscientious - what more could you ask?--R613vlu 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
153. Support, thought user already was an admin. :-) Shows independent thought. I am not surprised by additional tool usage. Enwp bot policy is broken and in need of overhaul. ignoring that particular ruleset under those circumstances is not a problem, and many people are doing so. --Kim Bruning 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
154. Support ... meh, being wrong about attack sites has nothing to do with knowing how to hit a delete button. --BigDT 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
155. Support ... Great contributor and would make a great admin. --Oakshade 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
156. Support. per above. Ripberger 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
157. Strong support. Per answer to Q4. And just about everything else this user has ever done. Abeg92contribs 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
158. Support; actions speak louder than words, and in this case, both are superb! --Hojimachong^talk 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
159. Support. I believe this to be a case of severe misunderstanding or exaggeration of a problem on behalf of the opposition. Their interpretations of what Gracenotes has stated are damning indeed, yet I fail to find such an implication in his actual answers. This user has my full confidence. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
160. Support. I have full confidence that this user will use the admin tools responsibly, and for the good of Wikipedia. Being in favor of applying case-by-case common sense reasoning to alleged attack sites before acting on links to them should not be conflated with unwillingness to remove those links, let alone support for linking to them. Charlie 06:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
161. SupportGracenotes has had his personal integrity questioned, and among other things, his "common sense". Many parts of this RfA have been hijacked, including most of the talk page, and I have contributed to this, as have others on "both sides" (a term I dislike, we are on the same side of the good of Wikipedia). That said, I was concerned about the "bot like" edits, but I see no harm that this caused the project, so I cannot oppose on that basis. The "attack site" business has caused a lot of noise, and the fact that Gracenotes has let this RfA run its course tells me that this user is devoted to becoming an admin. Assuming good faith, I am lead to believe he wants to become an admin to help the project. I cannot with good conscious oppose a person for wanting to help Wikipedia. I think he has learned more about personalities and Wikipedia from this RfA than he would as six months being an admin. I've learned a bit from watching. daveh4h 06:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
162. Support I am confident that Gracenotes will be an excellent admin. Not everyone is perfect of course, but his work here is impressive and I know he will do good use with the tools. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
163. Support for having the temerity not to wholeheartedly support the braindamaged "BADSITES" proposal, particularly given the idiot example of its use perpetrated yesterday by Will Beback - David Gerard 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

     This sort of gratuitous name-calling, in an already charged and contentious atmosphere, is extremely unhelpful. Newyorkbrad 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

     Note that he didn't make any personal attack there... he called the proposal braindamaged and the example idiot, not the people who did those things. *Dan T.* 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

164. Support, seems to be a solid contributor, and I like his thoughtful answers to the many questions above. --Stormie 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
165. Reading the answers, this user strikes me as one with a clue - something we desperately need. May not be perfect, but who the hell is? I disagree with the currently vehement enforcement of BADSITES, as if there is no valid reason ever to link to an attack site (in particular because I believe this ban should be limited to a page-by-page as opposed to site-by-site basis, but mainly because this sort of inflexibility is completely ridiculous), but even if I didn't, I would support this request for adminship. This user can think, and shows the familiarity with Wikipedia that admins should have. Both are uncommon qualities. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
166. Support per DavidGerard and Johnleemk. RfAs shouldn't be used for making political points, although no doubt our good friends at WR are having a good laugh. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
167. Support per much of the above. Trebor 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
168. Support - Nothing thus far suggests that he won't follow consensus, just that he isn't automatically supporting an existing policy. Supporting a policy and enforcing the policy are two separate things. PGWG 14:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

     It's not even policy! It's an idea being pushed by a group who talk about it sensibly but implement it like rabid killbots on crack. It's a failed proposal they are attempting to backdoor via RFA - David Gerard 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

169. Support Seems like a good user. His stand regarding the attack sites sounds quite sensible to me and I don't think he's equivocating. So I will suppport if there is nothing else other than this attack sites thing. - TwoOars ^{(Ts | C)} 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

     There's some fracas about his large number of near-instantaneous edits, causing people to suspect he's running a bot, but that sort of thing can actually be accomplished manually with any tabbed browser and some handy Javascripting. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

     Johnleemk is talking about my addition of {{r from shortcut}} to WP: shortcuts that did not have it. Initially, using a list of shortcuts generated with an application programming interface (API), I corrected a certain amount of redirects at a time with tabs. (AWB can also generate lists using the API.) However, I realized that I didn't want to load the whole edit page, but only the edit form. So I wrote a script that retrieved only the edit form from a page (not the whole page, making loading happen a bit faster), then added {{r from shortcut}} to the edit form, and then sent the form data (submitted the form) if I clicked to submit it (that is, if I manually discerned that the template wasn't there already). However, some people have been concerned that the speed at which I edited was too fast. I'm sorry if this is a bit abstruse; I'm trying to explain it as best as I can. Gracenotes^T § 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

170. Support. Linking to websites attacking Wikipedians or posting personal information is a bad idea, obviously. However, I can't approve of the current wording at WP:NPA#Linking to attack sites stating that "website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ... links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR" (the emphasis is mine). That smacks too much of totalitarism and censorship. I am more in agreement with Gracenotes's answer to Q4. Also, I don't think that disagreeing with Gracenotes on Q4 is sufficient ground for opposition. As mentioned earlier, it is fine for Gracenotes to hold such opinions as long as he abides by consensus in specific situations where disagreements on appropriateness of certain such links arise. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
171. Support. Seems like a reasonable editor who can be entrusted with the admin tools. --Delirium 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
172. Though it is easy to see why people disagree with the candidate's views on these issues, I have a difficult time believing that he is likely to unilaterally implement his position once given admin tools. Given that, I don't see any problems in awarding them. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
173. Support. the wub "?!" 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
174. Support. To my knowledge, not supporting something that isn't policy anyway is not a valid reason for opposition. BADSITES is a classic example of a good idea made crappy by the desire for bright line distinctions. Noticing that some matter of subtlety is required in Wikipedia policy should be a requirement for adminship, not a mark against. Phil Sandifer 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
175. Support Editor has made a tremendous contribution. Views on a controversial policy is not reason to deny adminship. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
176. Support - Jabberwocky. It's as relevant reason to support as BADSITES is a reason to Oppose. Nick 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
177. Support - The BADSITES proposal does not appear to have consensus and I do not believe it is fair or just to oppose adminship for someone who does not agree wholly with it. I note that Gracenotes has not said he wholly disagrees with it; he simply believes that there should be room for sensible judgment about it. This is an opinion held by a fair number of existing admins. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
178. Support - This is going to take a bit of a digression to explain. First, by "attack sites", I mean those which stalk Wikipedians, rather than those which are merely critical of them. I used to work for the Free Software Foundation, and I remain a strong supporter of FSF in general and on most issues. But some of FSF's policies were totally pointless: one was the refusal to link to sites that promoted proprietary software. Proprietary software was not going to go away if FSF stopped linking to it, any more than attack sites are going to go away if WP stops linking to them. At FSF, at least this denied the linked-to site googlejuice. But Wikipedia puts nofollow on all links, so that reason doesn't hold. I would oppose linking to attack sites that aren't on Google, since it would allow finding them, but that seems rather unlikely. I'm a reasonable editor, and I think my view is reasonable. Certainly, I don't see a reason to deny someone adminship. Since it's approximately User:Gracenotes's view, I don't see it as a reason to oppose their editorship. I know I'm probably torpedoing my own RfA (when I finally get around to requesting it), and my chances of a future job at FSF, should RMS see this, but that is no reason not to vote as I think right. All of my impressions of User:Gracenotes have been positive, and nothing has yet convinced me otherwise, so I support the RfA. Novalis 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
179. Support albeit with some hesitation that I wish were not necessary. I object most strongly to the practice of "outing" the real-life identifies of Wikipedians who need or prefer to edit anonymously. It is unfortunate that the candidate has made comments that could be read, by those who have been victimized by this practice, as anything other than joining in that objection. Sensitivity to the concerns of fellow Wikipedians, and especially for the types of issues that in the past have driven contributors to leave the project, is important in any editor and especially in a would-be administrator. If I believed there was any significant possibility that the candidate would do anything as an administrator that is inconsistent with our policies in this important area, I would find that disqualifying for an admin candidate. However, upon carefully reviewing all of the candidate's comments, I am convinced that he is now sensitized to this issue and has no intention of taking administrator actions that would raise this concern. Apart from that important issue, I find that the candidate has a strong record in "behind the scenes" work necessary to the maintenance of the encyclopedia and a commitment to helping with some of our most persistent backlogs. Despite the hesitation I feel whenever I disagree with many of the esteemed Wikipedians who are opposing, on balance I find myself tilting narrowly into the support column. Whether or not this RfA succeeds, I urge that Gracenotes continue to be mindful of the concerns expressed here. I also urge that other editors who have sullied the conversation with strident and excessive rhetoric refrain from doing so the next time a contentious RfA comes along. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
180. Support as I believe this user can be trusted as an admin. --Bduke 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
181. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
182. Support This is one of my "why isn't this user an admin already?" incidents. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
183. Support Nice, reasonable and open-minded person, will be excellent admin. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
184. Support. Appears qualified overall. I can't quite figure out if he's fuzzy in his thinking about attack sites, is using overly wordy descriptions for a clear position, shifted his position, or if the amount of confusion by other users has confused me. Regardless, it is a passive attitude (e.g. you don't have to be an admin not to remove an attack site) on a single issue outside his stated areas of interest in the realm of moppery. I'm also not prone to moral panic about users making semi-automated edits. I am especially unimpressed by arguments that "There is such a backlog that his judgment must be impaired during extended periods of digging through it" as this appears to be an argument that the backlog should not be tackled. If he does some automated stupidity with the mop, the ArbCom will desysop him, which is deterrent enough. (Also and in a "totally not directed at any specific user or in a PA manner"-kind of way, the annoyance caused by users who want to co-nominate, apparently because they like to feel special but have nothing to add, hurts the candidate.) - BanyanTree 00:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
185. Support - Like everyone else, I spent a good deal of time thinking about this one. In the end, it came down to whether I expect this user to misuse the tools, and I do not. Philippe 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
186. Firm support I was initially inclined to support this request weakly, having had a few minor concerns, but those concerns have been assuaged during the pendency of this RfA, and, indeed, Gracenotes' conduct across this RfA and related discussions has convinced me that he is possessed of sound judgment and an exceedingly deliberative demeanor (and properly, in any case, understands adminship as almost exclusively ministerial), such that I feel altogether confident in submitting that the net effect on the project of Gracenotes' being sysopped should be positive. Relative to attack sites, I continue to believe that the deleterious effect on the project of such sites, and, for that matter, of our linking to them, is de minimis and that our consuming time parsing GN's position relative thereto has been altogether more pernicious than the underlying linking to attack sites; my personal views relative to attack sites, though, are surely not relevant, and neither are GN's. His ability to appreciate for what understanding of policy (including of NPA and its progeny) a consensus of the community exists and then to act consistent with that consensus is most relevant, and I see nothing to suggest that he would ever substitute his own views for those of the community or that he would be unable successfully to ascertain where consensus might lie. (Should current !vote totals persist, though, I believe quite strongly, for reasons I've outlined at BN, that this request should be closed as unsuccessful). Joe 07:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
187. Support, hesitancy and caution in action are qualities we need more of in the admin pool. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
188. Support excellent user who possesses sound judgment and admirable civility. Long story short, I believe the likelihood that GN would deliberately allow a link to an attack page (in the stalker sense) to remain on Wikipedia to be very low—no more than an average Wikipedian in good standing—, and the likelihood that GN would use admin tools to do so would be even lower. No concerns. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
189. Support, looks like an okay user, and this doesn't seem to be a good forum to argue about BADSITES. Kusma (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
190. Support, has many tasks that will benefit from being an administrator, has been civil and calm through this very long RfA, has rational points behind his arguments, even when they are disagreed with. -- Natalya 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
191. Last minute Support Seems to be a great User and has tons of experience on Wikipedia and I don't think he will abuse the tools.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
192. Support. Can't believe he's getting headwind for advocating a nuanced approach. Dr Zak 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
193. SupportI thought he was already an admin. He will do very good. •Felix• ^T 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
194. Qualifies for adminship. Mike R 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
195. Support per above. Mgiganteus1 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
196. Support since he has just over 4 hours and is almost at 200. --ST47Talk 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
197. Support per bandwagon effect -Paine 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
198. Support. Frankly, even if Gracenotes did support links to attack sites, do you really think he's ever going to add an external link to a page again after this kind of treatment? – Gurch 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
199. Support He seems to be a good candidate for the job.Yelsent 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
200. Support - people are entitled to their own opinions - I have no doubt that GN would follow whatever policy were to be introduced, regardless of his feelings on the matter. Martinp23 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
201. Support WP:201 Evilclown93 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. From my experience with Gracenotes, I've found the fellow to be the very thing he apparently eschews; a "process wonk", in his own language. In addition, he is not at all easily approachable and I forsee some community difficulty in working and communicating with him, which is a problem, as potential candidates need strong communication skills and a certain degree of social graces (pardon the pun). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity, could you elaborate (with diffs, perhaps) upon why you think Gracenotes is unapproachable. I guess in my experience he has been the complete opposite! ^^;; --Iamunknown 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect, this user is not User:Grace Note who you are most probably confusing them with. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   I love that you feel free to say that. I don't think I've ever had anything to do with you though. Hang out on IRC much? Grace Note 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   It's interesting, though, that there are two of these "Grace"s, and they're both guys, despite "Grace" more commonly being a girl's name (as in Princess Grace). *Dan T.* 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   Grace Note, I don't see the response from Ryan as a mark against you (although perhaps poorly worded). It seems like a simple statement that there might be confusion (and for what it's worth, it took me about a month to realize that you weren't the same user...) Ral315 » 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   No, I believe Gaillimh is talking about my objection to the deletion of several "joke" processes that were started on April Fool's. I commented that the deletions were out of process and a bit pointless, and Gaillimh indicated that he saw the pages as, essentially, a blemish to Wikipedia. After a while, I saw that it really wasn't worth fighting over, so that was that. He's entitled to his opinion. Gracenotes^T § 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   Sure thing, Iamunknown. As Gracenotes mentioned, he acted rather silly when he saw that I was deleting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales, because "it didn't meet a criterion for speedy deletion". In addition, the fellow proceeded to troll my talk page before deciding that "it really wasn't worth fighting over." I harbour no ill will towards Gracenotes personally, of course; these diffs and my experiences with the fellow simply lead me to believe that he is a bit too immature and does not possess the necessary candor/grace/affability, etc. to become an admin, where he'll certainly need to employ strong communication skills and a level head gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Strong oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to strong oppose, because some of GN's responses and his contribs have caused me more concern. The candidate has made only 343 edits to article talk, suggesting very low community interaction over content, against 5,700 edits to articles, many or most of which now appear to have been made by a bot, [3] which means they can be racked up in a matter of hours, and the bulk of the edits were made this month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end), and I'm not keen on the facetious response above when I asked GN why he'd redirected his user page to Gurch's. All this, combined with the attack sites thing, his posting to Wikipedia Review that that site shouldn't be added to the spam blacklist, and his apparent inability to give straightforward and clear answers to questions, is enough to cause me major concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

   To answer some of your concerns:

   1. Most of my communication with other users about articles happens on their user talk page. I often query other editors about particular edits they have made, and such results often in an amicable conclusion. I strongly agree that communication is important, and have my contributions to prove it.
   2. I did hit hundreds of buttons one time each for hours on end. Why is this not believable? In my opinion, it only makes me more qualified for clearing admin backlogs.
   3. You have not answered me about the blacklist applying to every single Wikimedia project.
   4. Facetious answers may prove that I won't get carried away with simultaneous passion and seriousness. meatball:DefendAgainstPassion.

   I hope that I have assuaged your concerns in some way. Gracenotes^T § 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

   (removed irony perceived as personal attack) Are there other compelling reasons to oppose or is your lack of providing such reasons equal to admitting you can't think of any or that you actually deem this single "reason" as sufficient? (rephrased:) Do you really believe that it's best practice to oppose for what could be perceived as purely "political" reasons? —AldeBaer 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hmmm, funny that you mention "Don't be a dick" when that is exactly what you are being by taking up an accusatory and bad faith tone when Slim has done nothing wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Funny how irony works sometimes huh.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   That's a strangely aggressive response, AldeBaer, especially as you've indicated elsewhere that you agree with me. I have no political agenda; I just feel strongly that websites that stalk or attack Wikipedians (and I mean attack, rather than criticize) shouldn't be linked to, and I don't want to vote for anyone who feels otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry if it comes across as aggressive, it surely wasn't meant as an attack of any kind. Maybe I'm getting a bit paranoid. Or is there actually some kind of pattern? It just reminds me of what happened in two other RfAs. You see, I do absolutely agree that attack sites should never be linked to, but RfA shouldn't be the arena for "political activism" of any kind. Besides: Taking into consideration the reassurance that my comment is not meant to be aggressive, I'd really like you to answer my questions if at all possible: Is there another strong reason to oppose Gracenotes? Is it best practice to oppose for differing opinions on policy? —AldeBaer 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I think it is "best practices" to oppose adminship based on matters that can affect users' offline lives. It's a legitimate concern and one that SlimVirgin or anyone is entitled to hold as opposition. Something like "your opinion of what Wikipedia should be differs profoundly from what I believe necessary" ought to be a good enough reason for opposition, as long as the concern is raised in good faith, which it certainly is here. You can call it politics, if that's your preferred dirty word, but whatever it is it's not being done for politics' sake or for power's sake, only for the safety of real people. That I may argue this unhindered, I won't be registering a vote in this RFA. I'm more interested in the ability for editors to raise good faith opposition without being hounded. You may find SlimVirgin's reasoning unconvincing, but it's unfair to suggest that her concerns should not be raised in this pertinent venue. ··coelacan 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose While I have had only minimal interaction with this editor and have never been even remotely involved in a dispute with him, I have to agree with Slimvirgin's analysis. I just can't imagine why Grace would think linking to such a site would be okay. In my opinion, there could simply not be any encyclopedic value added by including links to such websites.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I think slim virgin meant in dicussion or wikipedia space, not in articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I was referring to anywhere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I cannot see us accepting any admins who support links to attack sites. To me that attitude indicates no sensitivity to the plight of the attack victims, and is tantamount to attack in itself. There is no reason to ever link to such a site - if need be, the information can be emailed discretely to ArbComm or anyone else, on a need-to-know basis. Crum375 08:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I agree, but this is not the place for that specific debate. —AldeBaer 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   If you agree that an editor who supports a link to an attack site is effectively promoting that attack, why would we want to accept such a person as an admin here? Crum375 11:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I do not support links to attack pages. (Side note: at least, those that are not actionable; there are a fair amount of pages, i.e. Wikipedia diffs, that constitute attacks of Wikipedians, but action can be taken upon them.) I said "pages", not "sites". My problem with banning "all links to all such sites in all contexts" (as I said above) is the possibility that walled gardens can result, and good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia coverage of such sites (if they become notable), or trying to civilly interact with such sites (not a likely solution, both on our and their parts), or semi-private discussion between users about those sites, may be suppressed by 1984-esque actions. Imagine two editors calmly engaging in discussion about a non-attack page on an "attack site" when a third, probably coming from Special:Linksearch, removes the link forcibly. What benefit does this bring Wikipedia? While erring on the side of protecting Wikipedians is ideal, many that reverted links to sites on WT:BADSITES showed no sensitivity about erring on the side of anything. Gracenotes^T § 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   "I do not support links to attack pages" means that you do support links to attack sites. A link to an attack site, from which a simple scroll or click can easily go from one page to another, is an attack on your fellow editors. There is no reason that I can see for wikipedians to discuss attack sites while publicly posting their links. If the issue is an ArbCom case, then the links should be quietly provided via email on a need-to-know basis. Any posting of such links to attack sites is an attack, and supporting such posting is tantamount to an attack. Anyone who posts or supports such posts clearly does not understand the harassment and pain it causes to the attack victims, and should not be an admin here. Crum375 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Gracenotes states valid concerns that many users had/have regarding "attack sites". User:Dtobias pointed out that an individual used the policy to remove User:Kelly_Martin's blog as an attack site.[5] This is why many people oppose the "attack sites" language and the use of an ArbCom ruling in policy. Those that oppose the "attack sites" language do not advocate attacks on people (we are people, not just Wikipedians). They are not concerned with allowing off site links to attacks on people, as that is disallowed as a personal attack under current policy anyway. What is considered an attack site and who decides that an entire site is off limits is of concern to many. daveh4h 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Crum375, in your line of argument, is it likewise tantamount to a personal attack to support the RfA of this user? —AldeBaer 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   ArbCom very clearly defined 'attack site' and ruled on this issue. Removing links to attack sites, and blocking editors who persist in posting such links after being warned is current admin practice, and was upheld by ArbCom. As an answer to AldeBaer, supporting promotion to admin of someone who misinterprets and misunderstands current policies is not 'attacking' anyone. Everyone is expected to vote his/her conscience on RfAs. Crum375 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Arbcom interpret but they dont make policy and I have seen no evidence that Grace is likelty to misinterpret any policies we have re attack sites, SqueakBox 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   ArbCom make binding decisions when there is a dispute about issues, based on their interpretation of our policies. As they have clearly ruled on this issue, if it were to come to them again they would likely rule the same way. But my point has to do with my desire to see admins understand the plight of attack victims, not ignore them and thereby promote the attacks. Crum375 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   It already did come up again, and they didn't rule the same way. [6] Frise 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   I dont know of a single user who opposes BADSITES because of indifference to the victims of said sites, indeed I would say the exact opposite, ie that opposing BADSITES is also an attitude designed to suport the victims of off site attacks and (without wanting to speak for him) this is nmy impression of Grace's motivations, SqueakBox 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Gracenotes, the BADSITES proposal is not the only issue here. You also expressed opposition on Wikipedia Review to Guy asking that it be added to the spam blacklist. Doing that would have prevented the scenario you mention above, where an editor intervenes in a discussion to remove a link, because the link wouldn't have been posted in the first place. Your opposition to that, and your expression of it on that very website, suggests you actually support linking to these sites. It worries me, as someone who has been one of their targets, that you want to give them oxygen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   The blacklist is a bad solution to a troublesome problem, and it conflicts with my case-by-case argument (that seems to make sense to me). It affects all Wikimedia projects (this would have to be a policy on meta for the links' addition) and allows no exceptions. The links have not been used extensively for spamming, but rather, mostly included in logical discussion that does not promote the site in a spammy manner.

   I was about to note this on-wiki, and had already written some more delineated versions of arguments I suggested above (in opposition to Guy's support), when I saw that the part of the proposed policy about the blacklist had been removed. Surely you can agree that the links should not be added to the blacklist unless each and every major Wikimedia project reaches a consensus on the issue, not just en wikipedia. Perhaps I should make this more clear: I don't support linking to attack sites. I support common sense in dealing with linking to them. I assume you read my "temperance, not prohibition" argument above.

   I am sorry about what you faced. However, your approach to dealing with attack sites reminds me of radical Republicanism: we've been hurt and we're angry, so now what are we going to do? Well, Reconstruction. Gracenotes^T § 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for your response. My concern is both the position you expressed and that you posted the opinion to Wikipedia Review, which lent them support. I suspect that if a webite had been trying to out you for 18 months; had posted what they think is your name, photograph, location, and IP address; had accused you of working for various intelligence agencies; had called you a whore, an antisemite, and a Nazi; had posted material from someone who has contacted what he thinks are your friends and colleagues in real life; and had published their names and locations too — then you might think differently about approaching the situation on a case-by-case basis. I fear there's a lack of imagination and empathy in your approach. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm one of those that can find no reason to ever link to a website that supports efforts to collaboratively work to expose the real life identities of our contributors. While I do believe that Gracenotes is trying to be practical in his response to the related questions regarding this matter, Admins should be prepared to protect our editors, not permit links to websites that potentially put them in harms way.--MONGO 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I find the idea of supporting links to attack sites very disturbing and even potentially dangerous to some editors. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   So do I. Fortunate, then, that Gracenotes is not supporting links to attack sites. Do you have another reason to oppose? – Gurch 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose. At first I thought that this applicant deserves a support. I was ready to go ahead, mainly because I had to scroll down to see the oppose. After reading some of them, I have to agree. These attack websites are appalling, and there should be no support for them. Orangemarlin 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment I don't get it. From what I have read is that Gracenotes advocates the use of ones head, before starting to directly censor anything that someone says is an attackpage-link in a discussion that was about creating policy exactly on those issues and therefore was served with a small example here and there for the less initiated. I find this commendable reasoning for an admin, and one i'd love to see from more admins. You might not agree with him on this one position, but when was the last time all admins agreed on all POVs in Wikipedia. I'm of the utmost confidence that IF Gracenotes were to link such things, he has a good reason to do so. We can always censor that stuff once the discussion is over. The fact that the wording of the arbitration commission is so bad, that it is causing so much confusion already, says more then enough about how to the letter we should interpret arbitration decissions. NOT, AGF and try some thinking for youself once in a while. The results of the Arbcom are not the Wikipedia lawbook, there is no book, only precendences. (and people wonder why no one wants to go trough RfA anymore and others are renouncing their adminship......) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   "At first I thought that this applicant deserves a support. I was ready to go ahead, mainly because I had to scroll down to see the oppose. After reading some of them, I have to agree." In other words, you have proven yourself incapable of evaluating Gracenotes yourself and reaching your own conclusion. You took one glance at the tally, saw the prevalence of support and thought "yeah, I'll support". Then you scrolled down a bit to see what the opposes were about and thought "oh no, that's bad, I'd better oppose". You probably didn't even read the user's discussion archives or contributions. You clearly have minimal interaction with the user, and had the above oppose votes not already been there you would not have opposed. You have certainly not made a thorough review of the guideline discussion pages on which Gracenotes has commented and formed your own opinion on the issue. Your comment is worthless – Gurch 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Nice comment. Really appreciate it. Of course, you could track my movements across wikipedia, but you didn't notice that maybe by reading the oppose, I decided to dig deeper. I apologize. Orangemarlin 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   OM, how dare you change your mind, such things are unheard of (in Gurch's world anyway). You must be a fish of conviction, not a waffler who actually admits he might have made a mistake. Tsk, tsk. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, apparently. A review of the applicant's mainspace edits, their user page edits, and the issue above all lead me here. That's why we have these "votes" I presume, so that we don't take things at face value, read the dissenting opinions, and come to our own conclusions. Treating me uncivilly of course always convinces me of changing my mind. BTW, puppy has already bitten my hand. Bah. Orangemarlin 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose - An administrator should be one that not only cares about the project but cares about its main asset: its editors, being these newbies or long-standing contributors. Same as we welcome newbies, admins should be mindful to protect those that volunteer large amount of their free time to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. Look at the above comments. Just look at them. Five are from administrators. Is that a group of people I want Gracenotes to mingle with? No way – Gurch 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I don’t know, Gurch... all of those controversial broken redirects... Gracenotes^T § 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose, reluctantly, as he is hardworking, knowledgable, and otherwise quite qualified, but his opinion on attack sites is highly troubling; unfortunately it's hard to trust him with the tools in light of this, particularly the ability to view deleted information. Krimpet (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Just one small thing I and probably quite a few other people have been wondering, and you seem to have been the first to bring it up: could you explain how someone's viewpoint on the implementation of a proposed policy change leads you to believe that they might misuse the ability to view deleted information, given no history of misconduct? – Gurch 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose Strong Oppose, also reluctantly, because of answer to attack sites question. --Mantanmoreland 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    No longer reluctant, and changing to strong oppose. GN's slippery and evasive answers to questions and general behavior in this RfA has increased my concerns about him becoming an admin. --Mantanmoreland 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Comment Also, I just noticed his rejoinder to Gurch. I think having a sense of humor is a plus, and I appreciate his effort to defuse a tense situation, but I don't think this was an appropriate response to trolling.--Mantanmoreland 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    How come? I think humor is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with a troll. *Dan T.* 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    How come? Because he responded as to a chum, not to a troll.--Mantanmoreland 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    You have a fair point there. Being nice to me is, of course, a capital offense – Gurch 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose per answer to Question 4, and per Gaillimh. Musical Linguist 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to Strong Oppose but emphasizing (as on the talk page) that it is not because Gracenotes does not support WP:BADSITES, and I really urge bureaucrats not to be misled into thinking that the oppose votes are because of a failure to give 100% support to an overzealous attempt to make a new policy. I very much question the judgment and sensitivity of one who knows WR (as he posts there) and can state that it's a "mixed bag". Administrators with a habit of siding with trolls have given trouble before. I am not comfortable with trusting him to see deleted page versions. I share SlimVirgin's concern that he repeated the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site when she has already told him that she has sent two takedown notices to a site that attacks her (again, we've had trouble with such administrators in the past). I'm uncomfortable with his trolling of Gaillimh over the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales joke, which indicates lack of the necessary maturity for an admin. Finally, while I wouldn't oppose an otherwise excellent candidate over his signature, I think a signature that takes up three lines in the edit box is unbecoming, and poor example from an administrator. Musical Linguist 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per answer to question 4. Corvus cornix 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per question 4 sorry, I also blocked Gurch for 24 hours for disrupting this RFA. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    I see no reasonable or compelling evidence of trolling, Gurch is just expressing his opinions. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    It was disruptive though and the pedophile comment completely unnecessary, SqueakBox 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose per the answer to question 4 in particular to this comment " Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith", and as Hipocrite points out you state you are not the type that protects editors by removing links to attack sites. No link to attack sites could be termed good faith. (Musical Linguist sums that up quite well) and unwillingness to protect by removing attack site links is a distressing thought so much so that I fear what could happen with the tools.--Dakota 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    You may also wish to read my response to Hipocrite, if you have not already. I believe that it addresses some of your concerns. Gracenotes^T § 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    No link? Even if the attack site is referenced elsewhere? Even if the attack site is notable enough (with significant media coverage, for example) that it could have its own article? Even if the purpose of the link is to advise other editors of the existence of the page, perhaps to warn an editor that there is an attack page revealing their personal information? How does removing a note to me about a page that reveals my personal information "protect" me? As a more extreme example, there are people in the world who do not have my best interests in mind. I would be better "protected" by having all of them killed. Considering your views espoused here, would it not distress you that there are those in government who are unwilling to protect me by shooting all those who might harm me? Would this lack of concern for my well being and security not cause you to fear what could happen with the government? --Constantine 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose per answer to Q4. --Denis Diderot 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per the answer given for Q4 and per Briangott's and Dakota's input here. No way. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose per Slim and others. Protecting other editors should be top of your list, not something you're not concerned with. Grace Note 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    We all have our own opinion of what should be top of an administrator's list. Personally, I'd prefer that new administrators had Category:Candidates for speedy deletion at the top of their list, but I wouldn't oppose someone who didn't solely for that reason – Gurch 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

18. I don't like your stance on links to attack sites, and feel that this casts significant shadow over whether you have the outlook and judgement needed for an administrator. Daniel 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Daniel and Musical Linguist make good arguments on this point. Ral315 » 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    I re-affirm that I continue to oppose this nomination; I believe that there is absolutely no reason to allow links to websites that willingly post personal information about Wikipedians, and this is an issue that I will not budge on, even slightly. The human impact of Wikipedia is too important. Ral315 » 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose, I'm not comfortable with the whole attack sites/Q4 thing. Guettarda 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose answer to Q4 concerns me. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The inclusion of external attack sites on Wikipedians is indefensible. —Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    That would explain why Gracenotes is not trying to defend it. Do you have another reason to oppose? – Gurch 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose with apologies to Gracenotes, Gurch and the noms. Q4 -- Samir 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong oppose - the rationale about linking to attack sites makes absolutely no sense, which makes me wonder about Gracenote's judgment. The last thing we need is an admin who either doesn't have good reasons or can't explain them. --Leifern 02:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Other users appear to comprehend my comments. Is there anything you're confused about? I would be happy to explain or delineate. (My comment above summarizes my point of view well, I think.) Gracenotes^T § 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    It is rather telling that you turn my assertion that your position doesn't make any sense into a problem with my comprehension. I can't think of a single good reason to support links to attack sites - sites that exist for one reason and one reason only (namely to subvert core principles of Wikipedia), but I am open to arguments I haven't thought of. Your explanation, as it were, simply says you're not going to oppose links to such sites out of blind principle, which is as close to a truism as one could find. One can agree or disagree with the policy at Wikipedia of allowing editors to remain anonymous, but it is not appropriate to implicitly or explicitly encourage violation of this policy by promoting - on Wikipedia itself - sites that seek to subvert it. --Leifern 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Can you explain where Gracenotes has "implicitly or explicitly encourage[d] violation of this policy?" I'm having trouble making sense of your assertion here. Charlie 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

25. Oppose RfA's and RfB's are a community referendum on the judgement of a user, and whether or not the community should entrust that user with the tools based on their opinion of his or her judgement. I am afraid this user's response to the issue of attack sites is important enough for me to have enough of a question regarding judgement, that at this point, I am uncomfortable with the idea of adminship. This is in no way shape or form meant as an attack on the user, but my own opinion. -- Avi 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Comment for Avi but also a few others above. Let us all calm down and realize that Gracenotes is not advocating the murder of babies here. He's saying "I don't believe in an absolutist stance about attack sites." Sure, one can question the wisdom of that position but clearly it's a reasoned one and it is shared to a certain extent by a number of people whose judgment has clearly been demonstrated to be sound. RfA is meant to filter out people which the community feels may, by inexperience, imcompetence, character, be harmful to the project. Not people who happen to disagree with a particular way of doing things around here, so long as we believe they'll abide by consensus. We should be thankful that admins don't agree on every single issue about Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

26. Per Slim and Dakota -- Y not? 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose due to views on attack sites. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Comment The attack site question has been raised at every single active RfA now, so better keep an eye on those. daveh4h 05:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

28. Oppose per answer to Q4 - the anonymity of editors (or for those who so wish) is paramount. There's no justification for being wobbly about this. --tickle me 05:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Anonymity? Nobody here is anonymous; at best we are pseudonymous. Could you elaborate on exactly how Gracenotes' conduct and contribution history has affected what little anonymity we have? – Gurch 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

29. Oppose... While I readily concede that GN has come a long way from when I first saw hir going on 2 years ago, the recent apparent change of heart (possibly brought on by the fact that at least one attrocious antisemite, (User:Dabljuh, I believe it was) latched onto GN as an assumed ally...something that, to GN's credit, s/he quickly disavowed, but I think the fact that that association seemed natural to the attempting "latcher" speaks volumes about my misgivings re: GN), especially given the positions GN so frequently took prior to that change of heart, still leaves me wondering about GN's ability and interest to consider disputes dispassionately and act in a genuinely neutral fashion. It may just be that GN gravitates toward conflict-riven topics, I don't know for certain...what I do know is that, like I said, GN has come a long way, but adminship is not a reward for coming a long way, it's a mantle of responsibility, one which I don't see that GN is in particular need of, much less particularly qualified for, at least at this juncture. Tomer^talk 07:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    As someone who first began editing Wikipedia at articles related to circumcision (and boy, did I start off on the wrong foot...), where I was immediately suspected to be a sockpuppet of Dabljuh (and thus reading into the whole story), I just have to comment that in my opinion, Dabljuh did indeed make some weird and also offensive remarks, but not before being lured into it by a very vocal minority who has long ago developed an effective pattern of playing dumb on unsuspecting editors. So, sympathising with a victim of that, however inadequate Dabljuh reacted, is not only understandable, but imo a very important and also rare quality. The one thing we do not need is more admins participating in cluster-fu*ks against dissenters. Two thumbs up for empathy. —AldeBaer 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    But you were sockpuppeting, Aldebaer, as I understand it. Weren't you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Two thumbs up for empathy. —AldeBaer 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Except that it was four thumbs in your case, I believe, or was it six? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    No, only two thumbs at a time. —AldeBaer 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    A somewhat important note on TShilo12's comment: I have thoroughly reviewed the contributions of Gracenotes, Dabljuh and a few other people and, unless I have missed something substantial I am virtually certain that TShilo12 has mistaken Gracenotes for another user – possibly Grace Note, who as stated at the top of the page is a different user entirely – and has based their comment on their experience of that user's conduct. I have raised this issue on TShilo's talk page and given him the opportunity to comment on this if he so wishes, but have not yet recieved a response beyond a note that he will look at it later. This is an easy mistake to make and I hold nothing against TShilo12 for it, but if his comments are in fact directed at Gracenotes I believe that he should make some attempt to clarify it. I have found absolutely no trace of any contant between Gracenotes and Dabljuh whatsoever, nor anything to suggest they even edited similar pages. In fact, Gracenotes had made fewer than 60 edits at the time of Dablijuh's final block – Gurch 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sheesh. Gurch, enhance your calm. Your unmittigated advocacy is becoming tiresome. After some of the remarks you've made, I'm inclined to strike my previous rationale for "oppose" and replace it purely with "if Gurch is supporting, I must oppose". You're verging on trollish with some of the things you're saying, and in many cases, I think, far overstepping the bounds of WP:DICK and WP:AGF. Chill out and let the RfA stand on its own merits. At this point, if it ultimately fails, from the stance of "numbers games", it's going to be because of your activities more than anything else. Please, just settle down. You're becoming irritatingly shrill. Tomer^talk 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

30. Per Avi. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose. Per Slim, Dakota, Avi. Gracenotes' responses during this RFA show a disturbing lack of empathy and judgement, both of which are extremely important for administrators. Note, contrary to the straw man statements of supporters, this is not about support for the failed BADSITES policy, which was itself a straw man proposal. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose I know that some won't like this, but the attack site position is a no-go for me. While I'm confident that it would have no effect on GraceNotes' stated goal of template editing, the mop is not limited to any one corner of the encyclopaedia, and so a specific reservation will have to translate to a broad opposition. Tewfik^Talk 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gracenotes' name does not contain a capital N. Just pointing this out to avoid further confusion with Grace Note – Gurch 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

33. Oppose per concerns about the attack sites. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose per answer to Q4.Proabivouac 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose like so many others have said, the answer to question 4 is troubling. Do we really need a policy so that we can remove links to attack sites? Captain panda 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if I understand your comment, but User:Gracenotes is not advocating a new policy, or suggesting we need a policy to remove attack links. He feels that WP:NPA already covers removing links to attack pages. From Q4: "I came to view the proposed WP:BADSITES as an extension of our policy on No Personal Attacks, as several others did." If I am misinterpreting your statement I apologize. daveh4h 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

36. Oppose per Avi. 6SJ7 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Switching to oppose from neutral per thinking about this more. While there might be cases where attack sites and sites that out Wikipedians are in fact "mixed bags" and I earlier was in the neutral camp since I thought there could be legitimate disagreement about this, I must question the judgement of someone who thinks there is any significant amount of redeeming material on Wikipedia Review. JoshuaZ 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    When did he say there was a significant amount of redeeming material on Wikipedia Review? – Gurch 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

38. Oppose per SlimVirgin, Hipocrite. Concerned about attitude towards attack sites and Wikipedia Review. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    It's actually not such a good idea to name particular sites unless necessary. —AldeBaer 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Oh come on, it's not as though it hasn't already been mentioned a dozen times on both this page and the talk page – Gurch 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

39. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Defense of attack sites is enough to make me vote oppose. The surreptitious use of an unauthorized bot, followed by dishonesty about that, cinches it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    What defense of attack sites? – Gurch 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    I hope that I can put to rest a bad rumor. Do you see this page? It lists 50 redirects starting with "WP:", and the content of each page. You can see it in my browser here. Now, using Firebug, I can insert live JavaScript into a page. Here I can be seen inputting code that alters the text of the page to insert links. I did this a while ago, but am merely going through it again to show you how I did it. Once that code was run, I included the asyncPost function, which made an asynchronous post to the page. TWINKLE does the same thing. Then, if I saw that the content of the page did not include the template, I initiated the asyncPost function with that page name as a parameter. If the template already existed in the page and I had only accidentally pressed it, my script would warn me and I would stop editing. I would go through and analyze each of the 50 pages manually, and then use the "gapfrom" parameter provided in the page to continue to the next by altering the URL. The code for the script (crude, but functional) can be seen at my sandbox. Rest assured, I have never made any unapproved edits. Gracenotes^T § 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gracenotes, what you are describing above is a process of building a computer program in the form of a script, that performs hundreds of edits per hour. The 'manual' part of it consists of your inspection of bulk code and bulk edits - not a process of performing a single edit, inspecting and saving it. At best you inspected your results every 50 edits, at worst you just let it run for hours - we have no way of telling for sure, but the contrib history highly suggests a very automated process, with minimal or no human intervention. In any case, whether by bulks of 50's or hundreds, or more than a thousand, this is a robotic operation with a script that you cobbled up, and could have easily introduced massive corruption or errors into Wikipedia. The reason we have WP:BOT and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is specifically so that programmatic edits that introduce massive changes in a short time can be inspected, vetted and approved by others, to hopefully catch problems before they occur. If every programmer were to cobble up his/her own program or script and unleashed it on Wikipedia without any peer review, producing massive amounts of edits in a short time, we could have a big mess on our hands. Performing such massive bulk edits with unapproved programs is negligent and irresponsible. Crum375 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but you misunderstand my script somewhat. Every single edit involved human intervention. I inspected the content of every single page before running the code, and knew that the text "{{r from shortcut}}" would be added to each one. I knew this just as certainly as a vandal-fighter knows that by clicking "[rollback]", they will revert to the revision prior to the one the vandal made. "k.innerHTML = k.innerHTML.replace(/"title":\s"([^"]*)"/g, '<a href="javascript:asyncPost(\'$1\')">$1</a> <a href="/wiki/$1?action=edit">(e)</a>');" means that "title: WP:F" would be changed to "<a href="javascript:asyncPost('WP:F')">WP:F</a> <a href="/wiki/WP:F?action=edit">(e)</a>". Every single edit would be to be initiated by a click, just at it is with WP:TW. As far as I know, no scripts that allow user-initiated mass changes to be made have ever required approval. If they did, policy would be put into place by those who are technically knowledgeable. With these scripts, the burden of mistakes is placed on the creator: and I knew that my program worked by close examining the initial diffs. Your desire for unneeded red tape is confusing to me. Gracenotes^T § 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, to clarify exactly what this script does (I know, as I've used the same script myself), I can confirm that you have to individually make each edit, then wait for a confirmation that it has saved and make the next one. All we are talking about is the reduction of the following keystrokes: Alt + Shift + E, Tab, End, {, {, r, space, f, r, o, m, space, s, h, o, r, t, c, u, t, }, }, tab, {, {, r, down arrow, enter, enter, Ctrl + Tab to a single mouse click. That's a simple matter of interface; if you have an issue with interfaces that make edits easier, why aren't we all typing in HTTP requests by hand rather than using a web browser? Gracenotes could not get up and go and do something else and this would keep running, as you seem to suggest – Gurch 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    You'll have to excuse me, but that edit history of 5 non-stop hours of hundreds of edits per hour is highly suggestive of bulk edits with minimal or no 'inspection'. What Gracenotes calls 'red tape', I call reasonable caution to protect ourselves against extensive damage by automated massive series of edits, and it is the reason behind our WP:BOT and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval policies. Crum375 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Unless you have evidence to back up your claim it is surely an NPA violation. Hundreds of edits per hour is clearly not proof to back up your claim, SqueakBox 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, please. I disagree with Crum375's comments but to suggest they're a personal attack is ridiculous – Gurch 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    If it were just running as a bot in the background, why would the shortcut edits completely stop while he was making unrelated edits in the middle of those contribs? --Rory096 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    People can [and often do] make hundreds of edits per hour with AWB or reverting vandalism with TWINKLE. You either believe Garcenotes and Gurch when they say the script is only semi-automatic and each edit requires user approval, or you don't. Either you do, as I do, or you don't and are violating WP:AGF by essentially saying they're lying. Yonatan ^talk 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

40. Oppose: The divisiveness of this campaign shows not that there are bad friends and bad enemies fighting it out, as I would ignore that, but rather than the candidate appears to believe strongly enough in acting without full consensus on this issue that we are going to probably have disruption, accusation, and worry occuring as a result of any promotion. Therefore, I cannot support and must oppose. Geogre 01:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Huh? Where exactly does he say he plans on taking action (with or without admin tools) on an issue without consensus? It sounds from his comments that he plans on not taking any action in the contentious area (his major interests are elsewhere), which is probably the most prudent thing to do when no firm consensus either way is set. *Dan T.* 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Geogre, I also share your concern that my RFA has generated some heat. It promoted, I would be no less careful with my tools, but I fear that the ghost of this RFA would haunt me in whatever non-maintenance interactions I have. Part of the community, a few based upon what appear to be faulty assumptions, has decided that it cannot trust me. However, as I have indicated above, I am a bold-discuss-revert type, and believe edit warring to be counter-productive, and have not done it myself. Your concern must have some sort of basis, though, and I shall not dispute it. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

41. Oppose per SlimVirgin, Geogre, and others. I find his answer to question 4 to be disturbingly accomodating to exactly the wrong people. Perhaps he just phrased his answer poorly, but that sets off enough alarm bells for me that I'm uncomfortable giving him my support. Nandesuka 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Nandesuka. I'm sorry but that issue is a deal breaker. IMHO for the good of the project, we need more admins who will be tougher on trolls, both off and on site. I just see waaay too much equivocation about the issue from Gracenotes. <<-armon->> 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Oppose per Slim et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Oppose per Slim. The Prince 03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose While I love Kundera, I dislike equivocation. His replies are entirely unsatisfactory. The badsites issue gets fuzzy at the margins, but is clear at root—they don't belong. This RfA is a good example of a truism: better you disagree with a candidate than are uncertain over a candidate. Marskell 06:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose the only time I have had dealings with Gracenotes, he was very rude and overbearing towards a third user.--Berig 06:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Have you got any diffs to show this? Ryan Postlethwaite 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

47. Oppose per Orangemarlin, Crum, others. GN' first comment with regard to attack sites was " I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia" - carefully phrased, but worrying, as virtually any attack site can claim to be intended to push Wikipedia to improve. Sometimes people are disingenuous about intent, other times, the effects speak for themselves. I agree with many concerns voiced more articulately, above. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Oppose per SlimVirgin. --DLand^TALK 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose per Dakota, SlimVirgin and others. --Rabbeinu 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Oppose per SlimVirgin above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose due to concerns over the candidate's stance on attack sites. Beit Or 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
52. The quote cited by Slrubenstein above, demonstrates either communication skills, or worse, an approach, which is not up to par. El_C 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Oppose Per above--Sefringle 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose per comments above and GN's reactions to them. We need calm, deliberative admins, not reactionary. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Pardon? I haven't seen any responses from him that are anything other than calm and deliberative. *Dan T.* 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

55. Oppose, I find the concerns to be serious. Per SlimVirgin, Dakota, Tewfik. --Shamir1 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose per the answers about attack sites. The situation is bad as it is now we do not need an admin supporting inclusions of links there Alex Bakharev 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gracenotes does not "support inclusion of links there", he merely opposes blind removal of them – Gurch 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

57. Oppose per attack site stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Oppose as per SlimVirgin Kuratowski's Ghost 06:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Oppose to the extent that his answers on attack sites are clear, further oppose since he remains unclear. Smallbones 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well that makes no sense... you're opposing him because he's clear, and you're opposing him further because he's unclear? *Dan T.* 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

60. Oppose It does not seem he can be depended on to defeat harmful actions directed toward other users by postings on external sites. Fred Bauder 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Yes he can. He even beat me to it, and I was watching the page like a hawk – Gurch 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

61. Oppose per SlimVirgin and question 4. Modernist 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Jakew 16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Oppose per a variety of editors and my own misgivings. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    It may help if you could detail your misgivings? LessHeard vanU 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

64. Oppose per SlimVirgin, questions.--Urthogie 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Oppose as his stance on attack sites is not helpful to the community an admin is supposed to uphold. Also considering his article talk page record (as per Slim Virgin above). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Oppose per SlimVirgin. --Spike Wilbury 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose per serious concerns raised above. Noon 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    I noticed that the only other RfA you seemed to have commented on with this account was Danny's RfA. [7] Hope to see you around RfA a little more. daveh4h 23:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

68. Oppose. My opinion is the candidate demonstrates well above average intelligence and verbal ability, but alarmingly below average maturity, empathy and sensitivity. I therefore have serious reservations regarding his judgment. There seems to be a lack of depth in appreciating that behind the cold electronic display are real live warm bodies that can be deeply injured. I expect a candidate to be on their best behavior at their RfA. That’s why I was so taken by the callousness of this reply. [8]. It is an unfortunate fact that many people still don’t fully appreciate that we should behave and regard people no differently in cyberspace than we do in “real life.” My opinion is based entirely upon the candidate’s discussions contained in this RfA and are not meant to suggest anything about his behavior in 3-dimensional space. I wish him all the best. -Doright 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    With respect to your very thoughtful statement, I am puzzled by the diff you provide. It seems that the candidate was noting that the (unsupported) claim made by one user had been contested by another user, while taking the utmost pains to avoid supporting either claim him(?)self. Cheers, -- Visviva 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    Visviva, Doright does bring up a valid point, one which I do not take lightly. While some of the qualities he brings up are far more thoroughly sought out in crats than admins, I respect the basis of his argument. Gracenotes^T § 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    It's definetly a point, and this whole discussion and everyone's position has become way too complicated for sure. I understand why you are being so courtious GN, but I have come to known you as one of the best and kindest editors around, and since I have absolutely 0 interest in becoming an admin myself (I like to be able to speak my mind), i'll say this. This whole ordeal is a F'ing disgrace(notes, pun intended) towards you as a person and as an enthiousiastic wikipedia editor in general. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

69. Oppose. As another victim of misogynist cyberstalking relating to my presence on Wikipedia, I have grave concerns about his answers to Q4. Rebecca 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Oppose. Same reasons as Musical Linguist's. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
71. Oppose.I guess I'll leap off the fence here. Gzuckier 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Agreed, he deserves better than this. --ST47Talk 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. zOMG drama! —Миша13 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   neutral I agree with Gracenotes that what constitutes an attack site may not always be clear cut and there may be examples where it would make sense to link to such sites. My favorite example of this is google groups which includes a variety of usenet posts which insult and out Wikipedians. I don't think anyone is going to argue on that basis that http://groups.google.com should be blacklisted. Furthermore, the ultimate goal does need to be what is best for the project and if an attack site such as ED became sufficiently notable it would make sense to link to it. That said, Gracenotes seems to be saying that the candidate would never or almost never remove a link to an attack site. I find the attitudes thus signifies worrisome. However, I'm not convinced that this would necessarily interfere with Grace's proper use of the admin tools. JoshuaZ 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'm really skittish about attack sites.... not from any personal experience, just as a general principle and imagining what may happen. So, this gives me pause, for now anyway. Gzuckier 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2. User's work is great but the oppose votes worry me. -Pilotguy hold short 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

   Simple solution: ignore them. Either be worried by the arguments presented, or by the nominated user's actions; the number of !votes in and of themselves should not sway your opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

   Presumably Pilot means that the concerns raised by the opposers worry him. JoshuaZ 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

   Switching from Support, mostly because of the script-assisted edits. Your responses to Crum375 indicate that you either don't understand WP:BOT#Assisted_bots, or you thought this was a good time to ignore the rules. In this case, the rules are there for good reason: even if your script works perfectly, the wiki process is inherently labour-intensive in terms of quality assurance. An approved bot running with a bot flag would probably have saved the RC patrollers, watchlist checkers, and of course the RfA voters, a substantial amount of time. By ignoring the bot or script approval policy, you avoided a bit of red tape upfront but created more work for other people downstream (not to mention work for yourself). This one instance of failing to respect policy is not enough to make me oppose, but I don't feel confident in supporting at this time. Kla'quot 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

   I do not understand your argument that it creates more work for RC patrollers at all. Let me elaborate on how things work "downstream". I do not believe any experienced RC patroller would even bother checking a single one of Gracenotes' edits, recognizing him as an established contributor, and even one who was not familiar with him, having checked a few of his edits, would quickly learn to ignore the rest. While methods vary, many if not most of the more regular RC patrollers such as myself employ some kind of whitelisting system; Gracenotes has been whitelisted by pgkbot and on my own whitelist for some time, and I imagine others too. If you are under the impression that every edit made to Wikipedia is checked, I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken; there are far, far too many of them. So the ones that aren't suspicious are just ignored. We aren't even able to check all anonymous edits during busy times, and small edits to redirect pages with clear summaries by established users are not making any more work for anybody; they are simply ignored. As for the watchlist, seriously, who has WP: shortcut redirects on their watchlist? The only case I can think of is if the redirect's creator watchlisted it – and then, seeing the change on their watchlist will actually be useful, as they'll see from it that shortcut redirects should be tagged and hopefully remember to do it the next time. The watchlist argument is slightly more valid when articles are being edited, but no articles were edited in this case. Your final argument also baffles me. I can't believe anyone here checked every one of Gracenotes' edits (script or otherwise) for inaccuracy before voting. The issue is only creating "more work" for those who wish to make a fuss about it. Finally, how does Gracenotes create more work for himself, by doing things more efficiently (and thus creating less work for himself)? If you're saying that the extra work caused is in responding to comments on this RfA, then frankly it's not him that has created that work, but the user making the comment. You might as well argue that it's never worth making any edits, because someone might wish to discuss them with you and that would be more work than if you hadn't made the edit at all. RfAs are meant to be discussions, not "work" – Gurch 06:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

   You presume a lot more familiarity of the average RC patroller with users in claiming that they would know to ignore Gracenotes edits. Furthermore, this would push down other edits and make them less likely to be looked at by RC patrollers anyways. JoshuaZ 15:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

   Someone who's checked a dozen diffs and seen exactly the same thing every time is likely, when faced with a choice between another such diff or an edit to an article by an anonymous user with no summary (of which there are an abundance), to take the latter – Gurch 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

   "More work for himself" is in comparison to running an approved bot that automatically saves the edit. I'm not giving Gracenotes heck for making the edits: constructive edits are always welcome. I was trying to point out the illogic in his justification for violating WP:BOT. Kla'quot 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

   True, but if that were done there would be a potential for unnoticed errors – something that was brought up anyway by people who mistook Gracenotes' edits for bot ones. On the one hand you're advocating the importance of quality assurance, and on the other you're suggesting it would have been better to remove what quality assurance there was – Gurch 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

   After thinking some more, I'm switching back to Support. Nobody's perfect. Kla'quot 04:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3. I appreciate the time user:Gracenotes spent answering my questions. I've never opposed a request for admin and will not do so today. I am neutral. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Anyone who would write that they are "not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites" cannot have access to deleted revisions. Sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral per clarification of poor turn of phrase. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   "in murky situations", which is what I meant and clarified later in the paragraph. Please meatball:ReplyToTheWholePost. Gracenotes^T § 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I find your explanation unconvincing. The next words you wrote were "if needed, others may do that." My reading is that you will not remove links to attack sites, like, for instance, a picture of the encyclopedia dramatica talk page with personal and defmatory information about a valued editor if you were the first to see them, instead waiting for someone else to fix it. Your reference to "murky situations" appears to be to the entirety of links to attack sites, even the revolting ones. Would you, or would you not, remove any instance of the link to the encyclopedia dramatica attack site regarding me, if, for instance, you found it on the article about what was assumed, by them, to be one of my many notable real-life identities? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   No need to have the extra buttons to remove attack sites, SqueakBox 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, in my mind, the only way such a link would end up on Wikipedia would be as a personal attack, either blatant or veiled, so I would remove it. I'm glad to see that someone understands that my logic is based on case-by-case analysis, rather than completely allowing or completely forbidding. In the case you bring up, there is not even a possibility of "erring on the side of protecting Wikipedians", that is, erring at all, (as I said above) by removing the link. Gracenotes^T § 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Swayed by discussion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Wikipedia review is not "A mixed bag," it's throughly without value. Anyone who believes a site whose basic purpose is to determine the real life identity of private editors so they can be harassed by a "privacy advocate" is a mixed bag is not trustworthy to view deleted revisions, which, not only is an adminstrative capacity, but one that is not publicly logged and has caused us problems in the past. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

   I responded to this comment, but my response was moved by SlimVirgin. Please read it here. Thanks – Gurch 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

   I apologize about the "mixed bag" comment. It was hasty, and not the phrasing I should have chosen. The problem with using so many metaphors is that occasionally I might forget the meaning of one... Gracenotes^T § 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral Not appropriate to hold candidate to standard of care with words that I could not myself uphold. I suggest you sever all ties with attack sites, and maintain especial care with deleted revisions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

   Your advice is sensible, and I plan on following it. Gracenotes^T § 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.