Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim!

Salvidrim!

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/10/1); Scheduled to end 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – So.... RfB? Are these even still a thing? In the past years I've had a few people, including crats, ask me to run for RfB (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34#Discretionary range, User talk:Salvidrim!/Q2 2016 Archive#RfB, whatever else, I don't make a collection of diffs)... and I'm thinking "why not", you know? You might think "what do 'crats even do these days", and with less than two dozens (with even less being active) one can wonder. Renames have been globalized (mostly...), so the duties of 'crats are mostly enacting admin/bot flag additions following BRFAs/RFAs, desysopping (mostly inactivity with the rare exceptions), and resysopping returning eligible admins. However the main reason I think I'll accept the suggestion to run for 'cratship is that as a WP:BN regular (originally as an active UTRS tooladmin, to follow resysops/desysops to manually activate/reactivate UTRS accounts, although with OAuth that is no longer needed), it's where stuff with the best interesting-to-stupid-drama ratio happens, and if I'm gonna be active there anyways, maybe having to preface every comment with (Non-bureaucrat comment) is a bit silly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: While some will surely point out I haven't been super active in RfAs nor meta-RfA discussion, I assure you that I am an avid reader, and very experienced in assessing consensus and closing advanced discussions. I frequently close dicussions that are evaluations of a previous closure, such as WP:DRV and WP:MRV (with my closures even being sought out: 1, 2), so am well-versed in the definitions and analysis of "community consensus". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: To be honest, although I understand that is not currently the "automatic" practice, I would favor opening 'crat chats for any RfA that falls within discretionary range. I'd rather put it to discussion amongst 'crats than risk making a determination by myself that would not be fully enlightened. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: I don't recall any of the closures or decisions I've taken ever being called "unfair", and I've demonstrated over the past many years that I have no issues "engaging others in the community" and discussing issues. As for "knowledge of policy", while I've probably read most policy pages at least a few times, I think what is more important than inherent knowledge of policy is the reflex of reading and re-reading any policy page and the discussions that led to it before weighing an argument with regards to it. The willingness to research is worth more to my eye than off-the-cuff knowledge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

4. In November 2015, your account was compromised and desysopped. What did you learn from that episode, and how could you help ensure the security of privileged accounts as a 'crat?

A: It proved that fixes and upgrades often happen only after the problems actually happen. This event led somewhat directly to 2FA being enabled for admins and functionaries (about damn time!), and which of course I turned on as soon as it was made available. My mistake in neglecting to use a new password (instead of making my Wikipedia password unique by changing it everywhere else) would not have led to problems if 2FA was available then. I also learned that being woken up at 5AM by a phone call from ArbCom is definitely not my favourite way to start a day!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

---

Discussion

• Links for Salvidrim!: Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Salvidrim! can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support - I work with Salv all the time on the project, and have for like 5+ years now. I trust him on this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - I've noticed quite a few times at WP:BN where Salvidrim! has commeted, it's quite often that a 'crat folllows up with something in agreement. So if you're saying what they're all thinking, why not wear their hat too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - I've seen Salvidrim!'s work over the past many years and have always found them to be a calm and thoughtful editor and administrator. He always takes any administrative action in line with the current polices and guidelines and always explains things when they are questioned and also knows how to interpret and judge consensus. I trust him and believe that he will carry out the duties expected from a Bureaucrat perfectly and according to the community's wishes. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. Yeah, easy support - it's not as if crats get to do much there days ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Support - Finally after a year we have an RfB! No issues here, can trust he will do a good job. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Support An RfB, do these exist? (just joking, I knew they did) But yes, of course. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict) (twice, you seem to be rather popular ^_^) Support - No concerns; trustworthy and competent user. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Support - This user seems to have a very good understanding of consensus, which is really the core thing a 'crat needs. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Support: No issues overall, and a NETPOSTIVE. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
10. Support: But of course! --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
11. Support - Why not? He's been around the block, has done enough RfAs to know what's what, but not so many that we'd miss him after he's relegated to closing them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
12. Support of course! An experienced editor who will do good, I look forward to waiting patiently for your first 'crat action -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
13. Support He has been active in changing user rights. Crats give user rights to new administrators. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
14. Support. Go for it! The rationale above sounds perfectly reasonable, already an admin and clerk, and I trust him not to desysop me unless there's a good reason to!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
15. Support Very good admin and SPI clerk, no reason to suspect that there would be any rash of random sysoping/desysopping or any such thing. If they had wanted to damage the project before now, there has been more than ample means and opportunity available. They obviously lack the motive, and can therefore be trusted with the minor bit upgrade requested. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
16. Support - Yes, absolutely. I have found Salvidrim! to be an extremely helpful admin, and I'm certain he will continue to be an asset to the community as a bureaucrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
17. Support - whole-hearted support! Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
18. Support not a big deal, and certainly if the some of the current terrible Arbcom mess believe he's not suitable, that makes it all the more important that he gets the role. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - I've found Salvadrim! to be an excellent administrator, and I'm sure he would be a fine bureaucrat. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 21:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
20. Support - I've been working with Salvidrim! for a long time and I can guarantee that he has excellent judgement. His style may be too casual, but his arguments are always serious and policy-based. I read carefully all the opposing !votes, and didn't find anything problematic. Much weight has been placed on really marginal problems, like his opinion on desysoping, which is not even worth mentioning in this discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Lack of experience in Arbitration and SPI concerns me here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   ... You are joking, right? 😂 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   You do realize Salvidrim is a clerk, right? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I believe so lol. :D *then, gets off the computer and starts driving on this road.* KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Please see the list of SPI clerks. Salvidrim is clearly listed as sixth on the list of clerks. --Joshualouie711^talk 21:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   As noted, Salv is an SPI clerk, but honestly, considering that 'crats have nothing to do with either arbitration or SPI, this oppose doesn't make much sense to me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Sorry, but I have serious concerns about the candidate's judgement and demeanor, having observed a number of their interactions since being promoted to admin (which I supported).- MrX 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   No need to apologize, you're entitled to your opinion. :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Can you give some examples of such instances? --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I recall an example involving a now banned editor (Kiefer.Wolfowitz) in which Salvidrim! seemed to be encouraging some poor conduct by the editor. The others examples would require substantial digging to find. I will also note the somewhat flippant tone in this RfB. Many folks may be comfortable with this style, but to me, it conveys a lack of seriousness that I believe is incompatible with bureaucratship.- MrX 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, I don't remember where the discussion with Kiefer.Wolfowitz took place. I believe it was in mid-2013.- MrX 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

3. The concerns raised here and here about public/private information are very problematic. --Rschen7754 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you for your input. It should be noted that this perceived divergence of opinion with "the community at large" is one of the reasons I've always turned down offers to apply for Checkuser despite being an SPI clerk for some time; because my own perspective does not align well with many members of the community and/or with ArbCom's, I think there would be significant opposition to such a request and I've no desire to fight on that battleground. Bureaucrats however rarely have any access to non-public information (far less than, say, my roles at OTRS or UTRS which have never led to issues). Having opinions does not allow someone to disregard existing rules.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose per their views at the current BN discussion regarding desysoping of an account when it can't be confirmed that the user has requested it. The point of bureaucrats is that they make uncontroversial calls based clearly on policy. We trust them not to wing it when dealing with admin access and not to make policy. I haven't dealt with Salvidrim, but the current BN discussion does not give me this confidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   If I can say, the whole point was to discuss the unconvential issue, not for a single 'crat to make an unilateral decision (I sure as hell wouldn't have). I was simply proposing an alternative solution. I would have made the same comment, subtantially, as an editor, admin or 'crat. Slight differences in opinions amongst a body ('crats, ArbCom or otherwise) are not cause for removing dissenting members, but are cause for discussion and resolution. I don't think any group, 'crats or otherwise, need perfect homogeneity, and I strongly value hearing different perspectives.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   It didn't seem a far-fetched comment to me. I don't know what the proper answer to that question is, but it seems like a reasonable argument that you'd rather have an admin have to jump through the small hoop of re-requesting adminship, in the unlikely event that the editor requesting the desysop was a fraud, than risk having a lost account be compromised. As Salvidrim says, it was just one thought put into the mix, it wasn't a binding decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I'm fine with a divergence of opinions, but there are clear issues with thinking it is okay to desysop an account based on the unprovable claims to a lost password by a new account. It'd be fine to propose some addition to policy in an RfC about making the standard for a self-requested desysop lower than proof the same person controlled both accounts (I'd oppose, but I wouldn't hold that against anyone for proposing.) 'Crats shouldn't be proposing alternative solutions on the fly though. I think I agree with xaosflux's comments there the most While a desysop action is reversible, the community has shown via policy making that the removal of administrator access is a "Big Deal". TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I wasn't proposing desysopping based on a claim from an unproven account. I was proposing hastening the easily-reversible inactivity-desysopping by two months based on the claim that the account was abandoned, considering one of the things that emerged from the November 2015 compromised-accounts fiasco is that we should be more proactive in not letting abandoned accounts hold sysop rights. I'm not saying "let's believe Jakob based on faith", I'm saying "whether Jakoc = Jakec or not, we should consider not letting an account claimed as abandoned hold sysop rights just for the sake of bureaucracy".  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   The last sentence being my main reason for opposing, unfortunately. The point of bureaucrats is that they are bureaucratic and don't really bend the rules without a clear consensus to do so. Also, to be clear, this isn't any reflection of my opinion of your general work on-wiki, just that I think that point of view, while a valid one for an RfC, isn't one that I feel comfortable with a bureaucrat advocating. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   No it's fine, I'm not taking it personally, I believe that policy debate is perfectly healthy! I definitely recognize that bureaucrats generally act within a very rigid set of rules for a reason. It's just that if, for example, the abandoned account was compromised next week, the whole community would hold 'crats accountable because 'crats declined to slightly hasten the automatic desysop of an abandoned account when notified. Of course, that's not a likely scenario truth be told, but it's one outcome to consider. Perhaps it is "easier" to discuss these issues from the outside and that from within the 'crat team there is value to not discussing these things? Anyways, thanks for taking the time to detail your perspective! :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose Candidate seems to concerning to me. Mostly agreeing with above points. —JJB^ers 18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose. RfA's are usually a week of hell for the candidates and to start an RfA they must really want the bit. However, in this RfB the candidate's motivation appears to be "I'm thinking "why not", you know?" and "I think I'll accept the suggestion to run for 'cratship [because] having to preface every comment with (Non-bureaucrat comment) is a bit silly." Those two sentences alone would sink any RfA. And this is an RfB. Above, MrX calls Salvidrim's tone "flippant". I wouldn't go that far, but I see what he means. It's not just the two examples I quoted, Salvidrim's answers and explanations here just sound too casual and too "ah, what the hell, let's give it a try" to me. I expect people to be eager to get their RfA/RfB bits. Sorry. Yintan  19:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I'll bet you a 20$ that if I acted the opposite I'd get as many opposes for being "too eager" and "seeking power" and stuff like that. There's no pleasing everyone, so I'm sticking to being honest. ;)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   You're on. Yintan  19:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose I'd not heard of the candidate until today, but this very RfB shows signs I don't want to see in a potential bureaucrat, as explained by a few people already. My standards for voting at RfBs are different to RfA, and unlike admins I expect to see a real need for bureaucrats - I don't here. Plus, the answer to question 2 is wrong - bureaucrats are appointed to determine consensus as individuals, not as a group. We need bureaucrats who can make those tough decisions without needing to be supported in doing so. There is just a lack of seriousness about this, which is probably not the intention but unfortunately it comes across that way and it's not the right approach for a potential bureaucrat. Aiken D 19:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Aiken drum: Can you elaborate why you believe we should only promote crats when there is a "real need"? Isn't it better to have many and not have them do much than to have few and have them do much? Disclaimer: I have not yet made up my mind myself, so this is not an attempt of "badgering", I'm genuinely interested. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I don't believe we need to overstaff this role when the only urgent things bureaucrats do is deadmin. Aiken D 19:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Actually, there are so few 'crats that when a true discussion takes place in a crat chat, it can be difficult to find an uninvolved crat to determine consensus. We do in fact need more. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   When time called on GAB's RfA, I had a quick look around to see what 'crats were available to close it, and I think only four had logged in for any time during the RfA. So it's not like we're drowning in them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose per the same judgment concerns I raised at their arbitration candidacy pages here and here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose Sorry, Salv. You're a good editor, admin, and person in my judgment. I also appreciate a less-than-100%-serious RfB nomination; one could probably have leveled similar complaints at my own RfB. But...I dunno, something about the most recent thread on BN rubs me the wrong way. I don't really begrudge you the desire to skip bureaucracy, but in my eyes, 'crats aren't supposed to move without public, cast-iron rationale, and your personal conviction that two accounts are the same--however earnest--isn't either of those things, in my opinion. Also, perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but your last response to that thread reads pretty passive-aggressively, at least to me. Again, I understand being a bit miffed at bureaucracy, but, well, they're not called "bureaucrats" for nothing--one is expected to fairly revel in bureaucracy, not be annoyed by it, y'know? I feel like this wasn't an isolated incident, either, though I can't say I recall any other specific incidents. Again, sorry; you do good work here. Just not totally convinced this is the role that you need to fill. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   At least I did a bit longer of a self-nom than a three word "eh, why not" hahaha *wink wink*  Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Stuff like this is quite opposite the attitude I want to see in a bureaucrat. I would certainly be the last person to say that you can't hold both advanced permissions and your own opinions, but there are enough people biting the retirees who are trying to come back already. I would prefer if bureaucrats weren't doing that too. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

    I... I dunno what to say, I was actually going for retention there, to "let them down easy" from not being an admin while assuming they weren't illegitimate but also while encouraging them to contribute nevertheless. Also I'm not sure if you realize that account was indef'ed shortly afterwards as a troll. So I extended AGF and retention niceness to an actual troll and somehow I'm being too bitey? XD  Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I haven't seen Salvidrim! much in RFA discussions. If I am wrong, then please correct me. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   According to XTools, he has edited 26 RFAs and !voted in 18. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for your comment! I've indeed addressed this in my answer to Q1. :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm trying my best not to WP:BADGER opposes but I feel that (especially for an RfB, and especially for a self-nom) responding to criticism is critically important, and I'd rather respond and add context when necessary and seem like I'm ignoring editors who are raising often legitimate concerns. I've never been known to avoid recognizing issues and explaining myself whenever confronted.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know enough about the candidate to give a !vote, but I do very much think we need more 'crats. While it is true that the 'crat workload is much lower then it has been in the past, there still needs to be enough 'crats to ensure that on any given issue there is a pool of uninvolved 'crats to give objective opinions. Sario528 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)