This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below. For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
It is 17:01:19onJuly 10, 2024, according to the server's time and date.
ARB
I assume some have seen Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. I am cautiously supportive, depending on the details, of course, but not interested in debating if it is an absolute non-starter. It isn't yet ready for prime time, so I am not looking for an up or down reaction at this time, but if it is a waste of time to even consider, it would be useful to know. One important aspect not yet worked out is whether it would be a committee as a whole; I see that as a non-starter, because that would effectively mean that 'crats would be coerced into a function they didn't sign up for, so I cannot imagine supporting a proposal unless 'crats can opt out of the role.--S Philbrick(Talk)13:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust any 'crat who opted in, actually. The bureaucrats are well aware that they haven't been appointed for this role. They weren't questioned on this topic during their RfBs (if they were even appointed after the modern version of the RfB process existed). Bureaucrats have never had any sort of user-conduct-dispute resolution role—certainly nothing with this type of scope and impact, where they would be asked to usurp the role of the ArbCom. (A body which, incidentally, was elected by the community, to fulfill exactly the proposed purpose, whose members were subject to scrutiny on precisely this responsibility, and who must be re-elected regularly if they wish to continue to exercise this type of authority.)
In the context of adminship, the community relies on 'crats to be "moist robots". We expect and demand decisions on straight vote counts, and give them the authority to halt or suspend the process only when it goes seriously and conspicuously off the rails: SNOW closures, egregious abuses by participants, and so forth. Bureaucrats are generally trusted and considered uncontroversial because they take a hands-off approach, and because when faced with a difficult decision they don't have to make a call. They can punt, and say that a close-to-passing candidate should come back in three months, and the community is fine with that—a strategy that likely wouldn't sit well in a request for desysopping process.
While WP:CDARFC is now four years past, many of the comments I made about that failed proposal are applicable today. Each new generation of process wonks seems to reinvent the same square wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some very good points, which coincidently undercut some of my recent comments. Learning isn't so bad. We do have a need for someone to come in an make the call in some of these situations, but I see your point that having Crats do is problematic. Now creating SuperAdmin, maybe that's the answer ;) Dennis - 2¢16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I don't think the reverse judgement is that hard. If a request for de-sysop is nominally at 70% then I doubt if the community would have much concern if some votes were discounted as meatpuppetry, canvassing or what-not and took the majority from 65% to 70% or vice versa. Anyone who is anywhere near the range to de-sysop in a straight consensus should be asking themselves serious questions, and if they weren't the type to hand their bit in under these circumstances, they would likely fare worse in the first place. I think a close failure to de-sysop would be a very clear message "come back with more convincing evidence and it will happen (becasue you will get the !votes)" and that would either seal the fate of a merely "quite bad" admin, or cause them to pull their socks up. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC).
I agree with Rich. The bureaucrat's job is a little more than moist robotics, @TenOfAllTrades. After checking for a rule of thumb 2/3-3/4 support level -- which is not a strict vote count, because invalid opinions are discounted, circumstances may be taken into account, vis-a-vis canvassing, etc., as Rich says -- the bureaucrat needs to actually do a Wiki policy, IAR gut check on the action. Some have taken this as an opportunity to convene a "crat chat," others have occasionally deviated from the community's expectation in some way, with mixed results. What it comes down to is executing the promotion is sometimes controversial and sometimes not, and the bureaucrat is the buck-stops-here person for making sure all the ducks are in a row. It's certainly no worse than closing an AFD or determining there to be consensus for a community ban, in fact quite a bit easier than those. The same seems to apply for a deadminship RFC. Andrevan@11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC took place nearly five years ago. It was a monumental work, and one of the best prepared RfC I have ever seen, and (technically) it failed on only a narrow margin. Consensus can change. Many things and situations on Wikipedia can and do change. Active participants in meta discussions are a transient pool of people, and those who do stick around can also change their opinions.
– With consent of Andrevan, I've assumed the promotion and re-closed the RFA as successful, with rationale [1]. Moreover, Andrevan apologized below indicating they have recognized their mistake and won't make it again [2]. –xenotalk01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in reading the rationale for promoting a candidate with under 75%, given that there were no frivolous opposes. Is there a place to read such a thing, or do Crat's have a private area where such decisions are made? Or is it just one Crat that decides to promote after such a controversial discussion? LHMask me a question21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MOP: "This determination is not based exclusively on the percentage of support, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most requests above ~80% approval pass and most below ~70% fail." 74 is squarely in the discretionary range. Andrevan@21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt this was an innocent oversight by Andrevan—I suspect he just forgot he supported—but in the circumstances it should be re-closed by another crat (or crats). The usual and proper practice is, of course, for a participant in an RfA not to close the RfA, especially when its close. Certainly in my recent close one, Wizardman explicitly recused himself (he supported me). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this was an uncontroversial close with plenty of support; 74% with 108 supporting is hard to come by in today's RFA. That it passed doesn't have anything to do with my support, (nor do I see how that's a personal attack), and it would have passed regardless -- there was no need to weigh here. My comment refers to TParis' oppose which is pretty unusual. But again, it's a moot point. A recusal is an option, but not a requirement in uncontroversial cases. Andrevan@22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a requirement. It goes to the heart of WP:INVOLVED. This is not wise at all. Among other things, refusing to rescind the close would forever taint NA1000's administrator status. And I say that having supported the RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that it reflects in any way on NA1000's admin status. I am not INVOLVED, I knew nothing about the user before the RFA, and my support comment reflects that in invoking NBD and AGF. Andrevan@22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit shocked to see that a crat closed a close RFA they voted in. It would be different if this was 100%, but this was definitely a controversial close, as it fell within the discretionary range. --Rschen775422:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretion is just that - discretionary. Not controversial necessarily. 74% is not close, that's a pass assuming no irregularities or serious concerns. So I'm standing by the close here. Andrevan@22:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, it is generally a bad idea to make discretionary calls as a bureaucrat when you cannot be seen as impartial, as in this case. --Rschen775422:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you refuse to even acknowledge that this is a controversial close speaks very poorly of your judgment. There was significant opposition, and many in the neutral column. LHMask me a question22:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers no do not constitute controversy - it has to do with the content and strength of the discussion. I am impartial, and in this case it was not a bad idea, but an uncontroversial close. Process for process' sake is an empty and worthless thing, that's why we have policies that say to do what works, the right thing, and the logical thing. In this case my support comment was neither based on some interaction with the candidate, nor did it matter in the final tally. Andrevan@22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with the others that a different crat needed to close the RfA (I didn't vote, btw, fwiw). Just the vote, no matter what the tally is, should be enough to prevent the crat from closing it, but when the percentage is 74%, just saying it's uncontroversial is nothing more than an opinion of the involved crat.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen, here's some insight into how the process works. I reviewed the entire discussion. I determined that there was a minority roughly the size of one (1/4 or so) which would not prevent promotion on the face of it, and did not discount any comments as invalid. The issues raised by the opposition did not seem to pose an imminent threat to policy or stability that would require extra investigation or caution, and there were no issues raised late in the RFA that would have had a significant impact if they had been allowed to be discussed further. I could ascertain no irregularities with canvassing, sock or meat puppetry, etc. After that I went with my best judgment. I also noticed my support comment, which I did not feel was pertinent as one vote didn't affect the total, and I hadn't reviewed the user extensively at that time - I merely supported to bring up AGF and NBD in the face of the first oppose which struck me as based on a personal issue with this user ("I told him to stay away from me and he didn't" paraphrasing..) This is how the system works, this is not a controversial or close call at all, and I would urge those who think it was to read up on RFAs past, consensus, our policies and guidelines, and how they evolved. The point of the discretionary range is that when I close an RFA, "discretion" takes over, a word that means "the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation." So in saying that this was not close or controversial, I am exercising the standard discretion. Andrevan@22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You showed a lack of judgement. Justifying and persistently defending your poor judgement is a further example of poor judgement. my advice: stop digging. Leaky Caldron22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I have no dog in the fight. I have read over the RFA, but I don't know the candidate and I think you're a fine bureaucrat. Additionally, I think that your conclusion is quite defensible. However, I think that you should reverse yourself and let one of our many other bureaucrats close the RFA. Just as administrators should not close AFDs they have voted in; the same should apply for bureaucrats closing RFAs if they had a strong enough position to vote in it to begin with. NW(Talk)22:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bluntly amazed that an involved bureaucrat not only closed an RFA as successful at 74% but is vigorously defending his close. This does not speak well - at all - to Andrevan continuing to hold crat permissions. Crats exist to implement the will of the community, not to supervote discussions they've participated in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Motion
A motion: That the community, by consensus, directs the rescission of the closure of NA1000's RfA and further directs that it be re-closed by an uninvolved bureaucrat or bureaucrats.
Support. Let's fix this unfortunate error in judgement, find a crat who didn't vote, and have it reclosed. Precisely because we're not a bureaucracy, and also so NA1000 doesn't have this hanging over him. (I also did not participate in this RfA.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support borders on unconscionable that a bureaucrat who voted in the RfA would close it, without even comment as to how he arrived at his conclusion on the RfA page, when it is squarely in the discretionary range, and then go onto call the RfA uncontroversial. Horrific error in judgment. GoPhightins!22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong support seems like the best option even though I supported the RFA. I don't see why we should punish NA1000 by having Arbcom desysop him. He didn't do anything wrong. However, this close was bad (and made worse by the fact that the closer voted himself). To those claiming that no one can revert a crat, WP:CONEXCEPT says nothing about reverting RFA closures. WP:IAR is also worth considering. --Jakob (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in as much as this motion claims a community decry, my voice would be heard in opposition. In my opinion however, this is not a matter that can be resolved by an ad-hoc consensus.—John Cline (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis in policy here, it is a fruitless endeavor. It isn't a matter of my agreeing, it is from experience. There is some precedent, when a Crat resysopped someone that arguably didn't qualify, and even Arb didn't have the authority to force the Crat to revert, they would have to desysop by motion. I know because I filed the case, licked my wounds afterwards. User:Polarscribe. If you want to desysop him, you have file a case at Arb, and it must be for cause. In a nutshell, the sole authority to remove the bit lies solely with Arb. The community has zero power to force a Crat to do that. That is why I started WP:RAS to change that fact, which failed. This poll has no authority, unless you just want to count heads. Technically, Andrevan can't even unbit him without Arb requesting it, he lacks the authority, even if the community demands it. If you want Andrevan Crat stripped, that would be a different filing at Arb, but they would probably combine cases. In short, there is no standing and it isn't likely to happen except at Arb, that is where it would happen. Dennis - 2¢22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, it IS a problem that he voted, I certainly agree. The question is one of remedy, and we can't form a remedy ad hoc. Dennis - 2¢22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I want to stress, I'm taking no sides here: IAR can't apply in something this big. Arb can handle it with an emergency motion if they deem it necessary. But the key is this: the only body who can desysop an admin is Arb, and technically Jimbo, who I doubt will get involved as long as Arb is capable. Dennis - 2¢22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the poll is necessary. The discussion seems good enough to me. I don't think we're trying to force a change. Rather, we are trying to convince him that a change is needed. Moreover, even if we don't convince him, other crats can discuss among themselves what's best. I don't see any need for or requirement to go ArbCom for what we're doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume for a moment that the motion above has clear and overwhelming support. Any crat would be entitled to give effect to it, invoking IAR if need be, and be entirely immune from criticism. The community is perfectly entitled to make the rules up as we go along to correct egregious errors such as this. (In any case, as Bbb23 alludes to above, the real purpose of my motion is to force Andrevan's hand to rescind his own close). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any crat that cannot see such an obvious error in judgement, should not be a crat. I don't mean making the mistake, I mean the absolute refusal to see such an obvious mistake and then defend it. I saw this as soon as it was closed, and figured he just forgot he voted in the RfA and even though I wanted an explanation, decided to AGF. Which was obviously incorrect based on his comments after being informed there is a problem. Saying there is nothing we can do, is not correct either. With something this obvious, there is definitely something the community can do, and demand be done. I don't know Andrevan or the RfA candidate, but any 3rd party can see the egregious error in judgement here. Dave Dial (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the crats' job to rule on RfAs. Here, one did and is receiving enormous pushback from the community. Let's say the crats get together, as they sometimes do in RfAs before making a decision, and have a discussion about the close. Let's say that they agree that NA should be promoted. Either they leave the close alone or they add another crat to the close or replace Andrevan's close with someone uninvolved. Either way, no one is desysopped. Let's assume they agree that NA should not be promoted. Then, I think they need to decide whether they have the authority to reverse Andrevan's action or whether they should go to ArbCom, either for clarification or for a motion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more note, if the Crat voluntarily reversed his close, and another uninvolved Crat voluntarily closed it and it had the same conclusion, the bit, then this would be unprecedented, would make flipping bits moot, and would be, well, borderline but maybe within policy. The key is NO crat may remove that bit without Arb or Jimbo. This is a bit of a "sleight of hand", but if the Crat really feels that passing is justified, it might, maybe, I don't know, pass muster. That is about the only solution short of Arb I can see. Passing at 74 isn't that remarkable, it is the vote that matters here. As far as coulda/woulda/shoulda, take it to arb, if you want a solution, this half assed one is the only one I see short of arb. Dennis - 2¢23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was also rather shocked to see this closed without any discussion or rationale and by someone who had !voted. But Dennis makes a great point: having given NA1000 the bit, the 'crat CAN'T take it away. So he can't reverse the closure or let someone else do it. What I would suggest is that the closure should stand but should be "seconded" by some uninvolved 'crat, so that there is never any stain or doubt on NA1000's adminship. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only real issue is that the crat voted in the RFA. I agree that 74 can easily be defensible, but not participation. If he had passed 90 percent and had done this, it would have been a hand slap, but this in the discretionary zone, and while he might or might not be right in his conclusions, he didn't have the right to enforce them. But thank you for linking that, which does show that it is still a credible close, just done by the wrong person. Dennis - 2¢23:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: This looks like an error in judgement on the part of the closing crat though I think an honest one. I'm not seeing anything malicious here. But I agree on principal that an involved crat should not normally close an RfA unless it's a blizzard one way or the other. For an involved crat to close an RfA with the yea !votes in the 70-80% range was bound to raise eyebrows. The question is what do we do about it? And I have to admit that I don't have any good suggestions. One thing I have learned over time is that in life sometimes mistakes happen. And sometimes they can't be fixed, or the fix isn't worth the trouble. My gut is telling me this might be one of those situations. Full Disclosure: I supported NA and stand by my !vote. I also think the close went the right way based on the relative strength of the arguments. But yeah,someone else should have done it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Xeno's statement below is enough. An uninvolved Crat has confirmed the close. I don't think anything more needs to be done. -- GBfan23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a crat chat is necessary, unless other crats demand one. Closing RfAs is (part of) what we elected crats for, and what happened here shouldn't be viewed differently from Xeno having closed it in the first place. wctaiwan (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from other bureaucrats
I personally would never knowingly close an RfA that I had supported or opposed (even exceedingly obvious cases), just as I would never close an RfC in which I opined. I don't think it's unprecedented, but I can't find another case at the moment.
For the present case: I thoroughly reviewed this RfA last night before bed (while it was "pending closure") and was leaning towards promotion. I decided to sleep on it and see what new opinions arrived overnight and then make the closure in the morning, waking up to find it had already been closed. (At the time, I didn't notice that Andrevan had also supported.)
If Andrevan wishes to vacate their close, I would be willing to re-close the RfA, or you can just take this as a "seconding" of the promotion. (I don't think it's necessary to remove and re-add the bit - process wonkery and all, but if consensus is that it is, we could ask Northamerica1000 to assent to the procedure.) –xenotalk23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Xeno. Let's do this. I'm going to remove the bit and then you can add it back. I don't think we need to ask anyone as there is clearly community support for the "re-close." I'll wait until you confirm and then do it. OK? Andrevan@23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't think removing the bit itself is strictly necessary (and it's not one of the allowable reasons) but if you want to invoke IAR then I won't stand in your way. –xenotalk23:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would satisfy most, with Andrevan admitting a mistake. For the record, I would have done the same as you, thought about it, but passed the RfA. Which I think most would. The problem is the closer, and the refusal to see obvious inappropriate close when involved. Thanks for the comment. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--so now 'crats can remove the bit, as long as his preferred outcome remains in place? I'd think it'd be more appropriate to put the close to a 'Crat chat and see what the community of 'crats thinks. LHMask me a question23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(non Crat) NA needs to request removal or just don't do it at all, you can't just remove it. I don't think that precedent is a good one. Dennis - 2¢23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too late guys. I've desysopped NA and Xeno can now go ahead and resysop. So the discussion can soon be closed. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrevan@23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you waited for a 'crat who agreed with your close to offer to close it in your preferred way, and then you decide to do the "right thing"? You just keep digging. LHMask me a question23:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done the same if another crat had come by offering to re-close without telling me what he would have done. But I guess you'll never know if that's really true except for AGF, which you seem to conspicuously lack. Andrevan@23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was promptly reverted when I tried to close the discussion. Let's close it up so that Northamerica1000 can get on with his life, as this is really unfair to him. Andrevan@00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. If you have a problem with me, start an RFC. The community has spoken and the issue has been resolved. It's time to close this discussion here with no future prejudice to having one elsewhere pertaining to whatever you think hasn't been said. Andrevan@00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect (and not sure any is in fact due), I am not digging a hole. I've already reversed my action and Xeno has taken over the close. So inasmuch as there was a hole, I am no longer in there. There's nothing else I can do. Andrevan@00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this snarky BS. Your parenthetical there is just absolutely beyond the pale. You've been digging a hole with your attitude throughout. You first refused to even explain your rationale. After more people asked, you (seemingly) came up with one. When asked to revert and let a different crat close, you first refused to do so. Then, when one showed up offering to simply reinstate the promotion, you suddenly change course. Now, you imply that I'm not worthy of respect, simply for challenging your bad behavior in nearly every step of this process. LHMask me a question03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've never previously had any issues with you. However, your behavior has been severely tone–deaf and it's getting increasingly frustrating. It was a bad idea to close an RfA you had voted in, especially as the RfA was in the discretionary range. You have done a very poor job of recognizing that you messed up. Now, you think it's a good idea for you to be the one who closes this discusion? To use your word, 'Sheesh.' Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's strange that you think you might have previously had issues with me since you have only been registered for a month. Anyway, I'm happy to leave this discussion open as long as people want to, but I do not see that there is anything further to discuss. Please feel free to show otherwise. Andrevan@00:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I've never previously had any issues with you..." Oh, and October 28–November 23 is NOT a week. It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to defend your mistake even after it is obvious you are wrong. But apparently that's not worth discussing in your view. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try walking away from the discussion and maybe it will just die off. You really should have had the sense to not close a discussion that was being held regarding your having improperly closed a discussion. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this being closed. The issue has been dealt with, I suspect the trouting has been accepted, and things can only degenerate from here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold fast, there. Closing this discussion here so quickly gives, rightly or wrongly, the appearance of impropriety. I speak as as supporter of NA1000 in the Rfa, who disagreed with the opposers rationales and said so. However, there are a number of points that should be discussed further, in my view, and this page is the place to do that. Jusdafax00:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you have. If you had accidentally closed this, forgetting you had voted in it, that would be one thing. A simple "trouting" would do. But no, you knew you had voted in it, and still decided to close it. When challenged, you initially offered no explanation other than claiming it "wasn't controversial" and was "discretionary." When further challenged, you came up with what seemed to me an ex post facto justification for the close, and refused to revert it. You maintained that position until a 'Crat appeared that said they'd be willing to restore the promotion if you reverted. Only then did you agree to revert, which seems rather convenient. When asked to resign your cratship, you dismissed the possibility out of hand. LHMask me a question02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
INVOLVED specifically excepts non-controversial, straightforward instances or minor involvements. I felt like this one was. The community is saying loud and clear that it isn't. So, thus my change of position and apology. There's not much else I can do here. Andrevan@02:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your dogged determination to be right in this and the obtuse argument you put up and defended is really worrying. Your lack of judgement should be of concern to the community. How about a confirmation RfB? Leaky Caldron00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your characterization, and clearly I am not determined to be right since I reversed my action. If you want to comment on my conduct further you may open an RFC, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a closed issue. Andrevan@00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jusdafax. I also supported, but this transcends that. The procedure that was used wasn't founded in policy, and is a huge IAR. Good or bad, this needs to left open for at least a day. Not everyone lives on the east coast of the USA, not everyone has the same hours at their work. If you want the community to support the action, you pretty much have to let them opine and not stand in the way of it. Nothing is served by closing it this early. If we make returning admin wait 24 hours to get their bit back, we can leave the door open for this FUBAR. Dennis - 2¢00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec's) To say this was an irregular close is an understatement. For starters, it has been my understanding that bureaucrats don't remove the admin flag unless requested to do so by the admin in question. If NA1000 did not so request, does this set a new standard of bureaucrat powers? I find myself troubled by this out of process "fix" which seems to create more problems than it solves. As for the original close by an involved 'crat, is there precedent for that, and if not, should that be formally prohibited? It does indeed appear to apply to WP:INVOLVED. I think the opposers concerns need to be addressed instead of being swept under the rug. Jusdafax00:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the whole community needs to have a chance to weigh in on this, and I think you're doing Northamerica1000 (and me) a disservice by turning this into some kind of referendum. There's no new information that is going to show up in the next 24 hours; the RFA is over. Any bureaucrat is empowered to close the RFA. I did so, the community objected, and now Xeno has done so. If you have further requests or complaints, please speak up. Otherwise we are beating a dead horse. That being said, I am also apparently beating the dead horse, so I'm going to walk away from it. If anyone has further discussion that they'd like me to comment on, please use my talk page. Andrevan@00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) with lots of people. I agree with Jusdafax and Dennis, it's much too soon to close, especially because I want to hear from more crats. 34 users have bureacrat rights, see this list. Any experienced user will know that some on the list are inactive, but also that many are active — I don't want to guess how many, nor spend my limited wikitime researching it, but many is not misleading. So far only one of them all (one who endorsed Andrevan's controversial action) has commented here. When I first read the thread, I thought that there must be some crats' own Blue code of silence keeping the others away, but then I realised the thread had only been open three and a half hours, and that my first notion had been unfair. Crats are volunteers too, and are in all sorts of timezones like the rest of us. Please leave the discussion open for at the very least another 24 hours. Andrevan, the issue on the table is not to make you eat crow, but to see whether something different should be done about NA1000's adminship. Bishonen | talk00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Just joining in on the conversation--I see no issue at all with a crat reverting their own log action if they decide it was needed, as was done in this case, the reversion would have left the RFA still pending closure which was done--nothing else to discuss about the RfA. — xaosfluxTalk00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Crats are forbidden from debitting someone outside of an Arb order or request by the admin. Even in emergencies, they want a Steward to do it. Dennis - 2¢00:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, this "fix" in fact compounds the problems of a 'crat closing an Rfa they !voted in. The actions appear to be not only inappropriate but arguably a violation of policy that, if not addressed, leave considerable confusion in their wake. Jusdafax01:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Closure for at least 24 hrs per Bishonen and Dennis. This entire affair has been one giant cluster bleep and we need time for other editors and crats to at least have the opportunity to discuss it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed, but the last thing I would want to do is to subject NA1000 to double jeopardy. As I see it, Andrevan was wrong to close an RfA in which he had commented, and was also wrong not to provide at least a brief statement of his reasoning for the close, because it was in the discretionary zone and not a slam dunk one way or the other. It's already happened, but I hope that message is understood by all the crats going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close Xeno has just wrote a very fair close rational for the RfA which hopefully makes clear why there was consensus to promote. Can't believe some are attacking a usually excellent crat who made a minor procedural error, and took almost two hours to recognize the mistake. So crats are human too, who knew? The swift resolution with an IAR fix was vastly better than dragging this out with a lengthy discussion. North may be a cool cookie, but candidates can ride an emotional roller-coaster during a fairly close RfA. Totally unfair to raise the stress levels again just at the point they've started to relax as it seemed all over. If anything the quick fix shows why crats deserve the extra big bucks. No one can avoid mistakes, and almost no one can always accept they've made a mistake the instant it's pointed out. It's how you act in the aftermath that counts, and Andreavan has shown class. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not close, do not promote until more 'crats have weighed in. This was not a "minor procedural error." This was a 'crat knowingly closing a contentious RFA that they themselves had acrimoniously participated in. Andrevan even seems to have had a history with the editor whose oppose rationale he insulted in his support. This is a major breach of trust and, in my opinion, should result in Andrevan losing the 'crat bit, either by laying it down under a cloud, or through community consensus. Even people who supported the RFA have noted how bad this action was. LHMask me a question02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that I've interacted in a somewhat unpleasant way with TParis, that would make me INVOLVED with TParis, not with Northamerica1000. The same concern I had with TParis' vote was echoed by Xeno in his close. Nonetheless, it totally makes sense why the community is unhappy about this, because it looks like I am INVOLVED with Northamerica1000 as well now, which is why I have apologized and self-reverted here. INVOLVED excepts non-controversial, straightforward, and minor instances. My mistake was in reading this that way, which clearly it is not. Andrevan@03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you knew very well that a 74%er closed as successful, with lots of opposition, and a ton of neutrals, was not uncontroversial. I think you're smarter than that. But I think you did it anyway, because you thought NA1000 deserved to be an admin, and because you didn't like one of the lead oppose voters. You made that very clear in your snarky oppose vote. That, combined with the fact that you had sworn not to close RFAs in which you voted during your RFB should lead to your laying down the crat tools. You've made very clear, though, that you're not going to do so, even in the face of such an egregious breach of trust. Think of it this way: if you stood for an RFB right now, there's no way you'd pass. That should tell you something about the breach of trust this is. LHMask me a question03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how my oppose comment was snarky. I think Xeno's close explains well some of the mitigating factors regarding the oppose discussion, including TParis' personally motivated remarks. In fact, what you are accusing me of doing -- acting due to personal animosity for a user -- is what TParis was doing, which is why I opposed for that reason. This is all moot though since I have vacated my original close. Andrevan@03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You only "vacated" your close once you were assured it would immediately be reinstated. There was nothing noble in your behavior there. My issue is with your judgment in even making the close. Had Xeno made the initial close, and provided the rationale currently provided, I'd have disagreed with the assessment, but would have AGF'd in his case, as he was uninvolved. You were not, knew you were not, and closed a controversial RFA anyway, without providing even the barest rationale. That shows such poor judgment that I believe were you to stand for a reconfirmation, you would not be reconfirmed, and it wouldn't be close. That's altogether a differenct question than whether NA1000's RFA should have been closed as successful. (Personally, I still feel like it should have been submitted to a crat discussion, but that's beside the point.) LHMask me a question03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about AGF is that you need to do it anyway, even when you disagree with someone. As I've explained, I felt my INVOLVEment was too minor and inconsequential to prevent me from closing the RFA, but I've backed down on this point. AGF doesn't allow you to assume that I knew this would happen - if I knew it would happen why would I have done it? This was a passing RFA which I voted in. I shouldn't have assumed that people would see my participation as minor. Andrevan@04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED actually covers it. Even using the crat tools would quality as an administrative function or higher. There is zero question in my mind that this is not allowed. If an admin can't vote and close an AFD, Crats can't vote in and close the same RFA. If this had been a 100/0 vote, even in the most obvious case....he can't. Crats exist for the purpose of having the highest trust from the community, which is why they have the highest level of support required. Arbs need 50% +1, Admin need ~75% and Crats need ~85%, so the level of scrutiny is higher in both obtaining and using that bit. To me, it is beyond discussion, beyond debate and utterly inconceivable that policy would allow a Crat to participate and close the same RFA. He has unclosed this one, so it is moot, but there wasn't a doubt yesterday, there is no doubt tomorrow. I don't recommend the RFC because of this, as I can't possibly fathom anyone with any familiarity with policy disagreeing, making the discussion moot. Dennis - 2¢01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if you can't fathom anyone disagreeing, the fact is than an involved crat closed an RfA. It won't hurt to explicitly state that this isn't allowed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan's pledge of non-closure of involved Rfa's during his successful RfB
This doesn't look good. Given the fact that Andrevan specifically stated during his RfB that he would not do what he has now done, I think the only moral thing for him to do is resign his Bureaucrat flag. We can't condone this type of behavior which strikes at the credibility of the 'pedia: he was given his powers by making this pledge. Jusdafax01:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not going to resign, but I am happy to apologize. I've been a bureaucrat for over 7 years, this is the first time the community has expressed their displeasure (that I can recall), and I have reverted myself and certainly won't make such a mistake again. Andrevan@01:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish it is simply not enough, in my view. Andrevan, you said in your RFB "I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA." This is a definitive statement and you have breached the trust of the community. Sir, will you not do the right thing? At the very least, your conduct calls for reconfirmation, but it would be simplest to walk away now. Not to do so, again in my opinion, will be a messy timesink and tarnish the reputation of our project. I ask in all seriousness and hope you understand that I bear you no ill-will, and indeed don't recall previous interaction with you. It's just that you really blew it, given your pledge. Jusdafax01:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but that was 7 years ago, I've admitted that I was wrong, reverted my action, and apologized here. So no, I will not resign or stand for reconfirmation, I'm human, and this simple procedural mistake has not harmed the project or changed the actual result. I think your "sir?" is a little melodramatic. I'm here to get things done. When I overstep bounds, it's in the interest of progress and the project. Andrevan@01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan I won't ask you to resign but you really need to recognize when multiple people tell you that you are wrong that you just may be. You did recognize it but it took a long time. If not for my respect for your years of service(I remember when you became a crat) I would ask you to resign. Chillum01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, with respect, this now raises another awkward question, how long is a pledge in an RfA or RfB good for? Seven years is too long, so is four years still valid? Two? Is it any wonder the general editing community is dwindling away, given that these administrative/bureaucratic positions are for life yet there is no seeming accountability when there are clear cut violations of policy and the flag holders' own solemn pledges are shrugged off? 'Crats have one major job, and !votes are cast on that understanding. Now I'm being called melodramatic, for saying "Sir", and I now am forced, given Andrevan's reluctant demeanor throughout this discussion, reluctant apology only in the face of my raising his own words, the hasty and unseemly attempt to close, and flawed initial reasoning to question Andrevan's fitness for any position of authority at Wikipedia whatsoever. Jusdafax02:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With equal respect I agree breaking a promise is wrong. I also don't think that one fuck up over 7 years of good service is something to pursue. If a pattern emerges I will be among those calling for action, but not for an isolated incident. Chillum04:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to drop the stick (you've expressed yourself) and recognize that Arbcom is your recourse if you want blood. I also am troubled by Andrevan's actions (not the initial mistake - those happen - but the subsequent evident lack of humility) but this isn't the place to perseverate. -- Scray (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now I'm seeing what was needed. As for apologies, I'm familiar [3] as I've always lived by the code of making any apology at least as public as the mistake. I think Andrevan has done as much as I would expect of myself, and that is all I can ask. It isn't fun, but it is done. One of the disadvantages of Crats being put on a big pedestal, is that it is a hard fall when we push you off. I'm hoping that NA's adminship won't be considered under a shadow (by him or others), but there isn't anything I can think of to remedy that, it is just unfortunate collateral damage. Perhaps other crats can help. Dennis - 2¢02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't, but I haven't talked to him or others. Time will tell, it was one hell of an RFA anyway. Mine was as well, but his beat mine out. Dennis - 2¢02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted close
I'm sorry Salvidrim!, but I had to revert. This is a hot issue, and we can't ignore the community's right to opine. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. We didn't ask for it, it was thrust upon us, and yes, it is so unprecedented that we can't force editors to not discuss it. I would also note that a "motion to close" is by itself inappropriate. Like it or not, the community has a vested interest here, and we can not just silence them. Dennis - 2¢01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone lives in the USA. Maybe someone sleeping in Europe has something to say. This is why we can't close. And it will just move somewhere else, and this is the right place to debate. Andrevan did a controversial thing, he shouldn't have been the one to motion to close, which isn't even a policy anyway. And he has yet to articulate that he understands that policy forbid what he did twice today. Again, I agree with his vote and close, just not his actions. Dennis - 2¢01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis, not because we should necessarily undo the sysopping (and I hope at this point that we don't), but because there are larger issues to discuss, and the community needs to be able to discuss them. I, for one, would especially like to hear from more crats about their views, not of whether this RfA outcome was the right outcome, but of whether the procedures were appropriate. That really matters, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
THAT is the big one, hearing from other Crats. This whole situation was rushed, from close to revert, to rebit. It is unusual because Crats are typically NOT ones to rush. So yes, we do ask to hear from other Crats. A little guidance perhaps, some closure maybe. Ignoring it is impossible, someone already started an RFC for goodness sake. Dennis - 2¢01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare that we wrap archive boxen around discussions at BN. Though I've tagged the thread resolved (as far as requiring the further intervention of bureaucrats), the community should feel free to discuss further. –xenotalk01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the aversion for a closure-wrapper than implicitely puts a final stop to continued discussion, to my eye eveything that had to be discussed here has been discussed. There seems to be consensus (amongst the community & 'crats) that a 'crat who voted in an RfA should not close it. Andrevan has recognized the error, apologized, reverted themselves (both in closure and in sysopping), and another, uninvolved, 'crat stepped in and took the responsibility for the closure & sysopping. At this point, only two things seem to still be a point of meaningful discussion: policy about the whole thing (which is discussed at WT:CRAT), and Andrevan's 'crat userright, about which nothing will ever done outside of ArbCom, unless people are somehow hoping to break him down into resignation (which he has already declined). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't our place to second guess what can be said. Closing increases the likelihood of problems. If there is nothing to say, fine, nothing will get said, but if an admin slams it shut, it looks like you are trying to stifle dissent. Perception matters. You have to provide a venue when there is a legitimate concern. Closing it implies any further comment isn't legitimate. This isn't ANI, the issues are bigger. Dennis - 2¢02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an error to both participate in and close an RfA in the discretionary range, but contrary to popular opinion, we bureaucrats are not quite robots, but fallible people who make mistakes from time to time. Andrevan has, at the time I am writing this, acknowledged the error and undone his close, which gave a 'crat uninvolved in the discussion, Xeno, a chance to close it independently. It's true that undoing one's own RfA close is not explicitly allowed by policy as one of the rationales for removing a sysop bit, but I think it was nonetheless a reasonable thing for Andrevan to do given the realization that there were legitimate concerns about the close. Like Xeno, I was not involved in this RfA in any way, but having read over it now I believe that Xeno's (re-)close is sound. I don't see a need to hastily close this discussion, but neither do I see much need for anything else to be done at this point, either, given Andrevan's self-revert and apology and Xeno's close. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a sensible closing (or not closing) commentary from 28bytes there. Let's leave it at that and now move on. If someone is aware of exciting reasons not to move on, such reasons had better be very, very persuasive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this has become a disorderly free-for-all, but I'll risk one more comment. I tend to hew closely to policy and I've never been a fan of WP:IAR. That said, the result here is sound and letting it go is the best way to put this behind us. I'm not crazy about the length of time it took Andrevan to admit his mistake, but it's not resignation-worthy, and I'm sure in some ways it wasn't easy for him to do given how much criticism he had to take. Let's move on. This kind of prolonged drama is unhealthy and I'm sure it isn't fun for NA, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree pretty much exactly with what 28bytes said here. I would add that I also think that TenOfAllTrades makes a good point below, that it would have been prudent to be quicker to acknowledge the misjudgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nobody
OMG! Someone somewhere on Wikipedia made a mistake! And it's been fixed. And they apologized and won't do it again... and we're still here... why? NE Ent03:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't particularly helpful. There is an RFC now, this wasn't fixed as quick as you think, and it was done with a huge dose of IAR the likes of which we've never seen before. Thankfully the discussion is moving towards healing and moving forward, but antagonizing isn't helping. Dennis - 2¢04:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we drop the stick?
Andrevan did something wrong. It took a long time and a lot of convincing before he backed down. This is true. But it is also true that he did back down and allow another crat to close this.
I am sure most of us agree this was a serious lapse in judgment. But I think we can also agree that over 7 years one incident does not make a pattern. If a pattern emerges I will fully support action but this is an isolated incident and I seriously doubt Andrevan will do this again regardless of what he thinks is right.
Agree. Everything that had to be discussed here has been discussed. Andrevan made a blatant error, then even if not immediately he recognized that, self-reverted, apologized. The RfA was re-closed by a second crat, who provided a very sound summary of the discussion in their rationale. A third crat endorsed the close. It's time for dropping the stick. Cavarrone07:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it problematic that a 'crat could make an error. I also don't see an issue with the "annulment" of Andrevan's close and the re-closure by a different 'crat—though I wish that Xeno hadn't chosen to include his planned decision in his offer to Andrevan (it's not fair to the RfA candidate to do that sort of thing, as it gives the closure an unfortunately rubber-stampy wink-wink feel).
I do find it worrying that a 'crat's first reaction was not to say『Oops. You're right. I did vote in this RfA, so I shouldn't have been the one to close it. I'll undo my action, make my apology to the candidate for the confusion, and let another 'crat – of which we have, what, 34 or so? – do the job. Sorry guys, won't happen again.』 Instead, Andrevan's response was to double down, fully knowing that he had voted in the RfA, and that it had fallen into the 'discretionary' range, with an insistence that his discretion was just fine, thank you very much, so what's the big deal?
This is basic Recusal 101 stuff, basic adminship bread and butter. As a member of the community, it's extraordinarily frustrating to see someone who is supposed to be trusted to exercise cautious good judgement fail so completely to apprehend his responsibilty in this area, even after it was clearly and explicitly pointed out to him. And I'm stuck about what should happen next, because hey—anyone can make a mistake, and it feels slightly disproportionate to demand Andrevan's resignation for one mistake...even with his very uncomfortable and troubling push back against recognizing that mistake. It shouldn't be necessary to have to browbeat and lecture bureaucrats to get them to understand and follow WP:INVOLVED.
Itshouldn't take "one last warning" for there to be concrete consequences to clear-cut failures of judgement like this, but so be it. Since now all of Wikipedia's bureaucrats should be well aware that they are not allowed to close RfAs in which they have participated, the community should be able to trust that this sort of nonsense won't be repeated. If, in the future, despite an abundance of caution, a 'crat mistakenly closes an RfA in which they were a participant, we should expect them to immediately, politely, and contritely undo their own error as soon as they become aware of it. There is now no room for any possible misunderstanding of the community's expectations on this basic point. Bureaucrats who push back on a very clear point like this again should be asked to resign, and if they fail to do so, they should expect their bureaucratship will be removed by ArbCom.
Assuming that the 'crats accept and understand this very straightforward point about their responsibilities to recuse, then I would say it is safe to drop the stick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you say here, except I believe that it's imperative that Andrevan resign his cratship. This is not one mistake. That would have been if he had seen what he'd done (closing an RFA that he posted a snarky vote to), immediately acknowledged the mistake, and let another crat close it. He did not do that. He made multiple "mistakes", in first simply dismissing the concerns with the proverbial wave of his hand, then posting what read (to me) like an ex post facto I'd-better-come-up-with-SOMETHING rationale to replace his initial, "It was in the discretionary range" rationale. He then refused to undo his close--until Xeno offered to immediately reclose it as "successful", at which time he suddenly changed course on that point. No, this was a long string of trust-breaking actions, albeit over a foreshortened time frame, not a one-off mistake. Think of it this way: were Andrevan to stand for a reconfirmation RFB, what are the chances that he would retain the trust of the community, do you think? I think those chances are very slim indeed, and as such, I think he should step down from his cratship. LHMask me a question17:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. And disagree in particulars to TenofAllTrades. It's basically clear what happened here, and nothing more is called for. Androvan closed in the manner that other Crats would enact the same in result (see Involved exception) - and he was right; Androvan discussed - the complaint and that he didn't just role over seems ungenerous - especially since DBrown objected to any reopening [reversal of the result]; apology for any error has been made, the end. Sure we can clarify the policy issue, but the rest is just too much (apparently, the "vote", should have been the "rationale" ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) [Amended after response] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't object to reopening, in fact, given my druthers, NA would have voluntarily surrendered the bit, the Crat would have reverted, and we would have went back to close fresh. I explained this on Bbb23's page, but didn't get to here due to ECs, before it was already kludged up. I objected to a Crat removing the admin bit without authorization from Arb or the admin, as a prior Arb case had indicated that isn't allowed, and policy doesn't authorize it in any way. They did it anyway, under WP:IAR, which is risky but acceptable as long as the community accepts it. THAT is why this page needed to left open a day, to ensure the community accepts it. This wouldn't have been my first choice of how to handle it (obviously), but I accept it as essentially "moot" as well, because the result is the same. Dennis - 2¢18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is okay for bureaucrats to push back when a community member points out that they have closed a (decidedly non-unanimous) discussion in which they were involved? I'm not calling for Andrevan to resign; I'm saying that any 'crat who, in the future, behaves the way Andrevan did should damn well know better, and would be obligated to resign. There's no cover of ambiguity to hide behind at this point, and the 'crats should be aware of and acknowledge that. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, and I don't see which part of my comment you're actually disagreeing with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's okay for a Crat to defend his position in discussion - that is how you have a discussion - so, no, any future discussion with a Crat should proceed on the merits of its own situational circumstances -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting one should only argue when they are right? The point of a discussion is for people who disagree on what is right and wrong to convince each other and arrive as a common conclusion. That happened here. Chillum21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan's action was obviously and egregiously wrong. It wasn't close. Yet he defended it vigorously until it became obvious to him that it was more than just me calling out what he'd done. And he refused to reverse his action until he knew that there was a crat who would immediately reinstate it. Every step of the way he's been out of line. LHMask me a question00:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we still need to move on. A light bulb did go off, he seems to get it, and while it was ugly, we managed to kludge together a solution, so the system worked, thanks to IAR. I was as frustrated as anyone, but I'm quite confident that this will never happen again, which is what matters. Dennis - 2¢00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No. He disagreed with what is "controversial" for any crat closing where there was a super-majority in agreement on the result, no defective !voters, no canvassing, serious good-faith nominations, no opposition that raised a categorically disqualifying objection (eg. the nominee is a sockmaster, etc.) - he asserted that other crats would arrive at the same result, and he was right. He was wrong that he should have done the closing because it was procedurally in appearance problematic but by that time, it was done and done, and it is still done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That he didn't realize that such a contentious RFA, where there was significant opposition, a lot of neutrals, and in which he himself had !voted was a controversial close speaks very poorly of his judgment. That he didn't immediately self-revert makes it even worse. That he repeatedly defended the close, is just utterly egregious. There's just no excuse for defending that close, after it was questioned. Period, full stop. LHMask me a question01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless as WP:INVOLVED is what covers it. We don't duplicate the same policy elements at every possible page, or you risk contradictory policy. If you actually read the discussion, you would know. Dennis - 2¢17:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it to the RFC discussing this exact thing. Almost everyone agrees Involved already covers it, including those that want more language, but you are free to disagree there. Dennis - 2¢18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) WP:CRAT includes WP:ADMIN explicitly, in the first paragraph of the lead section:
That, in turn, includes the section WP:INVOLVED. The text there doesn't specifically list every possible community discussion where an admin might be required to make a decision and a close (AfD, RfD, CfD, AN, AN/I, RFPP, ANEW, AE, etc.); in fact, it offers no specific examples. It's just a blanket assumption and admonition that involved admins shouldn't close any discussion where they are involved, especially if the outcome is contested. Bureaucrats should not be shocked, surprised, or confused that the community and policy expectation of them is exactly identical for the additional types of discussion for which closure is the exclusive preserve of 'crats. We don't need to spell out explicitly every type of discussion where this applies for admins—it's just all of them. Bureaucrats are expected to be neither children nor wikilawyers, so specific enumeration of their identical recusal obligations should be even less necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we seldom archive things here, I know of at least 4 people, and likely more, who would think this is a good idea, so I'm closing this without comment as to the merits. Dennis - 2¢02:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies for being late to the conversation, I was not at home yesterday nor this morning. According to this diff, Andrevan recalls a specific bad experience with me that they seem to be holding a grudge on. The same discussion Andrevan said that was also one where I was being critical of him here. I'm rather concerned that NA1K's RfA close was to settle a personal grudge against me as the most vocal opponent, as even User:Xeno points out, and tool use to settle personal grudges is a BIG no no - I don't care how anyone looks at it. Andrevan was involved even before he left a comment in that RfA - he was involved with me. With that in mind, I have no idea what the original dispute was that leads to the first diff I posted but apparently Andrevan does. I suspect that if it was under these same circumstances, that Andrevan may not be suitable for a 'crat anymore.--v/r - TP01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the obvious battlefield mentality and refusal to AGF here, it is striking to me that you feel this is about you - Xeno and other users were also concerned with your personal vendetta-driven !vote on the RFA, and you appear to be approaching this with a similar kind of mentality. Yes, I did contribute this analysis to the discussion, which made me INVOLVED, a point I have conceded should have stopped me from closing the RFA. Nonetheless everything I wrote that Xeno echoed in his close applies still. The dispute, by the way, that I referred to there was one in which a user felt that I was accusing him of being a misogynist, if that rings a bell. We can dig it up if necessary, but I'm not sure that it reflects very well on you, and I don't see why this should turn into a mudslinging contest when it's effectively over with no harm done. Andrevan@01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF would be the thing you should have done when you accused me of a vendetta in your RfA !vote. "personal vendetta-driven !vote" is ad hominem. Despite my requests, no one has found a single negative interaction I have ever had with NA1K. No diffs have been shown. You know, like the one I just showed that proves you have a vendetta against me. An "obvious battlefield mentality" is the kind you display when you pursue vendettas against people you have a grudge with. Again, like I've proven that you have done. You seem to have a problem showing diffs to support accusations. Similar to when you were casting aspersions in the Christianity thread. And I suspect if I recall the previous dispute now that you were also making accusations of misogyny without any diffs to support your accusations and/or were taking something completely out of context and putting it in a different light. If you'd like to find those diffs, I suggest you do so. Showing a pattern of behavior of you personalizing disputes is a great idea, please do that.--v/r - TP01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is pretty amazing to read. Watching you turn everything on its head is a fascinating kind of acrobatics. Calling your vote a vendetta is not ad hominem. Here's what you wrote. "NA1K lacks good judgement. Despite being well aware that I did not want to interact with him anymore, he felt the need to twice make a bunch of edits to an article I was working on getting to FA status. Now, while I won't go and say his edits were unhelpful, and I don't want to claim ownership, but the edits do demonstrate a lack of good judgement in staying away from each other." - you opposed NA1K in a way that Xeno described as, "Some of the comments in opposition seemed to stem more from personal disagreements or differences of opinion, rather than the candidate's ability to execute the duties of an administrator. Many wrote "per TParis" or "per Drmies" (or both). But even TParis, arguably the most vocal among the opposition wrote that he didn't feel Northamerica1000 would abuse the tools and that they would support the candidate if the tools could be unbundled [1]; while a large portion of Drmies' opposition concerned a difference of opinion on a content-related issue." I think that about sums it up, which is exactly what I meant in my comment, and I don't hold a grudge, although you apparently do. I'm going to back off from it now and I suggest you do the same. As to the misogyny dispute, if you dig it up, it will be quite clear that I was defending women, and those who took that as accusation of misogyny were betraying an oversensitivity to that kind of criticism, which rarely bodes well. Andrevan@02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you meant, then I strongly suggest you read up on the definition of a vendetta and a disagreement. Xeno had a right. NA1K and I disagree on the importance of WP:BEFORE and his drive-by tagging in AfDs that I closed which I asked him to quit doing and also tagging for ARS. I explained policy to him in both cases and he never got it, so I asked him to leave me alone because I grew tired of explaining it to him over and over. There is no personal grudge. I think NA1K is probably a perfectly nice guy and he works really hard and I wouldn't want to see him off the project. But my experience with him is that he's a bad communicator. I don't call it a vendetta. I've had vendettas and I've settled one of them. The other is blocked for good. Apparently you've got one with me, which is regretable, and you've acted on it, which is even more regretable. I'd suggest in the future, though, that you not assume bad faith that I have a grudge on a user I oppose. I also suggest that you read the differences in what you and Xeno have said rather than the similarities.--v/r - TP02:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I had already forgotten about the misogyny dispute by the time we had that other interaction on ANI. You took me completely off guard when you said we had previous interactions. I let personal disputes go after a time, so I had no idea who you even were other than knowing your name as a 'crat. Despite that, I still opposed both sanctions suggested for you as a matter of principal and because I do AGF.--v/r - TP02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I am happy to forgive and forget as well. Nonetheless, here's the difference between a disagreement and a vendetta, or at least what I mean by that here, and why I called you out. A disagreement is explaining why you disagree with the policy interpretation, like you did at first. A vendetta is, "Stay away from me from now on." You don't have the right to say that NA1K can't edit an article that you are working on. You can try to steer clear of him, but you can't order him to go away, and you certainly can't oppose for that reason. Andrevan@02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I "ordered" anyone to do anything. I asked him politely here. If you can read that comment, my last one to him prior to the RfA, as a vendetta or anything other than courteous and polite then I'd actually really appreciate it if you'd point that out to me. My last comment to him in over a year was completely respectful and the epitome of politeness in my book. My oppose wasn't that he violated some order I had placed on him and if you read it like that then it was read in the wrong context. My oppose was that he lacked good judgement in editing an article knowing I was the primary contributor and in a way that could lead to a dispute after my polite request. He's not "in the wrong" but I would expect better judgement. I avoid getting the attention of people I don't want to talk to and many of them avoid getting my attention. That's how you avoid disputes. It has worked well for two years, I don't know why NA1K suddenly broke it. In doing so, he undid some of the copyediting I am explicitly asked for from a user from the guild of copyeditors. A copyedit I was depending on for the ACR. Again, I ignored it, made some changes and moved on. I wouldn't have said anything to him ever if the RfA had not come up. It was questionable judgement and questionable judgement is a reason to oppose in an RfA.--v/r - TP02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And despite this, I'll take your offering hand and we can forgive and let it be. I'd appreciate if you'd ask me for more information the next time you think I have a personnal vendetta, though. Either against you or someone else. I'd be happy to explain myself.--v/r - TP02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt at all that Andrevan has a personal grudge against TP, and that the grudge played a role in both his vote and his close. Nothing he's done, from his snarky support vote until now, gives me reason to believe otherwise. LHMask me a question02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that, do you? Despite a diff from a month ago proving Andrevan has a grudge against me. That's thick. Hard to think that when the user's support !vote specifically addresses me. Consciously, which is evident, or unconsciously - I was very much a part of their decision.--v/r - TP01:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whose intelligence am I questioning? Is there something else you use to describe someone to ignores the evidence placed in front of them and retorts with a pure unsupported contradiction as some form of "good" argument?--v/r - TP01:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you had a dispute does not make you the motive. Frankly I think you are assigning too much importance to yourself here. You may think I am "thick" but I think your belief that this is about you is egotistical. It probably has nothing at all to do with you. Go an re-read WP:AGF. Chillum02:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it's over, you just don't know it's over. Since it appears re-closing this bickerfest would just get reverted, I guess I'm going to have to unwatchlist this page for a little while until everyone either loses interest, or files an RFCU (HAHAHA) or an ArbCom case - the only things that will actually achieve anything. Personally, I suggest losing interest. Could someone let me know when this "discussion" dies down so I can re-watchlist the page? I hate to remove it from my watchlist, it's usually an island of relative sanity in a sea of stupid, and I usually find it somehow comforting. Thank you in advance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eliminating the OTRS local user group
The global group was created and all users have been added. What would the process be for removing the now unnecessary local user group for OTRS permissions members? Rjd0060 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Administrators, not bureaucrats, have the ability to add/remove OTRS-member. I'd think just removing the local permission as superfluous would be fine, unless someone can think of a reason to have it duplicated (perhaps the ability to use the local listuser function to find "OTRS-member"s?). –xenotalk02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
