BarkingFish (talk | contribs) →Oppose: repair |
Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) →Oppose: fix per WP:REFACTOR |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
||
#'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely. |
#'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely. <s>Have you considered contacting a [[m:Steward]] about the possibility of a one time promotion to a non community trusted position for this specific purpose.</s> On the other hand: If you show intention to have this as a long term promotion then I would have no problem with supporting but such a short period for an ArbCom case (plus possible controversies) is not worth requesting adminship through this process. Sorry again, But I have intent to support depending on your reaction/others. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#: I agree that this is a cumbersome way to obtain the right to read deleted files for a limited time, but I was told it was the way to proceed — only those vetted as administrators are to be accorded the right. It would be nice if this was an unbundled user right, but it is not. All the best, —Tim /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
#: I agree that this is a cumbersome way to obtain the right to read deleted files for a limited time, but I was told it was the way to proceed — only those vetted as administrators are to be accorded the right. It would be nice if this was an unbundled user right, but it is not. All the best, —Tim /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#:Stewards cannot fulfill such a request. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
#:Stewards cannot fulfill such a request. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#::Rschen: I realized but I forgot to strike it out after I spoke to a steward, Though thanks for pointing my mistake out above. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Rewrote for a genuine oppose. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
#:::Rewrote for a genuine oppose. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#::::Please strike your original comments rather than re-writing them, as otherwise you're making the candidate's response appear to be a non-sequitur, which is really not on for an RfA (but also anywhere else - see [[WP:REFACTOR]]). I've restored what Carrite was originally replying to. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I'm not convinced with the 'temporary' nature of your request, and feel that it sets a bad precedent for future. Why do ''you'' need access to the non-visible pages/contribs if it's already at ArbCom? Surely it opens the floodgates for every editor to request such access when an ArbCom case they might have an interest in appears? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I'm not convinced with the 'temporary' nature of your request, and feel that it sets a bad precedent for future. Why do ''you'' need access to the non-visible pages/contribs if it's already at ArbCom? Surely it opens the floodgates for every editor to request such access when an ArbCom case they might have an interest in appears? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#: I am a party in the case. The case was filed by a CCI member who participated in an ongoing investigation. The case is going to hinge upon editing practices and the interpretation of intent now obscured to me in deleted files. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
#: I am a party in the case. The case was filed by a CCI member who participated in an ongoing investigation. The case is going to hinge upon editing practices and the interpretation of intent now obscured to me in deleted files. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:08, 7 February 2013
Carrite
(talk page) (24/15/7); Scheduled to end 17:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
Carrite has been here for a few years, racked up 38k edits, 70% of which are to articles, and of course has a clean block log and exceptional experience with AFD, participating in over 3200 discussions with a good track record. He is asking for the admin bit to review deleted material for an Arb case, and pledges to resign the bit after the case is done. This unusual request is because of the limitations of the admin system, where only admin can review deleted material, and there is no other way he can do so without the bit. Normally, I wouldn't consider such a limited request, but in Carrite's case, I'm asking the community to consider it for a couple of reasons: 1. He is fully qualified to be an admin, period. 2. I trust him and find it easy to take him at his word. Personally, I would rather he run to keep the bit, but that isn't what interests him. This is fine, since many quality users would rather not be an admin, dealing with the responsibilities and time it consumes. It would be very difficult to maintain a 70% contribution to articles with the admin bit, for example. In the end, I'm not asking the community to make an exception for Carrite, I'm asking the community to support based on the fact that he is fully qualified, independent minded, definitely here to build an encyclopedia, has solid all around experience, and has excellent clue. That he is being honest is saying that he only wants it for a limited period shouldn't be held against him, as no admin wants the bit to do everything, nor to do it forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Dennis, I accept this nomination.
- First, a bit about myself, since I feel one of the great failings of Wikipedia is its cult of anonymity. My name is Tim Davenport, I'm 51 years old, a married straight male living in Corvallis, Oregon, located on the West coast of the United States of America. I have a B.A. in Economics from Oregon State University (1983), did two years of post-bac coursework there to get into graduate school in Russian Area Studies at the University of Washington. I attended UW for one year (1987/88, I believe) but decided to abandon the path to a PhD in History in favor of returning to Corvallis to take over the family business, a small shoe store. I gradually moved from an academic interest in the history of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s to the history of the American radical movement from the 1870s through the 1940s. In 2004 I started a non-commercial website to coordinate and make available to the scholarly and activist communities primary documents gathered in preparation for a major book project (www.marxisthistory.org). This project was subsequently put on the slow track by activity at Wikipedia, where I registered and started to edit in December 2008. I've come to feel that work on the encyclopedia is more beneficial to the cause of expanding knowledge than any book I could write and have worked very hard to make our labor history coverage as good as it could be. There is always more work to be done, obviously. I do write on other topics as well, but that is my main emphasis.
- Now, the specifics of my request. We content writers are a cantankerous lot. We generally work alone, we have our respected friends and associates, and we mutter under our breath about this problem or that dealing with Wikipedia. The notion that there is an administrative caste to which one is "promoted" from being a "mere" content creator is offensive to many of us. This sometimes creates sparks between grumpy old content writers and the corps of content inspectors and site managers, who have their own idiosyncratic ideas and practices. Periodically explosions result during the interaction of these groups. All too often valuable content writers are driven away in the process. There is a ArbCom case coming which has two potential outcomes, one of which will cause the loss of a highly productive, albeit problematic, content creator. I seek the outcome most beneficial to The Project, while at the same time ensuring the rules and expectations of the community are respected moving forward. To participate effectively in the case, I find myself needing to be able to read pages and page histories deleted during an ongoing CCI text investigation. The only way to do that is to be vetted for the full administrative toolbox here. I wish there were some other way, but there isn't — so here I am.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: None. I simply seek to be vetted here to be permitted to read deleted pages in conjunction with a forthcoming ArbCom case (Re:Richard A. Norton) in which I am a party. One must run the RFA gauntlet, there is no other way to gain the ability to read deleted material. I strongly believe that to be fully effective in the case I must be able to access files and edit histories deleted or revision-deleted by Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) during the past year.
- I have no desire to become an "Administrator," per se, and hereby promise the following: I will not ban or unban, block or unblock any user; assign or remove additional user rights; protect or unprotect any page; use extraordinary administrative privileges to move any page not permitted to be moved by an ordinary user; delete, or undelete pages; close or unclose administrative or deletion debates; engage in revision deletion or undeletion, or otherwise undertake any other similar action. I ask that any violation of this pledge immediately be reverted without further investigation and that I be blocked. If I am overlooking any specific administrative action in this statement that concerns you, please ask a question below and I will be happy to amend this binding pledge to your satisfaction. Moreover, I promise to immediately resign the toolbox upon closure of the ArbCom case — a case which I now believe is inevitable, even though it is not formally launched at this writing. I seek one and only one thing, which is unfortunately unbundleable: the ability to read files and histories deleted by CCI in connection with a specific ArbCom case.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am a content creator, not a copy editor or a vandalism fighter or a volunteer involved in site maintenance, so my chief contributions have been in the area of writing in mainspace. I have contributed to no so-called "Good Articles," but written many. My user page is stuffed with links to most of the pages to which I have contributed something positive, pick a couple at random and investigate the edit history if you will. I think if I were to point to one piece that gives me pride as a Wikipedian, it would be helping to take American Legion from [THIS] to [THAT]. It's still far from a perfect piece, but it was pretty awful and now it's pretty good. This isn't uncommon with my work, it's just I usually work on matters of left wing politics and labor history, so it was a really satisfying affirmation of my deep philosophical commitment to the doctrine of NPOV working on a piece about an organization diametrically opposed to the 1920s trade unionists and radicals and politicians on whom I usually spend my time. There are other pieces I've done that are "better work," for sure, but that's a good one to point towards.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I'm actually generally pretty laid back at WP. Ironically, I was just in a dust up at ANI last week that I pretty much provoked in an attempt to stave off one of the all-too-regular lynch mobs that congregate there. My apologies again to Fram, who is a committed volunteer at CCI. That wasn't really a "conflict over editing." Would I go that route again? Only if I felt it was strictly necessary, as I did in this particular instance.
- My most memorable editing-related stress was an incident a couple years ago with Kiefer.Wolfowitz over a history of a political organization that he was very, very boldly working over. There were ruffled feathers all around, I soon figured out that his intentions were pure and that he wasn't trying to whitewash history, merely to correct what he felt were serious POV problems, which involved the use of a sledgehammer for a full rebuild. I took the leap of faith and stepped aside while he did his thing. I'm sure he was at least as ill at ease with me as I with him. We slowly gained respect for one another because we are each in our way really committed to Wikipedia's mission and its underlying philosophy. Today I consider him one of my closest compatriots at Wikipedia.
- 4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what are these? (Self-submitted question.)
- A. I have never edited Wikipedia under any other user name. If I have ever edited as an IP on mainspace, which might have happened once or twice when signed out, it was inadvertent.
- Additional questions from GiantSnowman
- 5. Please can you explain the rationale behind Q4 ("Self-submitted question") - relating to previous names?
- A: I think it should be a question asked of every candidate to help ensure that potentially problematic administrators don't sneak in without the whole of their contribution history being open to scrutiny during the vetting process.
- 6. Why do you want the Mop for such a short period i.e. why don't you wish to keep it permanently?
- A: I'd like to see fundamental reform of the nature of the RFA process and debundling of less sensitive parts of the tool kit. Standing to become an administrator under the current state of affairs would only bolster a status quo that sorely needs modification. Additionally, I have no interest in blocking or unblocking anyone or changing the status of pages, or performing other maintenance tasks. I want to concentrate on writing and continuing to volunteer my time as a participant at Articles for Deletion.
General comments
- Links for Carrite: Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Carrite can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Just out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this kind of RfA? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any time-limited ones, but I do know of plenty where the candidate just wanted adminship for a very narrow purpose (e.g. editing the spam blacklist.) 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Support
- Because I believe the candidate should be able to carry out the tasks he says he requires the admin bit for, and because I trust him regarding his expressed intentions regarding the end of his adminship tenure and his intended use of the admin bit. Not an endorsement of his position on the arbcom case, nor his views of Wikipedia as a whole to which he alludes in this RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- A rather strange request, but sure, he's been around long enough that I trust him to only use the bit for the purpose he's outlined. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It is a shame that this path is necessary for someone trying to help with an editor issue, but I certainly trust Carrite in what he's asking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- (I should add that I would support a straight admin run too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC))
- Support - AfD record is good, spot check of edits reveals no problems. There's no requirement that admins do anything, so not intending to do much isn't a consideration (though promising not to do anything is pretty pointless, I think). WilyD 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. Trust user. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support and I really hope Carrite to reconsider to expand his request for a full use of the tools. A bit outspoken yes, and we had our share of arguments, but he would make an excellent administrator in my view. Secret account 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Seems reasonable. Carrite can easily be desysopped if he doesn't keep his promises, but I don't think that will be necessary. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, with surprise that he isn't already an administrator; I always assumed he was. I often see him at AfD, he has plenty of clue and a good attitude. I would not generally support a one-use-and-out request like this, but I am supporting in the hope that he will decide to stay on as an administrator once his current issue is over. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would not be an ethical decision. He has stated clearly that this will be temporary, therefore a bait–and–switch would be downright dishonest and damaging to his reputation. Carrite might make a very good admin, but if he chooses to pursue that possibility, he would need to run for adminship again, this time as a permanent candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I grant you that. I would be perfectly willing to vote for him for unlimited adminship, but since he has stated he will use the mop for a limited purpose and then resign, I agree that it would be unethical (and out of character, given his honesty about his intentions) for him to stay on. So I will modify my rationale to say that I trust him with the mop in the current circumstances, and would trust him with it again should he resign and then run again later. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would not be an ethical decision. He has stated clearly that this will be temporary, therefore a bait–and–switch would be downright dishonest and damaging to his reputation. Carrite might make a very good admin, but if he chooses to pursue that possibility, he would need to run for adminship again, this time as a permanent candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nothing wrong with having a skeptic as a (temporary) member of the admin corps, in my view. Split toolsets would have made this request unnecessary, but it's the system we're stuck with (for now, at least). Intothatdarkness 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very unconventional request, but I'm willing to support since I don't foresee any great harm in his viewing of deleted content. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. What Mark said; and there's no reason to believe that he's lying in his statements above. Consider this also a support for the notion of an unbundled flag for viewing deleted revisions. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support to be a permanent admin, not just for the next month or however long the case will take; I've thought you should run for a while now. Go Phightins! 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Carrite is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and he's honest and direct. He certainly can be trusted to use the tools in a NPOV and polite fashion, representing the consensus of the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... okay - like others here, I would have liked to see a full RFA. I suppose my perception is that this looks like an attempt to get the mop to allow the wielding of the broomstick rather than the use of the squishy bit at the end. But I appreciate that it's being done to defend another, rather than the editor in question. Misguided or not, I have to give credit to a good-faith attempt to play the "defense lawyer". I don't think it would have been dishonest to request adminship on the basis that you wanted to help at arbcom cases, generally. If you wanted to resign the bit 6 months later (having done no other admin work) that would have been fine. But what happens when this case finishes and your excellent weighing-in on behalf of another prompts requests for you to do the same again? Will you resign the bit (as committed) but come back to RFA for another case-limited mop? Or will you retain the bit on the basis that ongoing arbcom work is within the confines of your original appointment? Anyway, I'd support you for adminship generally, so I can't oppose this. But I don't think it's particularly well thought through. Stalwart111 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I would support Carrite for a full-blown RFA, so I see no reason not to support him for this limited purpose request. I hope that he will reconsider his stance and keep his administrative powers, should he gain them, to use for the greater good of Wikipedia. He is a constant voice of sanity at RFA, he is an outstanding, mature, and sensible participant at ANI (which I have not necessarily found myself able to be), and he is a valuable, tireless, talented contributor of content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, temporary or otherwise Jebus989✰ 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I trust this user, and the nominator. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Makes a good case for needing one admin tool for one particular use, and I trust him to resign when the case is over, and I trust him to not use any other admin tools besides looking at deleted edits. The fact that our rules are dysfunctional and there's no mechanism for him to request just what he needs is no reason to punish him by opposing. I'm surprised at those who don't trust him to keep his word, but if it helps, rest assured that if he violates his promise, I will block him from editing, and undo every admin action he takes, until we're both desysopped for wheel warring, at which time the promise will be enforced, and I won't be an admin anymore, which for many of the opposers might be considered a win-win. I'm disappointed in opposes "because he's anti-admin", and opposes from people who "would support if he made this a "real" RFA:, and would ask them to reconsider. It isn't Carrite's fault that there's no other way for him to do this, and being "anti-admin" (if that's even true) would, if anything, make it less likely he'd abuse the tools, not more likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support An unusual request, but nowhere is the assumption of good faith more important than at RFA. The candidate will do fine. Miniapolis 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Candidate can handle being an administrator, and serves as a net positive to the project. TBrandley (what's up) 23:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I'd support him with the mop temporarily for this purpose, or as a regular admin. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate, no concerns. Too bad he does not want the bit permanently, I would also support that. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tim Davenport, who we call "Carrite" here, is an outstanding Wikipedia editor, and a person of great integrity. I treasure every opportunity that we've had to work together. He motivated me to abandon anonymity and reveal my real name, Jim Heaphy, as an editor here. We are all volunteers with the absolute right to decide when and where and how much we volunteer. Through his outstanding work on this wonderful project, Tim has earned the right to administrative powers, and it is his right as a volunteer to exercise those powers as narrowly or as broadly or as briefly as he sees fit. I trust Tim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely.
Have you considered contacting a m:Steward about the possibility of a one time promotion to a non community trusted position for this specific purpose.On the other hand: If you show intention to have this as a long term promotion then I would have no problem with supporting but such a short period for an ArbCom case (plus possible controversies) is not worth requesting adminship through this process. Sorry again, But I have intent to support depending on your reaction/others. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- I agree that this is a cumbersome way to obtain the right to read deleted files for a limited time, but I was told it was the way to proceed — only those vetted as administrators are to be accorded the right. It would be nice if this was an unbundled user right, but it is not. All the best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stewards cannot fulfill such a request. --Rschen7754 18:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rewrote for a genuine oppose. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please strike your original comments rather than re-writing them, as otherwise you're making the candidate's response appear to be a non-sequitur, which is really not on for an RfA (but also anywhere else - see WP:REFACTOR). I've restored what Carrite was originally replying to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rewrote for a genuine oppose. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry, but I'm not convinced with the 'temporary' nature of your request, and feel that it sets a bad precedent for future. Why do you need access to the non-visible pages/contribs if it's already at ArbCom? Surely it opens the floodgates for every editor to request such access when an ArbCom case they might have an interest in appears? GiantSnowman 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am a party in the case. The case was filed by a CCI member who participated in an ongoing investigation. The case is going to hinge upon editing practices and the interpretation of intent now obscured to me in deleted files. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And you don't trust ArbCom to reveal whatever is relevant to all parties involved? GiantSnowman 17:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not arbcom's job to locate, collate, and present evidence; only to interpret it and make decisions on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, It is not a requirement that all parties need to gain administrator rights to gather the data themselves and if ArbCom find the deleted material relevant; ArbCom would get it. If Carrite really needs the articles, instead of request adminship for this specific claim: Administrators would be willing to give it to him. Dennis Brown would most likely email him the article rather than saying 'Request adminship' John F. Lewis (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not practical, as the page histories are required - so potentially thousands of diffs across each of dozens (hundreds?) of articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Would Carrite/supporters give the same temporary rights to the other party involved in the ArbCom case? GiantSnowman 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The filing party already has the ability to view the material concerned (which makes things rather one-sided, hence the problem!), and the only other party is the person Carrite intends to defend; who hasn't expressed an interest in viewing the material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Would Carrite/supporters give the same temporary rights to the other party involved in the ArbCom case? GiantSnowman 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not practical, as the page histories are required - so potentially thousands of diffs across each of dozens (hundreds?) of articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, It is not a requirement that all parties need to gain administrator rights to gather the data themselves and if ArbCom find the deleted material relevant; ArbCom would get it. If Carrite really needs the articles, instead of request adminship for this specific claim: Administrators would be willing to give it to him. Dennis Brown would most likely email him the article rather than saying 'Request adminship' John F. Lewis (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not arbcom's job to locate, collate, and present evidence; only to interpret it and make decisions on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And you don't trust ArbCom to reveal whatever is relevant to all parties involved? GiantSnowman 17:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am a party in the case. The case was filed by a CCI member who participated in an ongoing investigation. The case is going to hinge upon editing practices and the interpretation of intent now obscured to me in deleted files. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose You've got my support if you go for the full deal, don't make it temporary and I'll switch to support. GO DUCKS!--v/r - TP 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, if Carrite was not qualified in his own right for adminship, and clearly so, then I wouldn't have nominated him for any purpose. What I'm asking for is a clean vote based on the merits of the request versus the editor in question, without consideration for the limited nature. He could have just requested adminship and been silent on the purposes. Because of his long history and good contribs, I would say odds would be in his favor to pass. That is the criteria I used when deciding to nominate him. I am hoping no one will "punish" him by opposing simply because he is honest in stating his intent and scope. I am also hoping that eventually, he will re-RFA and keep the bit, since he does have some experience that would be very helpful to the admin corp. Until then, since WP:ADMIN doesn't limit the individual to terms, I am just asking my fellow editors be open minded and judge him on his experience and trustworthiness, the same as they would any other candidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know that. When I saw the nom, I thought to myself that I would've been happy to co-nom. Honesty has a history of being punished and unfortunately this is no exception. Had Carrite been quiet, grabbed his info, and resigned the tools then I would've been upset and disappointed later rather than now. I'm not asking the candidate to commit to doing admin tasks. If he wants to remain a content contributor than so be it. But I do want to see more content contributors have the bit so the bit itself is less of a trophy and more of a these are some extra buttons trusted people have deal. If Carrite intends to keep the tools, whether or not they get used, he has my support. I oppose the idea that we all have to go through an RFA so he can have the bit for the duration of an Arb request though for several reasons: 1) It wastes a week of our time, 2) It's going to waste the time of the folks who are going to discuss this matter, and 3) It's going to waste Arbcom's time when future RFAR parties demand the bit.--v/r - TP 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You and I agree here on everything but the conclusion. I want him to keep the bit, and had reservations about nominating someone for a limited use. In the end, he is as qualified as you or I to be an admin, so I felt obligated to nominate based on his request. That, and I like Carrite. He and I don't always agree on things, but I know he is here at enwp for the right reasons, and is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, particularly at AFD. He is another one of those editors that when we disagree, I always learn something. And yes, I hate seeing honesty being punished at RFA, something that I have been trying to reverse for some time. I do respect your !vote and reasons, but I have to be honest myself, and say it is disheartening to see someone oppose because the candidate won't accept the bit as a life sentence. You and I both have had days and weeks when we wish we weren't admin, perhaps he is simply smarter than both of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Dennis, it's ban enough he went to OSU. I mean, I don't want to make any personnal attacks here, but that almost guarantees he's a Beavers fan. Which, in turn, means that he was delighted by Chip leaving for the Eagles. I just can't support a candidate that hates Chip Kelly.--v/r - TP 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carrite says he went to OSU. I grew up in Eugene. I'm an Oregon fan, he went to Oregon State. The last comment was a joke. My original !vote was in the support section and it said "Oppose. GO DUCKS!" but that was because I knew Carrite and I didn't think I needed to review anything to support. Then when I saw the RFAR comments, I changed my mind and had to give an honest oppose. But that doesn't mean the rivalry doesn't still exist. Chip Kelly was the Ducks head coach and recently took an NFL job leaving the ducks. He led the ducks to the BCS championship his first season as head coach and he almost did it against this year if not for a brutal loss to Stanford. So, mixing a bit of seriousness with a bit of humor that Carrite will understand.--v/r - TP 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Dennis, it's ban enough he went to OSU. I mean, I don't want to make any personnal attacks here, but that almost guarantees he's a Beavers fan. Which, in turn, means that he was delighted by Chip leaving for the Eagles. I just can't support a candidate that hates Chip Kelly.--v/r - TP 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You and I agree here on everything but the conclusion. I want him to keep the bit, and had reservations about nominating someone for a limited use. In the end, he is as qualified as you or I to be an admin, so I felt obligated to nominate based on his request. That, and I like Carrite. He and I don't always agree on things, but I know he is here at enwp for the right reasons, and is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, particularly at AFD. He is another one of those editors that when we disagree, I always learn something. And yes, I hate seeing honesty being punished at RFA, something that I have been trying to reverse for some time. I do respect your !vote and reasons, but I have to be honest myself, and say it is disheartening to see someone oppose because the candidate won't accept the bit as a life sentence. You and I both have had days and weeks when we wish we weren't admin, perhaps he is simply smarter than both of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know that. When I saw the nom, I thought to myself that I would've been happy to co-nom. Honesty has a history of being punished and unfortunately this is no exception. Had Carrite been quiet, grabbed his info, and resigned the tools then I would've been upset and disappointed later rather than now. I'm not asking the candidate to commit to doing admin tasks. If he wants to remain a content contributor than so be it. But I do want to see more content contributors have the bit so the bit itself is less of a trophy and more of a these are some extra buttons trusted people have deal. If Carrite intends to keep the tools, whether or not they get used, he has my support. I oppose the idea that we all have to go through an RFA so he can have the bit for the duration of an Arb request though for several reasons: 1) It wastes a week of our time, 2) It's going to waste the time of the folks who are going to discuss this matter, and 3) It's going to waste Arbcom's time when future RFAR parties demand the bit.--v/r - TP 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, if Carrite was not qualified in his own right for adminship, and clearly so, then I wouldn't have nominated him for any purpose. What I'm asking for is a clean vote based on the merits of the request versus the editor in question, without consideration for the limited nature. He could have just requested adminship and been silent on the purposes. Because of his long history and good contribs, I would say odds would be in his favor to pass. That is the criteria I used when deciding to nominate him. I am hoping no one will "punish" him by opposing simply because he is honest in stating his intent and scope. I am also hoping that eventually, he will re-RFA and keep the bit, since he does have some experience that would be very helpful to the admin corp. Until then, since WP:ADMIN doesn't limit the individual to terms, I am just asking my fellow editors be open minded and judge him on his experience and trustworthiness, the same as they would any other candidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the concept of temporary adminship is completely unenforceable on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to other projects. In my recollection, I've also seen this editor on the anti-admin bandwagon a little bit too much and am not comfortable with this editor holding adminship. --Rschen7754 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If he wasn't asking for temporary adminship, would you have voted to support him? That is what I am asking for others to consider. In that light, I feel he is fully qualified to be an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I have reviewed Carrite's previous comments on the CCI case which resulted in this request (slightly surprised no-one has linked to it yet - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108), and I have to say I'm not very impressed. On three occasions Carrite looked at one of the pages tagged as copyvio there, couldn't see anything remotely like copyvio, and jumped to the conclusion that the editor who tagged it must have been downright incompetent, even though what really happened was that he was looking at the wrong page. [1] [2] [3] [4] He has also demonstrated a rather strange understanding of our copyright rules, including statements that including chunks of copyrighted text in hidden comments is not a copyright violation, transwiking content without acknowledging the source is merely “impolite” because we're not going to get sued over it, copying text from public domain or copyleft sources without acknowledging the fact is “very light”, or merely “bad editing”, and generally that anything other than more or less verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is “minor”, “technical” or “subjective”. Carrite has indicated elsewhere that he is seeking adminship in order to “defend” the subject of the CCI case at ArbCom, [5] an attitude reinforced by the acceptance statement above. I am not persuaded that the tools are being sought for the right reasons, and if ArbCom do need someone other than themselves to review deleted edits I'm sure there are plenty of administrators who would be prepared to do it for them. Hut 8.5 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I have no issues with temporary adminship when it's dictated by personal beliefs (see Kim Bruning), I do not think the English Wikipedia has particular need to introduce temporary admins at this stage. Perhaps I could have supported somebody asking for adminship for one specific purpose (that is, "I shall help clear backlog X and then when that is done, resign"), but to ask for the admin tools for the purposes of partecipating in an Arbitration Committee case is unheard of and frankly, outside of the purpose of adminship. Tools are given to janitors to help clean up and run the site. Partecipating in an arbitration committee case is not part of that. I should also note that we have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever enforced as a mandate and limitation one's statements on a Request for Adminship, and so nothing would stop this user from: a) keeping the bit after the Arbitration Committee case has ended b) using the bit during the time he has it or c) resigning after the Arbitration Committee case and requesting the bit back on WP:BN in the future. As such, I do not believe this is a valid request that should be fulfilled, and if this would be done, it would set dangerous precedents. We do not have an imperative mandate system for administrators and we do not wish one, nor should we set the precedent that when one is brought before the Arbitration Committee or otherwise party to an Arbitration case they should or can request sysop rights for purposes related to that. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Snowolf How can I help? 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't support even absent the temporary part. But, the temporary piece should weigh heavily on the basic question of if the tools are needed. Carrite doesn't need the bit, or want it, apparently [6], outside of the ability to see removed content. There is no temporary or even recallable admin process at the moment, so while I wih every RfA candidate was open to recall, there's no teeth behind those commitments. If you need access to something that's hidden, you can ask someone, who I'm sure would be more than willing to help you.
There's a lot of little things that bother me in addition. None are damning alone, but they influence my perspective so I'll include a few examples: this unsettling diff that lead to this ani discussion, especially in light of criticizing the same thing [7] (I have 0 opinion about the underlying issue in the previous link); similarly here; an old discussion about canvassing concerns; a few worries about tossing around "defamatory" here (which has more issues that are discussed in the thread), the mentality in this deletion discussion, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atop the Fourth Wall and this. I think Carrite's a fine editor, but his motivation for wanting the tools seems to be (and has been since at least July it appears) to have access to some of the removed content; nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's a strong motivation to have the tools, and I have concerns about his opinions on some of these deletion discussions, etc., as I indicated above. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) - Oppose. Given that there's no way I know of to verify that Carrite would only be looking at particular deleted pages and not others, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting bits in a situation where we have no way to enforce, or even check up on, the strict limitations on tool use that are being proposed. If Carrite needs access to deleted pages in order to participate in the Arbcom case, I assume Arbcom or the clerks (or Dennis, or another admin) can arrange to give him access to copies of any relevant documents; it's not something someone should be granted single-purpose adminship for. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Hut 8.5. Someone without a good understanding of copyright or a strange interpretation of copyright I don't completely trust having the ability to look at deleted content. Plus he also would have access to all the other admin tools. Garion96 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose regretfully. Carrite has earned my respect as a solid and often clueful contributor, but this unorthodox request falls outside of the intent and practice of RfA. If the inability of non-admins to see deleted material pertaining to ArbCom cases they are involved in is recognized as a problem, I would like to see solutions that would help all future editors who find themselves in this situation rather than controverting process for a one-off fix. Dennis Brown indicated that he would not have nominated Carrite for adminship if he was not qualified in his own right, meaning that this work-around would not be an option for other editors who find themselves in a similar situation. It also sets a precedent for future similar RfAs. I feel that the question of temporary adminship warrants a larger arena than this. Please note that my take on this is entirely based on the temporary nature of the request and has no bearing on Carrite as an editor or potential admin. Gobōnobō + c 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly per Hut. I think Carrite would make a good admin, but this request reeks of politics. As Fluff says, if a deleted revision needs to be accessed, any arb could do it, most clerks could do it, I could do it. That being said, I don't see why that would be necessary anyway, since if it were going to arbcom it would be due to recent troubles, certainly more recent than both CCIs. Besides, saying that he needs to see deleted contribs is a strong sign of bad faith on those that deleted the foundational copyvios; they're deleted for a reason. (FWIW, my oppose isn't based on the temporary nature of the adminship) Wizardman 22:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As an addendum, changing to Strong oppose per [8]. He backpedaled from it later, but attacking a group of editors working their asses off on a backlog almost no one dares to touch is completely unacceptable to me. RAN has the third-largest CCI currently, and it's probably not going to go down anytime soon since there are more violations out there than people to tackle them. Wizardman 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inappropriate really. Satisfying individual needs in what amounts to some sort of dispute is not what access to the Admin. toolset is granted for. Leaky Caldron 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - An admin that says they won't do any admin related work? No.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns cited by Shadowjams and GiantSnowman. Also, the drama around this need for "temporary" adminship seems disruptive per WP:POINT, in my view. Something wrong here. Jusdafax 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per JohnFLewis. Your own statement makes it clear this is a single purpose RFA - you want admin for one thing and one thing only. "To participate effectively in the case, I find myself needing to be able to read pages and page histories deleted during an ongoing CCI text investigation. The only way to do that is to be vetted for the full administrative toolbox here. I wish there were some other way, but there isn't" - yes, there is. - it's called ask an admin for help. Use it. FishBarking? 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral I'd sit here until I can revisit this. Usually, deleted material needs to be reviewed by the arbitrators, not the parties involved, and all arbs currently sitting at the Committee are administrators. Notwithstanding, I may consider this and give a proper comment later. Also, if you can ask another admin (or an arbitrator) to email you the deleted material, why ask for the bit. I'd be willing to support if you make this RfA a standard one. — ΛΧΣ21 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- In normal circumstances I'd support giving Carrite the tools, but the somewhat pointy nature of this request bothers me. I'm neutral for now, but I may change my mind. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not meaning to badger a neutral !vote, but what is pointy about this? Carrite has stated that he needs to be able to view deleted material, and is working within the system as it currently stands to get that ability; if they were trying to get things changed for just them, I'd be inclined to agree that their behavior was a bit annoying, but what I see here is a pretty good-faithed attempt at working with our limitations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I wrote that, several editors had suggested alternative means by which Carrite might access the necessary material. I see now that those are not feasible. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not meaning to badger a neutral !vote, but what is pointy about this? Carrite has stated that he needs to be able to view deleted material, and is working within the system as it currently stands to get that ability; if they were trying to get things changed for just them, I'd be inclined to agree that their behavior was a bit annoying, but what I see here is a pretty good-faithed attempt at working with our limitations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Really is quite a strange request. If you were running for a mop that you were going to use and keep I would support. Wouldn't it be great if the permissions were split up a little bit more..... I'll come back to this just before the RFA closes. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral While I have no doubt about your trustworthiness, and you're here because we unfortunately don't have a way to grant granular subpowers of the admin userright, I feel this request is a misuse of the RfA process. If you are accepted, I would hope that you keep the bit, even if you don't use it often, because there may well come a time when you need those abilities again and I don't think it's appropriate to return here each time and request the abilities. Having admin powers does not make you 'not a Wikipedian' or 'not a content contributor'; it just gives you some extra tools. If you think those tools might be of any continued use to you then I'd encourage you to remove the limitations on your RfA and continue with an open-ended possibility that you retain the userright. Ocaasi t | c 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Moral support For someone who wanted this RFA to be "as uncontroversial as possible"[9], I think you shouldn't have brought up the temporary use thing. In politics/elections, you could get burned out for doing so, and RFA is almost the same. I don't think you'll be a bad admin or abuse the tools at all, but that's why I'm not opposing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral. For me, the temporary thing is irrelevant. Do I trust him/her to be an administrator? If so, it doesn't matter to me how long the administrative tenure is. If not, then I would oppose adminstratorship of any tenure. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to thoroughly vet the candidate and I intend to come back to it. That being said, from the very little I've seen, it's looking good. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Not a position I'm usually found in. Like some others in this section, I think Carrite would make a good administrator, even if, like Jason Quinn, he only made occasional use of the mop. He doesn't need to block people - he could continue at AfD but close ones that come down on the delete side of the scales (obviously, ones where he hasn't taken part...). Peridon (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)