Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat: Difference between revisions

Suggestion

I would venture to suggest that, because what we have here is an otherwise well qualified candidate, who received all of his opposition based on a well defined set of concerns, any determination of consensus should hinge in large part on whether the supporting opinions addressed and refuted those concerns. Supporting comments like "Excellent editor and will be great admin" are not awfully probative - whereas votes such as that of martinp (talk · contribs) are a lot more useful in gauging consensus. If the crats find that the specific concerns of the Opposers were not refuted, then IMO the RfA should fail. Disclosure - I opposed. -- Y not? 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per q4 comments should also be looked at as they give no idea of what particular part of the question was wrong, or give no reasoning as to how that would affect his ability as an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I was one of the people who gave a supporting comment along those lines. The reason that I did so is because that is very much my opinion (and indeed at the time when I voiced my opinion, many of the oppose comments had not been made so I did not feel a need to refute any other comments in my opinion). I don't believe that my opinion is any less useful in gauging consensus than had I justified my support comment with an entire paragraph repeating what the noms had already said. And I am quite able to disagree with the oppose rationales without expressing it in as many words; I would have thought that it is evident from the fact that I continued to support despite all the opposers. Will (aka Wimt) 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Per-nom supports are not without value. But then what criteria other than numerical could you possibly use where you have 201 "supports per nom" and 71 "opposes per q4"? The only possible solution is, if nobody refutes the objection, the objection must stand! -- Y not? 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not really. RfA is a vote, like it or not. There is no attempt in the current process to make support voters have to refute the opinions in the oppose. Thus an argument that simply, because all the support voters did not specifically refute the oppose rationales, the objection must stand makes no sense at all in the context of how RfA works at the moment. Will (aka Wimt) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There's no requirement. But in the absense of refutation, there is also no consensus. -- Y not? 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No consesus on the BADSITES proposal maybe, not on gracenotes ability to be an administrator as hardly any of the opposers commented on. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A poor retort. -- Y not? 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the opposers feel as though I have a take on the issue that will make me an abusive admin down the road. If it helps, I am (and always have been) committed to follow consensus. Within the jurisdiction of an admin, I also believe myself capable to determine what it is, if it exists. Gracenotes^T § 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought: not necessarily an abusive admin, but perhaps someone who just doesn't get it, and whose bumbling cluelessness will hurt Wikipedia sometime in the future. Gracenotes^T § 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above was meant to be a response to Y's initial query. Do any opposers have a comment on it? Gracenotes^T § 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it's a fact, RfA is meant to be there to judge a candidates abiity to be an administrator, not on his personal views based on something that's been rejected as a policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the candidate did a more than adequate job of refuting most of the opposition – in a way negating some of the support as well (the 'support because there are too many opposes' stuff) – with his later responses to questions (and to be honest, the earlier responses didn't seem to me to be particularly muddled either). However, I assume the bureaucrats aren't allowed to base their decision directly on the strength of the candidates' responses, but have to go with what are in many cases responses to responses ('your answer to that question isn't good enough') or responses to those ('oppose per user x'), or responses to the nomination and not the candidate ('support per nom'). So what matters is not so much whether opposes were refuted, or vice versa – that's as much the candidate's job as the supporters' – but the relative strengths of those arguments for and against (discarding obviously incorrect arguments; the bureaucrats should be free to ignore votes in either direction whose rationale they feel simply doesn't make sense) – Gurch 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporters not countering the oppose votes should not be a huge issue. I did my share on votes that were particularly perplexing, as did many others, but in no way did I respond to every oppose I didn't understand, as that would be rather disruptive. This was an intense RFA, and I took to heart a note that SlimVirgin left on another's talkpage, even though it was not intended for me. [1] (please don't archive yet Mark!) At some point, it was tiring and pointless to respond to all opposers. I can only think of one or two instances where someone changed their mind in this RfA based on a discussion anyway. That said, there are many "per-above" comments in both columns, so discounting them out of hand would eliminate a large amount of votes, not all of which should be eliminated. I do not support a site wide ban on per above comments.  :-D However, the quality, logic, and reasoning of the more lengthy support and oppose comments should receive a more thorough examination. daveh4h 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you should impose a sitewide ban on "per above comments". It would improve deletion disussions, too – Gurch 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We don't need sheep(and I mean that nicely) voting. Wikidan829 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's frequently suggested, but in actuality it's a terrible idea. If I come to a debate ready to make argument A but User:Foo has already made argument A, is it most helpful for me to (1) type out argument A over again and burden every other commenter and the closing with duplicative reading, (2) leave the page without saying anything, or (3) write "agree with Foo"? Newyorkbrad 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if that were actually the case. Wikidan829 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those – ignore Foo's wording and type out your argument. Granted this may be overkill for deletion of an obviously non-notable article when there are arguments for deletion already made (but then commenting in such debates is a waste of time anyway) but I don't think it's at all excessive for an adminship request, especially one where you are opposing the candidate. I feel this exact problem may have affected the opposition and to a lesser extent the support of Gracenotes' request. I am convinced that had the users who opposed "per" question 4 or an earlier opposer all written out a rationale based on their position on the issue, at least some of them would have realised that actually, their position is the same as Gracenotes' position, they'd just been coerced into thinking otherwise – Gurch 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind per User:Username, and in addition blah blah blah - That at least indicates that the person has taken one person's logic and expanded a little upon it. Simply a Per User:Username can be annoying, but I recognize there are rare times when a person has said all there is to be said. daveh4h 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the situation where users merely cite a question number? There were a lot of "oppose, Q4" comments on this RfA which don't actually mean anything at all, as the mere existence of a question isn't a reason to oppose. Some sort of indication of what the voter percieves to be wrong with the candidate's answer would help. Even if someone else has already opposed "per question" and explained... people can have different issues with the same question, and in this case I'm not sure the problem with Gracenotes' answer, beyond a little unclear wording, was ever explained anyway – Gurch 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Y, it is not the duty of the supporters to refute the concerns of the opposition. It's the duty of the crats to determine the validity of such concerns as reasons to oppose the RfA. —AldeBaer 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are completely correct in your first sentence. As to the second, I started with the presumption that the concerns of the 71 opposers were valid, though reasonable people may and do disagree. I thought that was obvious. -- Y not? 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. I'm hesitating to do this, but it's an opportunity to address one particular oppose comment that caught not only my interest [2]. I really don't know what to make of the fact that this user didn't edit the en.WP in several days only to visit for that single edit in GN's RfA. There is no conclusive evidence that he was solicited to vote, but in an emotionally-laden situation like that RfA was, I'm ready to consider that that is what happened. As far as I'm concerned, that's one refuted oppose !vote. —AldeBaer 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad you pointed this one out. This is a classic example of how anybody can vote, not forming their own opinions, but mirroring the opinions of others, without substantiation. I should assume good faith, and believe that this particular user really did consider Gracenotes - that this user did their homework and formed their own opinion, and came to the same conclusion "as the people above", but I seriously doubt it. Wikidan829 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess until you ask him (or become a mind reader) you really don't know anything about motivations in this case. Anyway, I'm having a hard time with people "refuting" an oppose vote on the basis of "no conclusive evidence that he was solicited to vote"...I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this RFA (and didn't participate) but I have to say that the constant combative sniping by it's supporters (all over Wikipedia and on the mailing list) does no good to the process, the nominee or any of the participants. Picking out single editors to criticize is not very productive, and yes, you should assume good faith until shown a reason to do differently. Otherwise it's just bullying. RxS 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why people are doing this I think is that there are many supporters who feel that if they were to lay their lives in the hands of any wikipedia editor (sorta speak), it would be Gracenotes, and they are genuinly upset and disturbed that people oppose him over his opinion of something that is not policy and over a reason that the supporters think is the only reason they would trust his judgement at all (investigate before delete and only that which is directly relevant). It touches the heart of the problem: do we want people we trust to make judgements, or do we want people that follow rules (which Gracenotes btw. pledged to do would this ever become a rule ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also did not participate in the RfA, if you want to look. I am neutral with Gracenotes, as I did not look into him enough to go either way, and frankly did not care about RfA until now. Now, I'm looking at the general problem with RfAs, a pattern I'm starting to see on some newer RfAs as well. I'm sorry that this one user(Noon) was picked as an example, but it's a classification of what is going on here. 6 edits in 2 weeks time, 1 of which was a sad excuse of a vote on Gracenotes' RfA. Come on! At what point do we hold a user "credible" enough to make a decision such as this? Where do we draw the line with assuming good faith? AGF is also a guideline, which means it's widely accepted, not required, especially in pretty obvious situations such as this. Where are the people who oppose assuming good faith with Gracenotes? If they did, this whole mess wouldn't have happened. Wikidan829 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're going way to far with this. This editor has been here since early 2005...longer than I have and certainly longer then most people in this debate. He also seems to be editing in a pattern very close to mine these days, I have very little time to spend here right now. But that doesn't mean (and you haven't shown) that he doesn't have a grasp of policies here, and that he doesn't keep current by reading these pages (as I do). The idea that unless you edit here at a high volume your opinion counts for less is mistaken.

From WP:AGF Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying You haven't come close to meeting that standard with this editor. You can do what you want, it is a guideline as you say (that is: is considered a standard that all users should follow.) But it's discouraging to see it abandoned solely on the grounds that he currently doesn't edit here as often as you think he should. And calling a vote "a sad excuse" harkens back to the bullying I mentioned before, that shouldn't be how we discuss things here and it certainly doesn't foster a thoughtful environment for that discussion. RxS 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to fully agree with you RxS. 2005 is a long time, and we need to AGF here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Wikipedia was looking for contributors, not lookers. The thought that someone who doesn't pay their taxes, but still has rights to vote and reap benefits, just doesn't sit well with me. Wikidan829 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I am trying to assume good faith, but I'm not going to insult my own intellect. —AldeBaer 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So you claim that he was solicited to vote and on that basis consider his vote refuted? Do have have any evidence for that claim? I'm sure lot's of people would be interested in that evidence. RxS 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats taking part

Just wanted to add in that both Taxman and Dan have stated that they intend to refrain from taking part in the discussion as they had strong opinions on this RfA and felt themselves unable to contribute objectively. I would encourage all bureaucrats to follow this example -- if you have a strong opinion either way, or especially if you voiced your opinion during the RfA, please refrain from participating in this discussion so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong opinions, but not strong enough for them to actually vote? Are bureaucrats apathetic, restrained or just lazy? :) – Gurch 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely proper for Taxman and Dan to refrain from this chat. I respect them the more for ir. -- Cecropia 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I commented in support of the RfA but do not have a strong opinion on what has become the key question in it. I intend to take part in the discussion, but will refrain from closing the RfA. Warofdreams talk 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been criticized in the long past (not by either of the two 'crats above) for expressing the principle that Bureaucrats should not express support or opposition in RfAs unless they have a very strong reason to and that, if they do, they shouldn't be the deciding bureaucrat if the result requires judgment. This illustrates my point--we have lost two voices that would have been more significant in the decision than in the RfA itself. At any rate, I see no issue of torpor. -- Cecropia 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that. I am in fact not taking part because I am in the midst of various real-world obligations and cannot give it fair attention. — Dan | talk 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

So, 74% support with some fairly dubious opposes ends with a no consensus verdict from the 'crats. I'm honestly shocked, the number of recent RfA's that have past with less support than this, but with much better oppose rationale leads me to seriously think that RfA is broken, but I'm not sure it's the process, it's more the consistency with who is promoted and who isn't. It looks to me like it depends on which 'crat gets there first. Let me ask then, is the RfA going to be closed using {{rfaf}}? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know the 'crats had decided. Wish someone had told me. ;-) -- Cecropia 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like it from the chat...... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that they were waiting for a couple of other b'crats to weigh in? hbdragon88 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If other 'crats don't weigh in, it's been decided that it's a no consensus result by the looks of things. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be best to just let them work. RxS 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe it's a good thing. I was about to change to oppose when the RfA was suspended. I'm just waiting for Gracenotes, that hate-mongering attack-freak to dare and run again, so I can oppose him like he deserves it. </...> —AldeBaer 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Me agrees strongly with RxS. Even "No consensus" is better than "no discernable consensus". Gracenotes^T § 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference? To be honest, meaninglessness of raw percentage figures aside, 74% isn't all that bad – it means, in theory at least, that three-quarters of the community think Gracenotes should be an administrator. Pages are deleted every day with less consensus than that. And if the let's-make-this-a-referendum-on-attack-sites votes – from both sides – are eliminated, the result is overwhelming support. Ryan's argument doesn't really make sense, though; the fact that other RfAs have succeeded with a lower proportion of support (this is not the same as "less" support; 201 is more than most recieve), doesn't mean that this one must therefore pass. If that were the case, we could just fix a percentage figure and dispose of the bureaucrats – Gurch 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we just stop this discussion? Everything has been said already, the decision will come soon and probably isn't influenced by this in the slightest. Phaunt 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are free to ignore it. Personally, the faliure of the bureaucrats to actually do anything that couldn't be done by glancing at a number is beginning to irritate me – Gurch 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from your perspective I might well be chewing the carpet as well, but this is an important issue, we still have one 'crat outstanding who wants to comment, and I am preparing remarks of my own; but I must assert that numbers are part of this show, but they are not the show. -- Cecropia 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Impacting upon the past

Although a 'crat need not be bound by precedent, since every RfA should be its own creature, there is already a promotion by which some of the points concerning this RfA were addressed. While I'm aware that promotions are very rarely (never?) recalled, I am extremely concerned regarding any decision that may impact Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU. In theory a promotion is a promotion is a promotion, but some promotions may be regarded as more equal than others. Therefore it may be necessary to consider how current decisions may reflect on past ones. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. We don't do ex post facto on current admins. There were maybe one or two decisions in the history of the Bureaucrat system that were so bad that they were reversed, but that was immediately after they were made. There were also a few cases where "the button" was pushed accidentally (I once pushed the button for an admin before my first cup of coffee and made him or her a bureaucrat by mistake). A quick note to Angela or another Steward patched that up. Generally, someone is only de-admined for something they did while an admin, by ArbCom, voluntarily, or for extreme reasons; for example User:Essjay -- Cecropia 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would take issue with your last example. Essjay chose to resign his positions and leave the project - its not clear he would have been desyssoped had he not. Perhaps Robdurbar is a better example. WjBscribe 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The issues that "encouraged" Essjay to leave the project and his tools behind were rather extreme. -- Cecropia 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some felt that, yes. But we don't know what would have happened had he chosen not to leave. Prob it would have ended up before ArbCom... But it isn't a good example of someone being desysopped against their wishes without an ArbCom decision, because he resigned. WjBscribe 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was more commenting on the perception of an RfA, and therefore the validity of the admin in the eyes of some, which was promoted (in part or in whole) on considerations that are later to be decided to have difference relevance. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as someone who opposed your RfA let me put it this way. Those who opposed your RfA are not going to have their opinion changed by the outcome of this bureaucrat chat and neither will those that supported. Their opinions will change depending on whether you do good or bad work now you are an admin. The fact that one opposes someone's request for adminship does not mean that one opposes them once they are an administrator - we all work together. If you make a good admin decision you'll have my support, if you make a mistake I'll point it out. Each RfA discussion should stand alone. Nichalp analysed yours and decided there was a consensus to promote- if there was any outcry about that it passed me by. Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations. So to answer your question, I don't see why this should impact on how you are regarded as an admin. WjBscribe 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that everyone is ready to bury the hatchet. None of the most decided opposers congratulated LessHeard vanU as a simple and polite demonstration of their willingness to good future collaboration. Not giving any signal is actually a signal. —AldeBaer 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never come across an opposer congratulating a successful candidate, ever. I do not think you can read anything into that. Secretlondon 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to WJBscribe's "Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations." —AldeBaer 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I congratulated User:Joshbuddy after opposing. But that's neither here nor there, as you said there's nothing to read into it. Teke^talk 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have congratulated several candidates that I opposed for reasons of inexperience or mild disagreement with their stances on issues. I have regretted only one support thus far... -- nae'blis 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

General statement on points made by Nichalp

It has been a concern all along that if bureaucrats decide to promote Gracenotes, they can do so simply by saying that people opposed him for not supporting the BADSITES proposed policy, and that's a failed policy anyway. Or they can say that people opposed him because he was in favour of using a common sense approach. Or they can say that people opposed him because he wasn't in favour of removing all links to all sites that criticize any Wikipedians, regardless of context.

While it is possible for people to use those arguments if they want to promote him, I suggest that it would be very seriously misrepresenting the views of those who opposed. Let me give civility as an analogy. We could have a user who engages in the most vile personal attacks with foul language and threats. Or we could have a user who is just generally uncivil, constantly telling other users that they should buzz off, and that their edits are crap. Let me make it clear that this in no way applies to Gracenotes. But if bureaucrats wanted to promote such a user, they could say that people opposed him because he didn't say, "If you please, my dear, I hope you won't mind, but could I possibly ask you . . ." In such a case, disregarding the oppose votes by claiming that the oppposers wanted an excessive, unreasonable, almost cloying, politeness, rather than that they had genuine concerns over the candidate's lack of civility and the possible implications it would have on the project would show a lack either of judgment or of integrity on the part of the promoting bureaucrats.

My implications about possible lack of judgment or integrity apply less in this case, because so many supporters have claimed over and over again (on the mailing list as well) that people are opposing because Gracenotes does not give 100% support to the failed proposal, which — and I agree with this part — was a bad proposal anyway. In this atmosphere, and while surrounded with this false claim, it is possible to have one's judgment slightly clouded without having poor judgment in general, and it is possible to be influenced by unfair arguments without being unscrupulous. However, it would be extemely unfair to the opposers, many of whom are highly respected members of the community, and some of whom are administrators, to promote on the basis that they opposed on the simple assumption that Gracenotes was in favour of linking to these sites. At the very least, as a courtesy to these users, they should be asked if they opposed for that reason, rather than because they felt unhappy trusting the tools (especially the ability to see deleted page versions) to someone who seemed not exactly unsympathetic to trolls on WR.

In Ikiroid's RfA, SlimVirgin asked him his views on linking to these sites, and Ikiroid replied that the only cases where he thought it should be done would be in such articles as "Daniel Brandt" and "Criticism of Wikipedia". The failed BADSITES proposal, of course, would not allow for such links, even in those articles. Yet, after reading Ikiroid's response, I, who strongly opposed Gracenotes, changed to support of Ikiroid, and SlimVirgin, who strongly opposed Gracenotes, thanked Ikiroid, and didn't vote at all. I think that that, in itself, is proof that at least two of the strong opposers were not opposing because of a blind, unthinking opposition of anyone who doesn't support the BADSITES proposal, or who doesn't support removal of all links to all attack sites regardless of context.

We have had trouble before with administrators who are overly sympathetic to trolls. Administrators have powers to unblock users who were engaging in harassment, to undelete articles created by stalkers, to unprotect pages where stalkers are making attacks, and to protect pages or block users where attempts are made to remove examples of harassment. Several of those examples are real, not hypothetical. Perhaps worst of all, administrators who are not unsympathetic to these banned trolls have the power to see and to leak deleted versions of pages. We already had an administrator desysopped several months ago for offering to supply the contents of a deleted version, which had someone's real name (I saw it at the time), to a website which has thread after thread after thread about efforts to track down the real-life identity of users who wish to be anonymous. And only last night, we had a similar case, though I haven't yet made myself familiar with the details. All I know from that case is that the traditional view that everything done by an admin can be undone is no longer true. Thge sharing of sensitive information with the wrong people cannot be undone. We simply have to take into account the concerns that respected, valued members of the community have about trusting the tools (especially the ability to see deleted edits) to someone who either is not appalled by the harassment carried out by members of a site that he is familiar with, or expresses himself in a way that shows a lack of empathy and incredibly poor judgment.

For the record, there are people who post at WR whom I would support without hesitation for adminship, as I know that they are appalled at the harassment of our editors and could be trusted to help and never to make things worse for victims. There are people whose views on linking to attack sites are more liberal than my own views, but whom I would also support for adminship. One of the very kindest, most helpful, most supportive of the people who helped me when I was being stalked (and he is an administrator) recently disagreed with me (privately) about Jimbo's unblocking of Brandt. I would unhesitatingly support this person for the highest position of trust possible in the Foundation. I trust with adminship some of the people who supported Gracenotes. I do not trust the buttons (and especially the ability to see deleted edits) to Gracenotes, who EITHER thinks that a site which he is familiar with where trolls feverishly and eagerly try to to track down the real life identity of Wikipedians, gloat over their misfortunes, and try to cause real world problems for them is a "mixed bag" OR expresses himself so appallingly badly as to show a lack of the basic communication skills that an administrator should have.

The bureaucrats, while weighing up any reasons to disregard the oppose votes, should also take into account that some support votes seemed to be less a result of positive views about the candidate than of annoyance with those who the supporters (falsely) claimed were opposing because of BADSITES. In particular, supporters numbers 93, 94, 163, perhaps 166, perhaps 170, 176, perhaps 177 gave such indication. Some people (98, 144, 154) also supported because they didn't think that the main reason for opposition had anything to do with admin tools. It has, as the Everyking and Night Gyr cases show. Adminstrators have access to confidential information not trusted to ordinary users, and can leak it to others. I do not mean to imply that Gracenotes would do that, but that his attitude towards the whole issue is not one that can make his opposers feel completely comfortable that he would not. Musical Linguist 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note from Cecropia: Musical Linguist and others have contacted me on my talk page to raise concerns or point me to information they think I should see. What response I have made I am usually making in the same place. Anyone interested should please look at my talk page if they want to see what has been brought up. Please be aware that only clarifications should be brought up at this point and that the essential work on this RfA is based on the RfA itself. Thanks, Cecropia 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To Musical Linguist: Are you alleging that your concerns in regard to admin's ability to look at and "leak" deleted material that compromises anyone's privacy rights apply to Gracenotes? -- Cecropia 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To Musical Linguist: I hope that I was allowed to make one faux pas in my wording; I'm personally sorry that it was an insensitive one. I know a lot of metaphors, and while typing it I misidentified the connotations of the "mixed bag" metaphor. Regarding recent developments: Mantanmoreland gave me a chance to delineate on that comment in Question 13, and I did. He then flatly denied my claim, and I invited him to email me about the issue for evidence supporting my claim. He has not done so, perhaps because he does not wish to touch the issue for a while. At Cecropia's request (regarding clarifications), I shall not comment about your concern about deleted revisions; if you wish to, please contact me privately. Gracenotes^T § 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad ML has clarified the reason for at least some (perhaps most or all) oppose votes, because the opposition is being caricatured. My reasons for opposing are summed up in a post I wrote to Gracenotes. The bottom line is that I feel Gracenotes has shown poor judgment on a number of issues, and a tendency to act without being informed. The linking-to-attack sites is an example, as is posting about it to one of those attack sites, as is building up large number of edits using a semi-automated script just before standing for adminship, as is restoring the post of an anon IP from an attack site after the post was removed by two admins, etc etc. I fear Gracenotes will be an admin who gives every troll and troublemaker the benefit of the doubt because he's unwilling to inform himself before speaking. Sorry, GN, that's my honest opinion. I also worry about the 5,000 or so edits to articles and only 300 or so posts to article talk. I don't recall ever supporting anyone with that balance of edits.

I'm stressing again that I'll support the outcome no matter what it is, and I'll support Gracenotes as an admin if that's how it turns out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)