Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!/Bureaucrat discussion

 ''The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Requests for adminship/Salvidrim. The final decision was that consensus existed among respondents that Salvidrim is trusted with the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.

Discussion
This RfA was near completion when new information regarding the candidates editing arose. The RfA itself was within the classically defined "discretionary zone" but the recent information did result in a very late "push" as it were, with some people changing their opinions. As such, and in mind of Q12 of my own RfB, I decided not to close the RfA at that moment, as late-breaking news can be a valid reason for people to revisit their opinions' about a candidates trustworthiness. That said, I requested the input of my fellow bureaucrats, and it seems clear that they felt that the near 24 17 hour extension was enough, and that we should determine consensus at this point. Please feel free to proceed; I will put down my own thoughts shortly. Thank you. – Avi (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Avi's opinion:As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by well-reasoned arguments. That being said, when I initially reviewed this RfX, my opinion of the community's consensus was that Salvidrim does have the community's trust. The primary oppositions were that Salvadrim lacked experience—be it time or edit areas. This was expressed as manifesting in Salvidrim's article creation, gnomishness in editing, and similar comments. It was my reading of the supporters that the vast majority were aware of this, and nevertheless felt that Salvidrim would be a benefit to the project, and it was my read that there was a consensus among participants that Salvidrim's lack of overall experience should not be an impediment to his receiving the mop.
 * However, there was a violation of Wikipedia policy during, actually near the very end, of this RfA, and that seemed to impact a number of respondents. Judging from about the Jebus989 edit and on (and I do not mean to single out Jebus, but it was that edit that raised the issue) there is an almost even number of additional supports and oppositions (10 to 13) with some of the oppositions being former supports, some supports moving to neutral, at least one old support reiterating trust, and new supports indicating trust despite the editing issue. It is thus my opinion, at this time, that there was not a tectonic shift in community trust—there was not a mass flight from supporting Salvidrim or to opposing him—and that the consensus of participants is that Salvidrim should be trusted with the sysop maintenance tool set, but, of course, make sure to watch his editing in the future, as we all should. That is my opinion on the community's consensus at this point, and I await others'. As I will be travelling for many hours tomorrow, should bureaucrat consensus be very clear before I land, please do not keep Salvidrim in suspense, but close as appropriate and promote if necessary. Thank you. – Avi (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dweller's opinion:I have noticed that several of the late opposes, which took this RfA deep into the discretionary zone, did not cite the last-minute disclosures. This, on top of the factors Avi relates, makes me inclined to find a consensus to promote. But, as ever, I'm all ears to dissenting views. NB comment to those on the talk page wishing to help us – discussion relating to the consensus is far more productive than discussion of whether/to what extent the candidate may have acted poorly. The Crats are not making a decision about that, and other venues are more appropriate for discussing it. --Dweller (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * MBisanz's opinion: I'm glad Avi opened the crat chat and have some initial thoughts that lead me in one direction, but subsequent comments might tilt things the other way.


 * In reviewing the RFA, I see a strong supporting opinion related to several aspects of the candidate in content-related areas (see, e.g., ZappaOMati's comment) and process-related areas (see, e.g., WilyD's comment). I also seem some bare supports (Status, Filelakeshoe, LllamaAl, Tiggerjay, A7x, Morning Sunshine). I personally find bare supports to be annoying because they provide no context whatsoever to me as a closing crat to determine the basis for their support. However, pursuant to longstanding community consensus, recently tested by my own attempts to strike such votes, bare supports are a valid comment.


 * Turning to the opposition, I see concerns related to low mainspace edit count (see, e.g., JayJay's comment), a 3RR/EW incident that occurred during the RFA (see, e.g., Jasper Deng's comment), his general approach to editing (see, e.g., AniMate's comment). I also see a NOTYET concern from Carrite. I personally find NOTYET opposes to be misplaced as they imply the user is fit to be an administrator, just not as this point in time; they look more like a neutral comment to me. An oppose states the user is not fit to be an administrator (for any number of reasons). However, the community has long permitted such opposes, and therefore, they are also a valid form of comment.


 * To the best of my knowledge, one RFA out of ~2,590 failed RFAs has failed with a support percentage greater than 75% and that was a 76% RFA in 2005. Therefore, we're here at this crat chat about an RFA that closed with 77% support because there must be something else worthy of a crat discussion. As mentioned above, it appears that the candidate breached 3RR at 20:06, January 10, during the course of the RFA. This is conduct which could potentially be viewed negatively by RFA participants. The question then becomes: Does the candidate's violation of 3RR rise to the level of voiding those comments made prior to his violation. It would appear that subsequent to his violation, 28 new people supported the candidate, 19 opposed and 2 neutraled. I interpret that as meaning that 57% of the people with at least implied knowledge of the violation supported in spite of the violation. That such a large number and percentage of people did not find the conduct to be disqualifying means that it cannot be said that no reasonable person could support the candidate. On that basis, I do not find there to be sufficient evidence to void the pre-violation comments.


 * Additionally, as a prudential concern, it would be unwise for the crats to sysop someone who would immediately be desysopped by Arbcom for misconduct. To that end, it is worth determining whether or not the candidate would be desysopped immediately upon sysopping, or at least exposed to the reasonable possibility of desysopping in an RFAR regarding his alleged misconduct. To this end, no admin saw fit to block the candidate for his violation of 3RR. Additionally, I am enlightened by Thibbs comment at the RFA (at 18:01, January 13) and SmokeyJoe's comment on the talk page of this discussion (at 23:25, January 13) that while the candidate breached 3RR, the breach was partially mitigated by the IP's misconduct. Further, admins and non-admins are routinely blocked or not blocked for edit warring violations without being placed at the immediate risk of further sanctions by Arbcom (see, e.g., Bureaucrat Raul654's 3RR block). Based on that analysis, I do not find that the candidate would be exposed to the reasonable possibility of desysopping for his 3RR violation if the crats sysop him.


 * From the above, I find that the candidate obtained a showing of support greater than that which has ever resulted in a failed RFA. I also find that the possible conduct which could have influenced commenters is not of a nature which could be said to per se preclude a consensus to promote from existing at an RFA. Further, none of the comments at the RFA appear to be of the type that would warrant different treatment than is usual (either discounting effect or giving greater effect). Finally, I find that there is no prudential risk that the crats will be acting in opposition to Arbcom's role of arbitrating user misconduct should we sysop him. Because of all of that, I believe the RFA obtained consensus in favor of sysopping the candidate.  MBisanz  talk 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're coming up on 24 hours and I'm reading it as everyone is at least is leaning toward promote. I think it is sufficient to close.  MBisanz  talk 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nihonjoe's opinion
 * I was all ready to wax eloquent on this RfA closure, when I reloaded this page and saw that MBisanz had already said pretty much everything I wanted to say (and said it better than I could have, too). I also don't find the opposes to be sufficient in weight or quantity to prevent sysopping in this case, for all the reasons already expressed above by MBisanz and Dweller. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TRM's opinion
 * Per Nihonjoe, MBisanz has made a good summary of the current position. In addition, I find it a challenge to agree with opposition based on lack contributions of "traditional encyclopedia content".  This project is not a traditional encyclopedia, we rely on our niche content editors (such as video game article contributions) to ensure the project remains relevant.  I also note a level of opposition based on Salvidrim's lack of mainspace editing content.  This was something brought up in my first RFA which went south pretty quickly.  I have to admit, I find that now I'm aware of a certain level of editing quality, it makes admin actions a tiny bit easier to conduct when I'm judging whether an editor is either deliberately disrupting an article or just doing their best to understand the wiki markup (and failing).   But it's not the be-all-and-end-all.  We can't mandate our candidates to take any particular path hereafter, but I would encourage Salvidrim to dabble a little in trying to bring an article or list up to GA or FA or FL standard, just to experience the process and hopefully then gain a better understanding of our higher-quality content processes and the by-products (of failure), e.g. bitterness, sniping, poor communication etc, and how to deal with it. With respect to the 3RR, I understand there is concern over that. A "bright line" according to some.  These things happen.  They're not right, and as Salvidrim has found, when they occur _during_ an RFA, they can be challenging to overcome.  However, Salvidrim has already agreed to a voluntary 1RR restriction.  It's a question of balance.  Lack of experience, a "crossing of the bright line" – not good.  A dedicated Wikipedian who has considerable support (that's over 100 fellow editors in Salvidrim's favour), and, as noted by MBisanz, a % in the highest end of the discretionary range – good.  I believe this RFA provides a legitimate consensus for promotion.  If nothing else, Salvidrim will know that he will be under scrutiny for a while to come, and I trust that he will repay my trust in him by acting appropriately, not harshly, and improve WIkipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Useight's opinion
 * After looking through the history and content of this particular RFA, I feel there was stronger shift. From my assessment, it looks like fewer than half supported after this point (being the point of first mentioning the 3RR on the RFA page, rather than the time that the actual 3RR violation took place).  Does this mean that fewer than 50% would've supported this RFA had the 3RR taken place before the RFA or early on in the RFA?  I couldn't say, nor is it my place to try to say.  Things happened as they happened, and I'm not in the business of playing hypothetical.  There were, indeed, a few editors that switched from support (or neutral) to oppose; there was at least one that switched from oppose to support.  With the extension, and the discussion on WP:BN, I think there was ample time and opportunity for people to switch their opinions, if desired, and while there was some shuffling around at the end, I don't think there was enough to warrant failing the RFA.


 * Like MBisanz said, it would not be prudent to sysop someone who would be immediately desysopped by ArbCom. This is not a case in which that would happen.  Sure, many people have been blocked (and rightfully so, per policy, for edit warring), but I'm not familiar with a case in which an individual was desysopped for 3RR violations.  Especially not a first time violation, which usually results in only a 24-hour block.  I'm not going to comment on Salvidrim's intentions, or other details of his (userpage says male) particular 3RR violation, for that is neither here nor there while acting as a bureaucrat.  It is sufficient to say that I would be stunned to see ArbCom desysop for a first-time 3RR violation.


 * Long story short, I think there was something of a shift after the 3RR violation came to light on the RFA, but I do not feel it was strong enough to outweigh the supporters (those supporting both before and after the incident) to warrant failing the RFA. Therefore, I lean promote on this RFA. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WJBscribe's opinion
 * I agree with the substance of the comments made above and will not needlessly repeat parts thereof. The RfA shows a consensus that Salvidrim should be an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Deskana's (lack of an) opinion
 * Due to investigating matters related to this RfA in my capacity as a checkuser, I am recused from commenting on this request as a bureaucrat. I will abide by the decision of my fellow bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
The above discussion displays unanimity among the bureaucrats that there exists a consensus among English Wikipedia Project members that Salvidrim should receive access to the administrator maintenance toolset, and I will therefore close the discussion and implement community consensus. Thank you all for participating. -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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