Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carrite

Before this gets under way, have you asked the stewards about creating a user group for you? There's no technical impediment to making a custom global user group that gives you only the user rights you need, while being limited to only this site (the English Wikipedia). Alternately, you could be added to the local researcher user group temporarily, I believe. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An ad hoc global group for a single Enwiki RfArb? Please, that's not appropriate. A local group can of course be created by developers, should there be consensus in the community for such a measure.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's inappropriate about an ad hoc global group, assuming there's community consensus? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know the answer to that question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A global group would require somebody on meta thinking that this is a good idea and would require it being needed on more than one wiki, I would say. Also, users in this global group would have access to deleted content on all wikimedia wikis (unless a specific wikiset is established) and that would likely require a global RfC. If a wikiset consisting of only enwiki would be created, then it shouldn't be a global group but a local group, obviously.  Snowolf How can I help? 05:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless that documentation is out of date, with the researcher user group one can only "perform a title search for deleted pages and view deleted history entries but not view the actual revisions of deleted pages", which would seem to fall short of what he wants to do. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's more discussion about the group at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Research. I've added a link to it to WP:RESEARCHER. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 28bytes: yeah, that's a bit bizarre. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This kind of bridges my roles, but not in such a way that I think I need to switch log-ins. :) If it clarifies at all: . See also VP subpage. Current WMF stance is that only people who go through adminship or a process of equal weight should be permitted to see deleted content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but that wouldn't preclude Carrite from receiving only the ability to view deleted content if that were to somehow become the outcome of this discussion. That said, I think it's a bit late into the discussion for that to become the outcome. Ryan Vesey 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, too, which is why I didn't mention it, but some of the people arguing otherwise have made sense to me. If people are granting the permission only for a limited time and limited purpose, I'm not sure that it counts at all as a process of equal weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we just ask the WMF? I'm sure this issue is going to crop up again in the future. Hut 8.5 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) I'll see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in the RfA itself, equal weight means community vetting. The reason, it appears to me, that the WMF requires those who want to view deleted material to go through RfA is because the issue of whether or not they should be able to review deleted material is discussed there (at least in theory, in practice, I don't know that I've ever thought of that specific case, and only think it would come up if there was a flaw that showed they shouldn't be able to).  Analysis of someone's ability to close an AfD or correctly recognize the speedy deletion criteria (other than maybe G12) is completely irrelevant to someone's ability to view deleted material, and I'd be pretty disappointed if the WMF came out with a statement saying otherwise. Ryan Vesey 17:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from the WMF
It appears to me that there are two considerations here:
 * 1) Does the WMF care about issuing admin permissions to view deleted content only
 * 2) Does the WMF care about a temporary adminship group for this purpose

Taking them in order: Does the WMF care about issuing admin permissions to view deleted content only? - The WMF has been clear that any permission which includes the ability to view deleted content must be identical in style and substance to the RFA process of the time. As long as that requirement is met, we're unlikely to object.

Does the WMF care about a temporary adminship group for this purpose? - Our position on this: while we don't object to the creation of a temporary adminship group, we would likely strongly suggest (if not obligate) that the wiki do it in a deliberate way. That is, let's not bypass community longstanding process for the creation of it. I would suggest that such a temporary adminship process would need to go through a Request for Comment phase that appropriately defines the obligations and restrictions, as well as the eligibility for such a process. This ad hoc hijacking of a traditional RFA feels to me to be putting a square peg in a round hole. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Carrite could have easily just made this a normal RfA, which would have had a significant support ratio by this point, and then done what he wanted to do with it, and then resigned the bit afterward. What makes this currently any different than that? Carrite being honest about his intentions makes this somehow worse?


 * Secondly, "The WMF has been clear that any permission which includes the ability to view deleted content must be identical in style and substance to the RFA process of the time", why? Obviously it has nothing to do with the deleted content itself, because there's no identity or age check of administrators. So why the RfA requirement by the WMF? Wouldn't any sort of clear community support of Carrite getting the deleted content permission be the same as the support for an RfA, without all the extra, unnecessary baubles, edit counting, and unrelated questioning? Silver  seren C 08:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Philippe's first point: the process we're using here to give Carrite access to deleted content is the same one we use for all other requests for adminship, so it appears that the foundation does not object to this present process.


 * Regarding new user rights groups: I don't think anyone's suggesting we create a new Temporary Admin group. This is an RfA where the candidate has made it clear what he intends doing with the tool ahead of time. All adminship is temporary. In this instance Carrite has done us the courtesy of telling us his plans. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Philippe, what does I would suggest mean in this context? Thanks. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   10:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Phillippe, I would take exception to your phrasing here. "Hijacking" implies criminal intent, or at the least, an attempt to use force or coercion to overcome a legitimate process.  Comments like this taint the process by implying intentional wrongdoing and border on ad hominem.   As you are using your official account in the capacity of an official representative of the Foundation, I am disappointed that you would choose to inject this kind of personal bias into what appears to be an official position of the Foundation.  Unless the Foundation is taking the official position that this is a "hijacking", I would request you strike the personal opinion portion of that comment. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis Brown. The disparaging language is inappropriate and should not be used by anyone, much less someone from the foundation, as part of a comment under the heading at the top of this section.  Kablammo (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Other point

 * Dennis. There is an opinion from at least one active Arbcom member that any Admin. using Admin rights to dredge for material to present as evidence in a case in which they are involved will be, de facto, involved. WP:TOOLMISUSE can certainly be interpreted in that way. More drama might result with this candidate if they are successful in the RfA, then being referred to WP:AN for misuse of tools. RfA is a wholly unsatisfactory solution and it appears that Arbcom are aware and looking at ways to permit access to the problematic material for the duration of the case. Is that not a more satisfactory way forward for the candidate? Leaky  Caldron  11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Coren expressed that opinion, someone whom I get along with quite well and usually agree with, but disagree with on this point. There is a fine line, but using the tools for advocacy and defense of another is hardly what the letter and spirit of the policy was designed for, which the 5 Pillars covers in detail.  When I nominated Carrite, I put politics aside and based my decision solely on his qualifications.  I was intentionally ignorant of who it was that would be going to Arb, because it didn't matter and it would be unethical of me to consider that information in my decision.  This is a strictly apolitical act on my part, simply presenting the candidate and providing my experience with Carrite, which has been generally positive.  At the end of the day, I trust the community to do the right thing, which means I trust the RfA process.  It isn't perfect, but it is the best and only system we have.  Either Carrite is qualified for adminship or he isn't.  Based on the broad cross-section of support, and even the comments from many opposers, it appears that the majority of people think he is.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 12:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't had to answer a single policy based question and if I put the top ten FAQ up there covering all the usual subjects I would get shot down in flames. Trusting someone not to misuse the tools when in fact it could be construed that that is precisely what he will do per Involved/Conflict of Interest in a case in which they are involved is perverse. Everyone should be on an equal footing in a dispute concerning deleted material and not given special access because they are clever enough to flout the system, with your help. Sorry, I have the greatest respect for you but I am convinced you are wrong about this. Controversial, divisive and unnecessary RfAs are not what we need. Leaky  Caldron  12:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That he hasn't been asked a question is hardly his fault. Some candidates are asked virtually none.  Asking questions is a function of the community, not the candidate.  I have no dog in this hunt, I am just presenting the candidate, so I don't take any opposition personally.  As for what will happen at Arb, I can't predict the future and that is outside my consideration for whether or not he is capable and trustworthy of having access to the tools.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 13:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The dog I would have expected you to have had in this race is what is fair and equitable to every contributor who might have an interest in a dispute. Facilitating preferential access to deleted material via a rather contrived route doesn't look fair and equitable to me. There must be other methods in which the candidate's legitimate requirements for old versions can sensibly be met. Did you investigate that with him before agreeing/offering nomination? Leaky  Caldron  13:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Carrite because both of us have been very active at AFD for a number of years. We don't chat regularly, or "hang out", but I find him generally reasonable and quite experienced, as have a number of respected members of the community.  As for the dog, I meant the Arb case.  For the record, I'm not a fan of Norton as history will show, so technically he wants to help someone I have previously found to be sometimes troublesome.  If I were injecting my personal politics, I wouldn't be here now.  I already have access to that data if I wanted it.  I went to RfA, the community voted to trust me.  He is doing the same thing, being subjected to the same rules and scrutiny.  Again, I'm leaving my personal politics out of it and simply presenting him as he is: an experienced editor with long history of experience and worthwhile contributions.  That there is some controversy about the RfA was expected by he and I both, but since I would vote for him to be an admin in any RfA, I felt that refusing to nominate him just to avoid controversy would have been an improper reaction on my part.  I respect that we disagree and I certainly don't take it personal, however, nothing is "contrived" or "hijacked".  As DGG points out, this is simply a solution to a problem, and Carrite has done nothing but been completely and utterly honest about it.  Honestly, my week would have been much easier if he would have lied, but I respect the fact that he refused to. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If he had mislead about wanting the tools he would have been open to being accused of being an involved Admin. when the analysis he seeks to complete was presented in the Arbcom case. Please see MRG's better response than mine in the following section which sets out the COI and involvement issues. Leaky  Caldron  14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED
I've seen the suggestion made that an administrator viewing deleted content related to a case they are party to is somehow a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I have not seen in policy or guidelines (or anywhere, really) the suggestion that administrators were in any way restricted in the deleted content they could view. Is this a brand new interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, or is there some discussion somewhere that proposes there should be restrictions on what administrators are allowed to view? 28bytes (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This, "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)." - part of WP:TOOLMISUSE is open to that interpretation. They would be gaining an advantage over editors unable to see deleted material in a case in which they are involved. It would be impossible for a non-Admin involved editor to refute / dispute / debate anything revealed in the deleted material. Leaky  Caldron  13:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that mean that they'd be prohibited from looking at the material at all, even second-hand? Or would it be OK to look if another administrator provided them with the deleted content? 28bytes (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We have to look at the spirit of the policy, which seems to be based around the idea that "Don't mix using the tools with your role as editor", ie: don't full protect pages you are active on, don't block users you are in an argument with, etc. Using the tools to research information (without changing it) for the purpose of presenting factual information and diffs seems to be outside the purpose of INVOLVED, since it doesn't "disadvantage" anyone and can only be used to present actual facts.  Rather than create an unfair playing field, it seems to be only to insure a fair playing field, and that is the intent of the policy, is it not? What we are talking about is the act of reading, and saying that someone can't read because they are "involved" doesn't seem logical.  Putting this RfA to the side, the idea that simply reading something violates policy is bothersome. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 13:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why Arbcom will hopeful come up with a solution which does not involve the sort of contrived, messy solution we have been presented with in this RfA. Even so, your spirit of the policy viewpoint is evidently not universally shared. Leaky  Caldron  14:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But, Dennis, he doesn't just want to read it and supply diffs. He wants to evaluate it in constructing an argument. His earlier evaluations reflected some misunderstandings of how the process works as well as some of his own interpretation as to what constitutes a serious copyright issue or not. I applaud his efforts to be sure RAN has a fair shake, but I think we can't ignore that this may create a bias. This is why I mentioned restoring it for everyone to see. I don't myself have any problem with Carrite reviewing this content. Good idea, if there's any doubts. But if the content needs to be evaluated then everyone needs to be able to see it to assess the evaluation and the handling of the material themselves. If it's important, this evidence should be displayed to everyone (of course, I'm not speaking of cases of other types, where privacy or safety issues may preclude open evidence). I see subsequent notes from Coren that this is standard in ArbCom cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is when the problem arises, but in this specific case (the ArbCom case), the solution will be surely found by the Arbs. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If everything can be restored so everyone can see it, that is also good. I'm a fan of openness.  Again, I'm not taking sides on the Arb case (see my comment above), and have zero desire to get into that mess.  All I have done is look at Carrite as an editor and his experience and fitness for admin, based on his history.  Using that criteria, I nominated him at his request. As for his evaluation of the data, if the data is open to the public then everyone could could use their own interpretation and express an opinion to Arbcom.  We depend on Arbcom to separate the wheat from the chaff, so whether he has access via the bit or if it is made public, the potential result is the same, thus the point is moot.  I trust Arbcom to figure out what is fact and what is fiction, just as I trust the community to decide if Carrite fits the general criteria to be an admin or not.  That seems to be consistent with the Pillars and policy. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal guess is that using the tools and accessing deleted data is not the same. You can access deleted data because you have the tool, but that doesn't mean that you are performing any action with them (hence why seeing deleted data is not a logged action). The spirit of that policy relies in that any administrator that is personally related with a situation may not perform any logged action (such as protecting a page, blocking a user, deleting data) that could be advantageous for them, and disadvantageous for the rest of the involved parties. Although I did not support his candidacy (yet), I fail to see how Carrite's ability to see deleted data can become disadvantageous for the rest of the involved parties. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing a !vote after the candidate has replied to it
For a second time, I've replaced the text that Carrite originally replied to in the first Oppose. The reason is that swapping the Oppose for a completely different one after the candidate has replied to the original one, makes the candidate's reply appear to be a complete non-sequitur and bordering on the nonsensical. Is this important? Yes it is. One of the first places most people go when assessing an RfA candidate (after the nomination and questions) is to look at the Opposes, consider the strength of them, and consider the candidate's responses to them. If the very first Oppose is followed by a reply that appears nonsensical, the impression given is that the candidate is pretty clueless and can't even make a coherent reply. First impressions last - intentionally or not, this could subvert the outcome of the RfA.

RfA pages are supposed to be a record of the discussion. Altering them to give a misleading impression of the discussion is not acceptable.

Floquenbeam has already helpfully pasted John F. Lewis' re-written Oppose back into the page, and I have left that in place as well - so nothing is lost. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This has now been undone by Giant Snowman, who seemingly is unaware of WP:REFACTOR. As a result, the RfA is now materially misleading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not your place to make the change - it is the editor in question's. GiantSnowman 14:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * He doesn't appear to be aware of his responsibility to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All five of you are acting like idiots. Please stop. Why does your feud have to be our problem?--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not including me as one of the five idiots...! GiantSnowman 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in a feud with anyone and am certainly not an idiot. Please strike your personal attack against all involved. GiantSnowman 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPA, derogatory comments about other editors can be removed by any editor immediately. So if you feel it's a personal attack, you could trim it yourself. But personally, I'm going to leave it alone - my revert-mana is running low. :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what's happened here I ain't touching anything ;) GiantSnowman 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've lost count of the number of idiots involved already :) I don't think a "feud" is relevant, I think subverting the RfA process is indeed a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * *many. You are correct. If I say that N is unsuitable because of x, y and z and 3 other !votes say "per leaky" and then I add or refactor to say N is a complete and utter xxxx, it would be wrong for the 3 other !voters who originally agreed to be associated with the revised rationale. This can be resolved by striking and replacing with a small, short explanation Leaky  Caldron  15:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have put a note in to state it was refactored . Please carry on with normal business. If I see any more edit warring, I will hand out blocks. Worm TT( talk ) 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is edit-warring? Your threats of blocks are a massive over-reaction. GiantSnowman 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be on the periphery of this, but have a look into the history, the ANI thread and especial Demiurge's talk page history and you will see where the edit warring is. The threats of blocks are necessary in this case - anyone has a problem with the current state, it should be discussed, not edit warred over. Worm TT( talk ) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So because I made one revert - completely unaware of all the drama lurking in the background - it is fine to assume that I will engage in an edit-war and am threatened with a block? GiantSnowman 15:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you were to make further reverts, I would block you, just as I would block any other editor who carried on reverting. I'm drawing a line in the sand, I have no doubt you had no plans to carry on reverting - nor should any other editor. Worm TT( talk ) 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thoughtcrime much? GiantSnowman 15:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, because a blanket warning is not a punishment. Were you to carry on, which you have made clear you will not, then we would have a problem. Worm TT( talk ) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Precrime then? GiantSnowman 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot closer, and that reminds me, it's been ages since I've read any Philip K. Dick. Worm TT( talk ) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've never read The Man in the High Castle then I suggest you give that a go! Anyways, time for us all to go on with our work. GiantSnowman 15:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Worm! Sorted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about tourism in Gibraltar (moved from questions for the candidate section)
Pryoriman, why were you evasive when asked about the nature of your trip to Gibraltar? Cla68 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's nobody else's business. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Why should I be interrogated about where I go on holiday? Carrite was very clearly trying to smear me on and off-wiki in an attempt to undermine me in a discussion. He had no justification whatsoever doing that and had no reason whatsoever to make the utterly false claims that he did. I don't mind debating an issue on Wikipedia, but to simply lie about someone else's off-wiki activities in order to damage their reputation is inexcusable and cowardly. Prioryman (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to see editors on both sides of this Rfa agreeing that this "issue" (for what of a better word) has no business being debating here. Good! Shawn in Montreal (talk)
 * It comes down to accountability and integrity, Shawn. Carrite has behaved very badly over this issue, and rather than say "I was mistaken" or "I apologise", he's posted "WP:DONTFEEDTHETROLLS" and, I see, has now doubled down on his original attack. That's not the kind of behaviour expected of a would-be admin. Prioryman (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. And again I'm glad to see that Anthony, who strongly supports the candidate, does too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, it doesn't matter what the purpose or means of the trip was. What matters is Carrite's off-wiki response to the trip, which was rude, uncivil, and uncalled for. He also called Prioryman a troll. That's bad. Very bad. gwickwire  talk edits 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)