Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!/Bureaucrat discussion


  • Obviously I am involved, but I would like to point out that Salvidrim earned 8 supporters and 12 opposes after oppose #21. I personally think a silly stupid mistake is worth overlooking. Keeping in mind that Salvidrim already had 100+ supporters at this time this information came out, I question whether he would've had even more support despite the mistake had the supply of RFA participates not been exhausted. I would consider this very carefully as a 'crat.--v/r - TP 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm likewise to some degree involved, but do you think the result would have been changed if the 3RR came to light earlier in the RfA (i.e. as it happened) rather than after over a hundred people had already voted? What if the candidate had received a 24 hour ban? Leading questions, perhaps, but possibly worth considering Jebus989✰ 23:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I question whether he would've had even more support despite the mistake had the supply of RFA participates not been exhausted." Yes, I do. The candidate may not have been aware that Tbnotch reverted while he was watching his watchlist. Or he may have considered the removal of appropriately sourced material vandalism and that would've been given actually discussion rather than a last minute judgement call by !voters. Yes, I do think more time may have changed the result, but not necessarily for the bad. And in case you missed it, the candidate started discussion on the talk page before this issue was brought to light in the RFA. See User:Trevj's comments here. I think this is the sentiment that would've evolved.--v/r - TP 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's of course just speculation; one might also speculate that a candidate being banned during his RfA would induce an uptick in opposition. I think I've made my point and I'm increasingly uncomfortable further commenting on this RfA for the risk of appearing to have some kind of vendetta against the candidate, so for that reason I'll resist commenting further unless requested Jebus989✰ 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would set an extremely dangerous precedent to pass a candidate who has broken one of the brightest red lines that we have and one which, as an Admin., they may frequently be required to implement. They were marginal anyway and committing a 3RR violation during RfA indicates that they are not yet ready to be trusted. Leaky Caldron 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the 3RR brightline, but think that Salvidrim is due a warning, then a block, before a desysop (effectively). Note that it was not a blatant edit war. The IP's removal was strange and unexplained. It was reverted by another user in addition. The IP has very little edit history and was already blockable per WP:3RR. There is some possibility that the IP was confused. Salvidrim should have requested a block of the IP before breaking 3RR himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discussion relating to the consensus is far more productive" Sorry Dweller. Consensus is not supermajority, but requires the divining of strengths of argument/opinion. This is an interesting one. I do hope for a lengthy explanation, either way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opposed because I believe he made some bad judgement calls and lacked maturity. Salvidrim violating 3rr only reinforces that belief. I really think promoting is a bad idea at this time, considering there is no way he would be promoted if the 3rr violation had been caught and he had been blocked. AniMate 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm in agreement with other editors here that 3RR isn't cause for an effective desysop. Even if the crats decide not to promote, we would see another RfA in the future. I don't want us to be subjected to this again. I'm in favor of promoting this editor. Vacation9 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I think Salvidrim was remiss for returning to his user talk page at 21:08 but never returning to his RfA to comment. To me it would have made a positive difference if he had stated the things he stated on his talk page, on his RfA. That failing exudes a measure of disregard that I can not condone, and it reflects badly on an administrators charge to be responsive to questions of their conduct. has shown remarkable fortitude to enter this discussion with calm resolve and clear understanding of his abilities and goals. Any bureaucrat closing this RfA should consider that I would move from oppose to support if the RfA was not currently on hold. --My76Strat (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clarify there is no disregard; I did not see anything that required a response from my part. I am actively watching all the debates surrounding this, but as the main subject of discussion, I feel there is little for me to say, unless directly called upon. And just for clarification, what I posted earlier on my talk page had nothing to do with this ongoing discussion or the RfA that preceded it. Salvidrim! ✉ 23:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are successful do you intend to stay away from WP:AN3? Leaky Caldron 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it would be appropriate for me not to take part in discussions at WP:AN3 for a while (although, as with everything, I intend to watch and learn). Heck, I would even be willing to submit to voluntary 1RR for a few months if it could help reassure the community that I hardly make a habit of edit warring. I am not exactly proud of my mistake and am perfectly willing to take exceptional steps to ensure it never happens again. Quite honestly, I believe a self-imposed 1RR for at least a month, whether the RfA ends up successful or not, can only help ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Salvidrim! ✉ 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please submit to a voluntary 1RR regardless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I put up a userbox on my userspage detailing this. I believe it will not hurt to develop strong habits of adhering the such a code of conduct. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you for posting these comments here Salvidrim. I think you did yourself justice by extending the clarification regarding my comment here. In fact that is exactly what I hoped you would do! I have stricken my regards above and indicated my support for this RfA to be successful. I wish you the best from here. --My76Strat (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Despite being one of those who moved from (weak) support to (an implicit) neutral, I have to agree with Avi's summary of this RFA "that there was not a tectonic shift in community trust". As such, I believe this RFA should be closed as successful. KTC (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Avi a very sound assessment, I think. I'm not sure if you noticed this but there was at least one move from oppose to support. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dweller here, the number of opposes added vs. the supports after the close aren't very different. While there may have been a slight increase in opposes, not all of them were based on the 3rr issue and it's normal since it wasn't closed yet at the time. Vacation9 23:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per SmokeyJoe above, the 3RR vio in question sounds like it resulted from good intentions and a bit of confusion. I still support Salvidrim and a successful close to this RFA. INeverCry 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While discussion of the actual action that led to the late Opposes is not within the scope of this discussion, crats are allowed to weight various Opposes for various reasons as they deem appropriate. I would suggest that the fact that the action leading to the late Opposes happened during what is often the most stressful week in a Wikipedian's life here should be considered when weighting the relative merit of those Opposes. (Disclaimer: I !voted to Support, and did not change my mind when I saw the late Opposes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling me that if he were to be caugh before, he'd be blocked is not true. Not all admins are willing to block the first user who breaches 3RR without issuing a warning before. So, those who say that he would have been blocked should reconsider if this would have really happened. The action was very naive, and he already explained why it happened, and why it won't happen again. Also, considering the behaviour of the IP (I just reported a similar IP yesterday which was blocked by TParis), this can be reasonably forgiven. — ΛΧΣ21 00:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) In response to Dweller's request, my only comment is I think the framework being used to decide seems wrong and unnecessarily complicated to me (I'm not expressing an opinion on the conclusion as I don't think that's my role at this juncture). I think the RfA should be evaluated as it stands now, not in two separate pieces. There are other times when a problem is noted toward the end of the RfA, but the RfA closes at its usual time, mainly because the problem is not reported within an hour (or whatever it was) of the expected closure. On those occasions, there is often a downward shift, as there was here, but there's no arbitrary line drawn dividing the RfA. I don't see why this RfA should be treated any differently, even though the closure was delayed to obtain more votes/comments. My guess is the conclusion won't change, no matter which framework is used, but it's a touchy exercise to speculate on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opposed, but I can see a clear consensus to promote in that discussion, and "successful" is the only close that I would find credible.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Matthew's comments on the "other" page, and I agree with the conclusion. Putting aside all the other cogent remarks, the historical comments about percentages is what does it for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I am contractually required to post that RfA is not a vote at this point, or the ghosts of Jimbo and Cary will beat me with a wet noodle . -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire. Community involvement in helping to understand consensus is always welcome, but the final decision as to what the consensus is does remain with the crats. After all, we have to justify our ENORMOUS paychecks and keys to the executive outhouse somehow :) -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Just to be clear, I was not voting to promote. I was agreeing with the method Matthew used to evaluate consensus and make a determination. As I said earlier, I don't think this RfA should be treated any differently from any other. Do you get paid more than admins do, or is it just a higher multiple of zero?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Community involvement is good, and this is the most community-attended cratchat I've seen in some time. And well, the paycheks should be enormours enough so that the foundation is only able to sign 35 of those :) — ΛΧΣ21 01:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your accusation of blatant lying above is out of order. Leaky Caldron 01:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing anyone in specific, so I don't see why its out of order. — ΛΧΣ21 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not hard to make a different construction that communicates the same intended message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Something like "Telling me that if he were to be caught before, he'd be blocked is not necessarily true."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should assume it was an honest, but incorrect, opinion - labeling it a lie assumes it was deliberately untruthful, and that is an abuse of WP:AGF. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I didn't intend to name anyone while writing my comment nor making personal accusations. I was only expressing my opinion. I will gladly replace the word if anyone feels offended because of it. I apologize beforehand if needed. — ΛΧΣ21 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to name the individual for it to be a personal accusation, not when it is easy to see whose comment you were referring to and who you are calling a liar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's true. Although I have no reasons to call Leaky a liar. I just tried to make a general comment about a situation that although not universally true, it mostly is. I have reworded my comment so that it doesn't look as an accusation anymore. I hope this clarifies what I tried to express from the beginning. — ΛΧΣ21 01:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's cool. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I apologize to Leaky (or anyone else who felt accused) just in case. If it still feels like an accusation, please tell me so that I can reword it further. Sometimes what I write and what I think are not the same, and the message gets disorted. — ΛΧΣ21 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all those interested, no matter the outcome, I will post something probably lengthy on my own talk page about this some time after, and you're all welcome to read and respond; I want to avoid spamming your talk pages, so I'm posting this here. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish everyone would stop agreeing with the 'crats. For one thing, it'll give them swollen heads and they'll demand even more money than they make now, and for another thing, it gives talk pages a bad name to have too much harmony.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • One more time, a notification -- I should be available for a few more hours, but after that, I will not be available before 10PM EST Monday. Actually, I may be intermittently available during the day, especially the evening, but work is work. If you need me for anything before then, please ping my talk page and I'll try to take a few minutes. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting us know, although I wouldn't worry too much. Your role in this process is pretty much over until we make a decision, so you don't have to worry about the whole constantly checking to give a timely response thing that is a part of RFA. MBisanz talk 12:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually going to place a !vote, but got edit conflicted with the closure (so much for snacking on the job). What my !vote was is of no concern now that we've entered the crat chat stage, but I want to make it clear that I'm recusing from this crat chat. Posted in the talk page to avoid pointless fluff in the actual discussion. bibliomaniac15 08:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to oppose, but I can find no fault with the comments made by bureaucrats so far, and I think MBisanz makes a convincing case to read the results as "has enough support from the community". There is no doubt that Salvidrim will be watched carefully in the next few months--but I have little doubt that they will have learned from the RfA and from this discussion and won't get into hot water. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at least we know Salvadrim was not going out of the way to keep a clean nose. I think a block after 20:06 on the 10th would have been reasonable—leaving a warning for someone about 3rr less than a minute after violating it yourself takes some real guts. How many of the supporters would have voted that way if the candidate had had a recent block? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the candidate was not blocked. People did know of the violation (at least impliedly) and 57% of those people supported. Therefore, it cannot be said that those earlier supporters would have necessarily changed their comment because a material number of people supported despite the violation. As such, we can't second guess how the supporters would have acted under a different set of facts. MBisanz talk 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true! So we know that his support would be more than 0%. But I think we can also be pretty confident that if this had happened 2 weeks ago the support would be a lot less than 70% and this page would not exist. ~57% maybe? Probably less—we seemed to have a trend of supporters moving to oppose as they noticed what had happened, and presumably most opposers that noticed what happened would not change their votes and are not being reflected in the 57%. Yet, as some have noted there is probably no way he would have been desysopped even if he had been blocked had he already been an admin—it was a very mild infraction. So the events are firmly in that awkward category of things that are enough to prevent someone from getting the tools, yet not enough to cause one to lose them. (It's interesting to observe that the "cutoff date" for doing something in that category might be roughly midway through your RFA: a couple days for someone to notice and bring it up, then a day or so for voters to migrate away from support.) Obviously, as you note, bureaucrats don't want to try to estimate where the support would be in hypothetical scenarios, so I'm not suggesting you try to run with the math I'm doing here. If this were an RM we'd probably relist it or at least would have let it run for a couple more days considering the flurry of discussion as new points were raised. But of course this isn't RM, I can understand your reluctance to consider something so out of the ordinary. HaugenErik (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mostly unanimous agreement amongst the crats for the promotion of Salvidrim. Please don't leave us on the limb any longer kind crats. Vacation9 20:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]