Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

message: With six days still to pass, I start to believe that this will go on WP:100 ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, fabulous. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reached it now. :) Acalamari 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You have an extremely odd definition of "fabulous". This is the must disgusting thing I have seen in nineteen months with this project – Gurch 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 201 supports. Evilclown93 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:100]] 

message: Gwern, I reverted your formatting changes, because it did something weird to the count. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: First off, I see lots of opinion here. Several people opposed due to question number 4. While it is useful, as a question about his opinion on attack sites, it's still opinion, and he did limit it. Second off, he opposed removing ALL links from EVERYWHERE. If they're in good faith (which is perfectly possible), then it's okay. Gracenotes, please correct me if I misstated anything. ~EdBoy[c] 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions, opinions

message: Wikipedia needs administrators with clue. Clue is an important and diminishing resource, and we need to treat it as a commodity with value. Gracenotes has demonstrated, on multiple occasions, that he has clue. He thinks for himself, which is something I value; he is not a sheep. He is polite and enquiring and, I believe, will continue to be an asset to a project that is appointing an increasing number of ineffective users to a position with an elevated standing.
Being an administrator is no big deal; assigning and removing the permission is very simple, and should be done liberally, to ensure we have enough clueful users to deal with the various irritating minutae that occur, and to do it in a manner which doesn't kick up a fuss over every little controversy. Similarly, when we encounter a user who is abusing the tools, we need only to revoke it. This pattern seems to work for all the other nine hundred odd wikis under the Wikimedia umbrella, plus countless hundreds of thousands of third party deployments of the MediaWiki software, and I see no reason the English Wikipedia should be different.
I'm not really interested in how many edits Gracenotes has made, or how many vandals he has reverted. I couldn't give a damn about his edit summary usage or his attendance record on the various deletion "discussions". What I care about is that every impression I get from this user's actions; every interaction I have with him...are positive. robchurch | talk 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly why people say RfA is broken. People oppose for unnecessary reasons, some of which have nothing to do with adminship. If he or she is qualified, then give him the tools. If he/she is not, then you have legitimate reasons to oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Qualified" has to involve that the person has a certain degree of common sense. Leaving aside Gracenotes, and speaking in general terms only, I'm entitled to form an opinion that someone doesn't have enough common sense based on whatever criteria I choose. No one else has the right to say that my criteria are wrong, but that someone else's are correct. People vote and comment according to their own priorities, or their intuition, or their personal experience with that candidate. All those approaches are valid. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but sometimes people go overboard on their criteria. Apparently, I'm a tough adminship evaluator, yet I draw the limit somewhere. It's okay to oppose for problems with question answers, but when people oppose for other ridiculous criteria (hopefully, I won't have to divulge and name names) then it becomes pointless. I mean seriously, when you talk to admins who have a good upstanding record, and you hear them say "I don't think I could pass if I went up for an RfA now", then there clearly is a problem. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nish...you're 100% right. (BTW-do you think you could pass now?) --R ParlateContribs@ (Red Sux!) 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sometimes the reasons people give may not be the only reasons they have. We need to be very cautious about calling some reasons acceptable and others not. People form intuitions about other people, and they're entitled to act on them. All we can ask of people is that they vote and comment in good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: R, just FYI I don't think you'll pass now. It's been too soon since the last RfA for most people's liking, and you've had 3 already. I'm afraid you'll have to wait quite a bit longer, they're a tough crowd. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly, R was asking me if I could pass, not him :P. To answer your question, R, I think I could probably pass now, only because I don't think I have pissed many people off on Wikipedia. That's just my interpretation of my actions here, and I could be totally wrong. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you agree to recall then? Matthew 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in :Category:Administrators open to recall. If there's sufficient reason to think I haven't been doing my job properly, then I would willingly go for an RfA again. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm entitled to form an opinion that someone doesn't have enough common sense based on whatever criteria I choose. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I question, though, whether 60 other people are entitled to form an opinion based on whatever criteria you choose – Gurch 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal musings of an arrogant ex-Wikipedian

message: This is one of those troubling discussions in which people I respect deeply are making what seem like very strange statements and leaps of logic.  The discussion is fairly complex, though, so perhaps I'm just missing some things.  Here is how it seems to me (and, I think, to others):
:1.  Neither Gracenotes nor any other party here support linking to pages containing personal attacks or personal information about Wikipedians.
:1a.  Presumably this also applies to pages/sites containing clear or direct links to such pages. (I don't think this was discussed as such).
:2.  All parties here support the removal of such links whenever they are found on Wikipedia.
:3.  The matter of dispute is whether this removal should be implemented through the automatic blacklisting of sites hosting such information, potentially including portions of those sites which do not link or refer in any way to the personal attack/information, or whether judgment must be used in each case.  
Is that basically correct?  If so, this really seems like a matter about which reasonable people can disagree.  I find it difficult to sympathize with the "it's OK to disagree about policies except for this one" approach... so I'd like to think that I'm missing something.  -- Visviva 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think the issue (on this attack sites thing) is whether one trusts Gracenotes to approach the issue properly. Based on his mealymouthed answer to the relevant question, I don't. It's not a referendum on attack sites. --Mantanmoreland 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For values of "approach the issue properly" that equal "agree with Mantamoreland on the issue"? *Dan T.* 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. If I liked his answer, I'd be voting for him. Didn't I just say that?--Mantanmoreland 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The first sentence of the Mantanmoreland's response seems to sum it up. From what I see, it appears the issue is whether we can trust him as an administrator in handling this matter to the community's liking. The !votes on the RfA have mostly concerned the general public's disapproval of Gracenotes' method of handling such situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by a (currently) 92 to 23 margin, they seem to express the community's either supporting, or not finding to be a big deal, his position and approach on this issue, or at least finding other issues to take precedence over it in determining his suitability as an admin. *Dan T.* 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And, since an attempt to get further discussion on the issue on the Village Pump failed to bring even a single response, a possible conclusion is that most of the community really doesn't give a dern one way or the other on this issue. *Dan T.* 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, take into account that much of the opposition came after this RfA was already riding at nearly unanimous support. Most of the opposition has come in the last day or two and I think there's been a near 50-50 split in the support and oppose votes during this time. Some people don't think Q4 is a big deal, while some others think it is. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks.  I guess I just don't see the "mealymouthedness" here; the answer to Q4 seems rather well-thought-out and nuanced to me, and also expresses quite clearly the nominee's intention to deal with these links in the way that we all agree is appropriate (i.e., by removing them).   So I'm still at a loss to understand the opposition, but I can at least appreciate that it, like my support, arises from careful thought.  -- Visviva 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By removing them? Not necessarily. He said, "I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...)" That's too large a loophole for my taste.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But here we seem to definitely be on point #3 above -- the question is not whether to include links which point directly (or even indirectly) to personal attacks, but whether to impose a blanket ban on all links to a site that includes a personal attack.  This seems to boil down to a practical question:   How does Wikipedia best address the threat posed by these sites, while neither compromising its integrity as an encyclopedia nor permitting unacceptable threats to its members?  When it comes to practical questions of this nature, it seems to me, we need diverse points of view at all levels, if we as a community are to address problems and threats in an optimal way.  -- Visviva 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To your original question/point, Visviva, there are those who believe invoking WP:IAR would not be necessary if the potential of acting outside the general consensus (that attacks should not be linked to) were made part of the policy (i.e. in exceptional cases it is permissable to link to a site which hosts attack content). Thus any ensuing discussion would be if any case is exceptional, and not whether IAR was correctly applied. Since IAR is a fact of Wikilife then any policy that is so defined that it may cause its (IAR) invocation for the greater good is flawed (although not fatally). It has to be said that all parties (in my experience) are sincere in wanting what is good for WP.LessHeard vanU 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone here were acting in good faith, there'd be no problem. I strongly support the removal of these links wherever and whenever, but even I don't go around looking for them; I only remove if I happen to see one. No sensible admin is going to act fanatically. But the problem is that there are morons around who are stirring it, and some of them were behind the BADSITES dispute. Given that context, I would hope that admins would distance themselves from the arguments in favor of ever linking to those sites, because it feels as though you're pushing a principle ahead of common sense and sensitivity, and in so doing playing right into the hands of the stirrers. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: Grace - In the MONGO RFA, one of the arbitors gave a view on the handling of harrassment of Wikipedians on external sites. On my reading, the views you have given on this issue seem very similar to the view given below by one of the arbitors in the case. 
Can you tell me if the statement below reflects your sentiments on this issue?
The decision in MONGO is intended to apply to harassment of individuals on sites which are not making a good faith effort to engage in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia or those associated with it, simply smearing Wikipedia and its users. Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to. Many of those who have been banned by the arbitration committee or by the community have ended up there, and continue to voice criticism of our decisions and practices. These criticisms are occasionally useful.
It is inappropriate to attempt to generalize principles expressed and relied on in arbitration into policy. We have make it very clear that we neither honor nor set precedent. This matter nicely illustrates why. The facts and users the "policy" would apply to, often differ sharply from those presented in the arbitration case. I would make this comparison: imagine a meeting, one person comes in and loudly denounces the others attending the meeting. He shouts, gives everyone the finger, and stamps his foot. Contrast this with a situation where a person comes in and dumps a bag of shit on one of the others attending the meeting. One situation is difficult, the other utterly unacceptable, the decision in the MONGO case addresses the unacceptable situation. Fred Bauder 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred later clarified this, and said specifically that Wikipedia Review does count as an attack site. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep!  I'm just trying to note that Fred is a reasonable guy and he believed that addressing what is linked to is preferable in some cases to giving a blanket prohibition to a site.  I found this similar to Grace's argument on sites vs links. As in "Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism ... present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to."  I did not intend to make a point about Fred's views about the appropriateness of any particular site. Uncle uncle uncle 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrator Comments

message: Keeping in mind that being an "admin" is not supposed to be such a big deal, and is really only supposed to be about being trustworthy with tools, I have a single question for those opposing Gracenotes's adminship:
Do you believe that Gracenotes cannot be trusted with the tools? No rhetoric about empathy, or accusations that people would feel different if it applied to them. Just a yes or no. Do you believe that Gracenotes would abuse the tools? Bladestorm 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that anyone who thinks that Wikipedia should contain links to sites which make it easy for attacks, both physical and legal, against other Wikipedia editors, should NOT be an admin.  Corvus cornix 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then, is your answer, "I don't understand the question."? Or, "I refuse to answer the question."? If I wanted to know if people wanted him to be an admin, I'd look at the list of Oppose's. I asked if you believe that he would abuse the tools. It's a yes or no. Do you believe he'd abuse the tools, or use them incorrectly? Bladestorm 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you are not interested in hearing anybody's opinions, just in arguing with them when they don't meet your expectations.  I said what I said.  I answered your question.  Corvus cornix 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in other words, I asked a very simple question. I wanted to know something very specific. You refused to answer. I'm not trying to argue. I could've seen a thousand, "I believe he will abuse the tools", and wouldn't have said a word about it. You're the  one who forced an argument. Bladestorm 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We already had admins who believed it is OK to hand over deleted records with confidential personal information to attack sites. This candidate has indicated he does not accept this simple principle. Do we really need more admins abusing their admin tools? Crum375 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what I'm supposed to be reading at that link, but I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. Yes or no. Do you believe that Gracenotes will abuse (or accidentally, but destructively, misuse) the tools? (And, if so, could you outdent your answer? Because I'd like to easily see how many people think this is an actual problem) Bladestorm 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can be poor admins without actually abusing the tools, Bladestorm. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I never once said (or implied) anything remotely to the contrary. However, I'm still allowed to ask a question. I simply wanted to know what people thought he was going to do with the tools. Again, if I wanted to know if people thought he'd be a good admin, I'd look at the "Support" and "Oppose" entries. I'm allowed to ask a question. Bladestorm 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You can read a simple principle describing what Attack Sites are, and that we shouldn't link to them under any circumstances. Gracenotes does not accept that principle, which means to me that his top priority is not protecting our editors against harassment and attacks. Since we have already had incidents of admins with apparently a similar attitude abuse their tools, it is prudent to prevent that from recurring. We don't need to 'believe' he will abuse the tools - it's enough to feel that he cannot be trusted with them. Crum375 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're becoming very disruptive here. You made your point. Everybody knows your point. Please stop trying to impede my questions. I didn't ask if you thought he should be an admin or not. I didn't ask your reasons. I have no desire to challenge your reasons for not approving. I simply wanted to know how many actually felt he'd abuse the tools. You decided not to answer. You don't have to. However, you've padded this section with so much bloat that it's now very hard to continue with my actual question. I now have to once again ask. This time, I would request that you not disrupt it. Answer it. Don't answer it. I don't care which. And discuss it as much as you like where appropriate, but please don't put anything but "yes" or "no" in a "yes or no" section. Bladestorm 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's this kind of aggression that's very off-putting. If you think your support is helping Gracenotes, I can assure you it's doing the opposite. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not aggressive at all. When I ask a question, and people decide to treat me with such little respect that they reply, but don't answer, I take that to be very insulting. If someone doesn't want to answer, no biggie. Whether they don't like the question, or simply don't feel like it, no biggie. But replying, and taking up space in a section where actual answers belong is insulting. It's not only saying, "I'm not going to answer your question." It's saying, "you shouldn't even be allowed to ask." It's just frustrating. I'd never treat anyone else like that. And, incidentally, I am not specifically an advocate for Gracenotes. My interest in asking was more related to the RFA process than to Gracenotes specifically. Though I do support Gracenotes, and applaud his patience with the insults and accusations, that doesn't mean I can't get input on a larger topic (or at lesat try to). Bladestorm 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clear that this RFA is not about my administrative abilities. It's about my character. For that, I refer you to my contributions. GracenotesT § 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
One simple question
 

message: I'm trying to understand the controversy over attack sites and am finding myself a little puzzled.  I apologize in advance for the naïveté of the following questions, but I have read everything I can find about the controversy and these questions haven't yet been answered, so here goes.  1) Why are they called "attack sites"?  They seem to combine strong criticism/critique of Wikipedia with periodic efforts to "out" editors.  From what I can tell, it's the latter goal that we consider intolerable, so why aren't they called "outing sites"?  "Attack sites" makes it seem that the problem is criticism of Wikipedia.  2) To those who are opposing Gracenotes RfA on the grounds that he won't elevate his opposition to the linking of  such sites to a blanket prescriptive rule, I'd like to ask: Would such a blanket rule carry no cost at all to other dimensions of the Wikipedian ethos, such as WP:NOT#CENSORED?  Please note that I'm not saying the latter should take precedent; I'm just wondering if it should be seen as relevant at all, and perhaps have a tempering effect on the position a prospective admin  takes on WP:NPA. 3) It has been claimed that not reverting a link to those sites "gives them oxygen."  Is this true, or just a kind of rhetorical statement?  It seems anyone who sees mention of one of these sites can find it in a few seconds.  Wikipedians are pretty good internet navigators, maybe the best.  We could ban even the discussion or mention of them, but that would certainly come at a high cost to what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about, and I doubt many are prepared to do that.  But just banning the link itself is a little like writing "Motherf$%*er!" and imagining that the reader's innocence has been protected. 
Regarding oxygen.  I actually went and read one of these sites for the first time as a result of the pie fight over Gracenotes' RfA.  And from what I can tell one of the liveliest threads at the moment focuses on Gracenotes' RfA and the controversy around BADSITES.  I'm looking at the tally at the bottom saying the number of "users" and "guests" currently reading the thread, and I realize I'm counted among them, and I begin to wonder if our turning this into a major litmus test, a high-profile divisive issue, and – to be very frank – a platform for grandstanding, etc., isn't giving far more oxygen to these sites than Gracenotes' low-key, pragmatic approach would do.  
When one considers any measure having even the faintest whiff of censorship, the measure has to clear a pretty high hurdle of cost-benefit analysis.  The speech value of shouting fire in a crowded theater is so low, and the cost so high, that just about everybody can agree about it; it may be safe to say that those who don't lack "common sense."  I do not see how a blanket rule against all linking of attack sites, however, can clear such a hurdle.  And I can't but wonder if the collective passion over this question hasn't become a proxy for something else; perhaps a way of expressing loyalty or solidarity to admins who have prominently identified themselves with this issue.  If true, I think this would be unfair to Gracenotes and unhealthy for Wikipedia.  Solidarity with editors who feel victimized is a good thing, loyalty oaths are a bad thing; and I wonder if the one hasn't bled into the other in this most tumultuous of RfA's.--G-Dett 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "oxygen" issue is one I was planning to bring up as well.  It is my assertion that this RfA (and to a lesser extent, this previous one) has provided a great amount more publicity to the sites in question than any unremoved link in a months-old discussion ever could.  I would ask people participating in this discussion to consider whether turning RfA into a referendum on what appears to be one site in particular may have unintended consequences. JavaTenor 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not one site in particular, since the RfAr actually originally referred to another site altogether.  Corvus cornix 03:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about the premise of this controversy

message: "Anyone who believes a site ... is not trustworthy." That sentence makes no sense – and I'm not just being picky, because this is important. Do you mean "anyone who believes in the site is untrustworthy"? I don't think so – it makes no sense to say that an editor in good standing "believes" in an attack site, and that is clearly untrue in this case. What exactly do you think Gracenotes believes? If you mean Gracenotes believes links to attack sites are fine, that's simply not the case. Gracenotes voiced opposition to a proposal (which is not and was never policy) which would have not only have prohibited linking to sites that incidentally happened to contain a page with personal attacks, but actually blacklisted them (that's the Wikimedia-wide, all-namespaces blacklist where you can't save a page until all offending links are removed). The proposal as worded would have made it policy to remove all links to, say, MySpace (from userpages as well as the encyclopedia) if someone put up a MySpace page attacking a Wikipedia user. This would of course never happen, as a request to blacklist such a site would be rejected as "silly", but the fate of smaller sites – say, an otherwise useful wiki that temporarily contains an attack page because they're a bit slow at dealing with vandalism – would be open to abuse. The proposal would also have allowed people to get away with removing more or less any link simply by calling it an "attack site". This was a bad wording, not a malicious intention on the part of anybody – but such things need to be caught and fixed. That's all Gracenotes did – object to that absolute, no-questions-asked, unnecessarily restrictive proposal. Which he has every right to do. I repeat the word proposal again, because he has never violated the policy on personal attacks and I see no indication that he would. And somehow that has been turned into a claim that he "supports attack sites" – yes, I find it hard to believe I'm not dreaming, but people have used those exact words. Of course he does not support linking to pages which contain personal attacks or reveal private infomation. There is absolutely no evidence of that, and it's a ludicrous accusation. Have you seen him do so? I thought not. And the idea that he might not be trusted with deleted revisions is an attempt to blow this thing out of proportion still further. Certainly a user who would happily scoop up deleted revisions and post them to an attack site is someone who should be denied adminship. But, I say again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Gracenotes would do this. There no more evidence that he would do it than there is that any other RfA candidate or current administrator would. And at the very least, there is no more evidence that he would than that anyone else who opposed the proposal would; several of those people are administrators, yet I don't see a call for their adminship to be revoked because they can't be trusted with deleted revisions. This is a chronic violation of Assume Good Faith on the part of the entire community – Gurch 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believes the site is a mixed bag. Wikipedia review is a bag of shit. Myspace is a mixed bag. I gave GN the benefit of the doubt with respect to the last poor turn of phrase. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bags of shit have their uses... as fertilizer for instance. *Dan T.* 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought about posting this here rather than clogging up the RFA page with more irrelevance, but what I find interesting about the community at WR, apart from the obvious personal security issues that are indeed reprehensible, is that they also tend to evaluate the quality of contributors here based on their article edits rather than activities on the userspace of the encyclopedia. I think its fascinating that, though they generally claim to be committed to the destruction of WP, they more or less also operate under the same values that seem to be motivating editors here, so far as WP is to be a free and open information resource.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unmitigated Bullshit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Hipocrite

message: I've put together an essay expressing my views on this contentious issue here:
:User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy
*Dan T.* 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is well-thought-out and logical. I thus fear it will gain little traction here – Gurch 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, excellent essay.  Except for the concluding hooey about left-brain/right-brain.--G-Dett 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user essay on the "BADSITES" issue 

message: ...anyway? I understood that discussion on this aspect of policy had stalled (on the relevant talkpage) and that it hadn't found the consensus to be adopted. Too much of this debate, and how it impinges on this candidates suitability, appears based that it is part of NPA, indicating that the candidate does not (or would not) follow rules/guidelines in this matter. This is incorrect.
If it is not about failure to adhere to policy, then what is the basis of the objections to this candidates application regarding this matter?LessHeard vanU 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it hasn't, unless it never needed any discussion to become policy. This remains indefinitely controversial, and it seems to me that the only reason that discussion there has largely halted is that the proponents of the "policy"/proposal have forum-shopped a second time by taking discussion from Wikipedia talk:Attack sites to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks to here with a stop at a couple of other RfAs along the way. Mangoe 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the hope is that it will effectively become policy once people realise they are essentially making anti-social misfits out of themselves when they dissent. I don't want to sound like a 5-year-old, but I'm disappointed over this sort of action and the environment of preemptive consensus it effectively attempts to establish. I'm strictly against ever linking to attack sites, but I don't have a problem with dissenters, I welcome them. Groupthink would mean the immediate end of this wiki, because it is the precise problem that makes almost all non-advertising sites on the blacklist impossible. Suppression of dissent is bad, whatever the reason. —AldeBaer 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did "No Link Permitted to ''"Attack Sites"''" become part of WP:NPA... 

message: Am I supposed to remove or edit the text since it mentions a site which has/does host attack pages, or do I ask for a link to support the accusation? LessHeard vanU 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... that's actually a very good question. Mantanmoreland questions Gracenotes' contributions to an attack site – how can an uninvolved party properly interpret the answer to that question if they haven't seen the content of those contributions? Needless to say, if he was actively encouraging the disclosure of personal information, this would significantly affect his suitablity for adminship. He wasn't, of course... but I can't demonstrate that without a link to those contributions. This situation is just the sort of thing that Gracenotes suggests may be problematic if a blanket ban on all links to attack sites was imposed – with, I think, good reason – Gurch 20:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Users can email me and I would be delighted to email back to them a link  to all of GN's posts there. Or they can go to the site and see for themselves. I didn't say his posts there were bad.--Mantanmoreland 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're telling me that openly offering to email anyone a link to an attack site, and encouraging users to visit the site themselves, is absolutely fine, but expressing concern over a proposed policy about linking directly (not supporting linking, just expressing concern over a proposal) renders a user completely untrustworthy? Someone do something, I'm losing the will to live here – Gurch 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that isnt the solution, Gurch. To me the idea that a good faith contributor to WR could then have that used against them in an rfa or anywhere on wikipedia is offensive and absolutely not backed up byy any policy or guideline, SqueakBox 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily. I haven't said he was doing anything bad by contributing to an attack site. I simply pointed out that he did so, and asked him to talk about it. If there is no problem with posting on WR, what is wrong with him saying so? Perhaps we all should post on WR. It is a free country. It is not against any rule here. --Mantanmoreland 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, SqueakBox 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I have no problem with that; that's not what I object to. I am questioning your offer to email links to Gracenotes' posts on what has been classed as an "attack site" to anyone, and also to your encouragement to other users to visit it themselves. This suggests to me that your stance on linking to attack sites is also somewhat less than absolute, if you believe these things to be acceptable. How do you reconcile this with your strong opposition to Gracenotes for not disagreeing quite as strongly with linking to attack sites as you desire? – Gurch 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I'll wait until Gracenotes responds to my question and get back to you.--Mantanmoreland 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall someone, a singularly heroic individual, posting to that site in order to save the good people there from being duped by a propagandist who seemed to hold some beef against a wiki-editor here or the subject of one of our articles, I could never tell the difference. A shame this person could not be posting here with his opinon on this pressing issue.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re; Optional Question 13 

message: Forgive me if this is the wrong place to discuss this, but many of the oppose votes have frankly shocked me.  This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, but if you are opposing based on whether or not an admin will remove links to attack sites, you are voting in the wrong place.  RfA is not a place to push for a particular policy, and quite frankly I'm surprised at the audacity displayed by those who are.
You should not be voting based on the answer to the question "will you enforce this particular disputed policy."  You should be voting based on the answer to the question "will you enforce community consensus," which includes all current and future policies and discussions.  If BADSITES becomes policy, then it's the duty of admins to enforce it on sight.  But opposing an RfA based on the enforcement of it right now, while it is disputed, is simply rude, inflammatory, and disruptive.
I've been through an RfA before, and it's very stressful.  Please don't make this hard for Gracenotes by bringing your agenda here.  I appreciate that some users may feel strongly about this, but it's the wrong place to discuss it.
If this nomination is borderline, I beg the closing bureaucrat to disregard all such votes as irrelevant to this particular candidate.
Note that as I haven't much experience with this particular editor, I'm not voting.  But I'm not willing to watch and say nothing as an RfA becomes a battleground for policy.
That's my two cents, take it or leave it.  --Chris (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. The landslide of opposes based on this issue will have the unfortunate result that we will miss the opportunity to promote a clearly competent editor who's net effect as an admin would be positive (and I'm confident many of the opposers would agree with this statement if reluctantly). This is not what RfA should be about and while I understand the skepticism towards Gracenotes' position on Q4 (especially from those who have directly been victims of these attack sites), I cannot understand the insistence that this stance should be an absolute deal-breaker. It would really be a shame to have the RfA fail on this issue alone. For one thing, it sends the wrong message that the ideal admin candidate should always agree with the majority: this only encourages editors contemplating RfA to remain silent in complex, potentially divisive debates. That's not the wiki-way and as Chris points out, the one thing we all strongly care about is administrator's willingness to recognize, respect and if need be enforce a consensus even when they disagree with it. There is no indication that Gracenotes would behave otherwise. I fear many opposers are too entrenched in their position to change their mind but I do think they should reconsider their position in that light. Pascal.Tesson 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Allow me to agree with that, obviously, and also reiterate this for about the 100th time: Many of the people opposing do not appear to fully understand what they are opposing for, as evidenced by use of language such as "supports attack sites", confusion with User:Grace Note and so forth – Gurch 06:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and to the hypothetical "if BADSITES becomes policy" question, check the last pre-redirect revision of that page. It's already been rejected. This is a pile-on opposition of a user for failing to support a rejected proposal, which is insane – Gurch 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note WP:NPA#Linking_to_attack_sites, which is a disputed section of policy.  See the article's talk page -- the spirit of BADSITES is still alive in this proposal.  --Chris (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have lots of policy and guideline disputes. Gracenotes fully supports the policy in its current form, and there is nothing to suggest he would not accept and follow an alternative form of the policy were it to be changed. The rejected nature of the original attack sites proposal, which he raised objections to, means it will not realistically be introduced to the policy – Gurch 07:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  And in fact, the disputed tag there is actually more over the wording of the section than the inclusion.  (I should know; I put the tag there.  Silly me...)  --Chris (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm so glad I passed RfA three years ago, when the biggest concern for me was a lack of talkspace edits. :p Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On [[WP:BADSITES]]

message: This kerfuffle has led me to start on a little essay in userspace that might be of some relevance to this RfA.  I'm still working on it at User:Chairboy/Wikipedia:Treeism. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one? Be sure to read Dtobias' User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy and my Wikipedia:Don't object to proposals :) – Gurch 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well throw in WP:PARANOIA and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_in_the_real_world, outgrowths of the earlier "attack sites" debates before this RFA hit the fan.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spring, and the fields of wiki abound with new essays! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: April showers bring May... essays... hrm, that doesn't quite work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay in progress 

message: It's official. Is there any reason left to oppose him? – Gurch 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, all those people who refuse to change their opposes, though the candidate has fixed their problems :) --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And speedily too. One minute! And then you (Mr. Gurch) were there, two minutes later, to bring it to our attention. I commend the vigilance of all concerned.--Mantanmoreland 03:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just "Gurch". And it took him five minutes, and another nine minutes for me to respond. Actually quite a long time, given that I'm constantly checking this page (and I imagine so is he) :) – Gurch 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected on the timing but remain impressed!--Mr. Mantanmoreland 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gracenotes removes links to attack sites 

message: Right, I've got some serious concerns here with the opposers, how does Gracenotes stance on attack sites mean that he's going to make a poor administrator? He's not going to link to them, that's clear, he certainly doesn't support them. The only thing that he's stated is that he wouldn't blindly remove every single link if he saw them. The last time I checked, removing links was not an admin only job - any user can do it, or take the same stance, so why jump to conclusions and presume that Gracenotes is going screw up as an admin because of it? There's plenty of people who are willing to remove attack site links on wikipedia, so if there really is an issue with a link, it will be removed quickly anyway, no doubt by Gracenotes if theres NPA issues with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one; indeed, there are as many users who feel this request has been seriously abused as there are oppose voters. Unfortunately, the threshold requirement means only 1 out of 4 has to be fooled into thinking Gracenotes "supports all links to attack sites" or "will not remove links to attack sites" or even "supports attack sites" (all utter rubbish) in order to cause the RfA to fail. Sadly, this is happening – Gurch 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm holding out hope that the 'crats will wisely chose to weigh those opposition !votes differently from the rest. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... so am I, but past experience makes it hard to be optimistic – Gurch 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there is precedent from Danny's RfA for 'crats to take a long hard look at this before closing it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already requested at WP:BN. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent for exactly this issue; Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack site removal 

message: As this has been a difficult discussion, and as there has been some suggestion that this end in a "'crat chat," something I think should only be a very, very last resort, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. -- Cecropia 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrat suggestion 

message: Hi. Can somebody please add the link below to the RfA? I can't do it, 
presumably since this RfA was speedy deleted in the past and I can't handle that. Thanks!
*See Gracenotes's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Mathbot 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to have been caused by the absence of a "General comments" header, which somehow got deleted at some point in the past history of the page.  I've added it back. *Dan T.* 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would anyone give a damn about Gracenotes' edit summary usage? – Gurch 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bot request

message: This RFA is going to be like Danny's now...I think bureaucrats are going to be pretty upset about that. WooyiTalk to me? 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all like Danny. Danny had/has an almost unique relationship with Wikimedia and the need for functionary powers and the issues at hand are very different. -- Cecropia 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it's absolutely nothing like Danny's RfA. That had multiple arguments for opposition, for a start – a wide and varied range of them, many arguing their own case. It also had far fewer trite, unqualified "per question X" or "per [username]" comments – Gurch 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danny II? 

message: Damn, I missed this one.  I would have supported strongly, I once offered to nominate Gracenotes for adminship  and nothing has changed since then to change my mind.  Not that the tally would matter much, but I want to go on the record. The shame! See below Hiding Talk  15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually two different users ("Gracenotes" vs "Grace Note"). --- RockMFR 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very, VERY different users.  Goodness gracious. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes... and that's another issue with this RfA. Who knows how many users voted thinking one user was the other? I know at least one of the opposers did, and I have a suspicion a couple of supporters did too – even though it stated clearly at the top that the two were not the same, this was reiterated at several points, and Grace Note actually voted – Gurch 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, quite. No harm done in this case, but in the case of those who voted, perhaps not. We will see if the bureaucrats manage to spot them, I guess. There is a particular oppose vote I have left a comment on that uses as a rationale events which happened months before Gracenotes became active, but which Grace Note seems to have been involved in to some degree. (Though Gracenotes had registered, he had barely 50 edits made weeks apart and had edited no relevant pages). I may well have overlooked similar things in either section – Gurch 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh noes, more unmitigated advocacy, Gurch! Seriously it would probably be a good idea to specifically mention these things to the bureaucrats that are handling this. — CharlotteWebb 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming they actually read the RfA before making a decision, there should be no need – Gurch 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, but it wouldn't hurt to make sure of that. — CharlotteWebb 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Late to the party

message: I have opened a bureaucrat chat on this RfA here for reasons outlined on that page. Please remember that this is open to all to view in the interests of transparency, but it is only for bureaucrats' discussion and any other comments will be removed. -- Cecropia 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrat chat is open on Gracenotes's RfA