Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Writ Keeper: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Writ Keeper

Final (110/2/3); Closed as successful by Avi (talk) at 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hey all, I've decided to try my luck at an RfB after seeing this thread (permalink), wherein it is suggested that there might be use for more 'crats in the renaming field. That's really the only field I would expect to be active in, though I'm sure I'll help out with uncontroversial miscellaneous things, and will probably ease into the other, trickier stuff at some point, too. When it was announced that usernames were to be handled by stewards, I figured, "Eh, not much reason for me to be a 'crat, then", but since that plan is indefinitely on hold, I guess there's still a need.

Some reasons you might want to support (obvious COI!):

• I'd like to think that I'm pretty fair to people in general (who doesn't!); I certainly play Devil's advocate to myself in my head at least, and I at least try to see things from other people's perspectives, not just mine.
• People (anecdotally) seem to like my reasoning on things, for the most part.
• I've got a bit of experience with the whole username policy thing, having been active at UAA in the past (though not currently *shrugs*), and having helped out a user with an interesting username change request.
• I'm pretty ready to explain my reasoning about things (perhaps too ready); I very much like displaying my thought process about my decisions.
• Similarly, I would consider myself open to criticism; I'm not one to defend my argument to the death just because it was the one I first made.
• I have a pretty thick skin, I think, at least as far as comments directed towards me go.
• I'm a pretty strong believer in rules-as-limits-on-power, in the sense that things like admin tools and crat tools are not given to us along with a blank check to do whatever we want with them; our power has been limited by the rules placed on us, through things like defined CSD criteria to prevent us from wildly deleting everything in sight and the like. It's incumbent on us as admins/crats/whatever to respect the limits of our supposed authority, and not overstep our bounds. It certainly isn't a thought in my mind of going rogue with any tools, or even going particularly cowboy with them, so in that respect, I'm nice, safe, and boring.

Some reasons you might want to oppose (see, I'm totally even-handed and everything!):

• As a consequence of the last bullet in the above list, I'm not quite as big a believer of rules-as-rules, which must be followed no matter what; I don't think that's a big issue in my running for 'crat, because none of the 'crat jobs contain the kind of rules conducive to ignoring (or, as I like to refer to it, "creative interpretation", subject to capturing the spirit of the law, rather than the wording.) I think that's a good trait, and at the same time, it's not one I would bring to the 'crat job, but 'crats are meant to be followers of the rules, and are meant to be as uncontroversial as possible (hence the name), so one might think that such an attitude is not desirous in a 'crat.
• I really haven't been around very long at all; I created my account around two years and two months ago, and have been an admin for a little over a year and a month now. (The "year and a month" pattern is completely coincidental, if you're wondering.) 'Crats being people that need to be experienced enough to judge consensus accurately and fairly, some might justifiably think that that's just not long enough to be entrusted with even bigger keys to the kingdom. I don't, obviously, but your mileage may vary.
• I'm not big on the RfA scene. Obviously, I ran successfully myself (where I garnered quite fair opposes based on relative lack of content contributions and length of tenure), but I don't vote on very many. I like to think that on those where I have voted, I've given policy-based rationales that I was happy to explain further, but it's still not very many. Since closing RfAs is one of the most important jobs of a 'crat (even though it's one I don't plan on participating in, at least right away), such relative inexperience could be a downside.
• Similarly, I'm not big on the closing RfCs/AfDs thing, either. I have been known to close ANI threads and the like, but that's another animal entirely. So, you could say that I don't have much experience assessing consensus, and little evidence showing that I know how to do so. That's a pretty legit concern, really; of course I'd like to think that I've demonstrated sound judgement in general that will be applicable to assessing consensus, and that closing RfAs (the area where assessing consensus is important in a crat) is not anywhere in my game plan, but again, assessing and closing RfAs is still the most important function of a crat, so if this is an overriding concern for you, well, good on you, I guess.
• I'm not big on content contributions, having only 3 DYKs to my name, along with a smattering of more minor work on assorted other articles. Again, I don't see this as a big deal (certainly less of a deal for a 'crat than an admin), but, well, this is still an encyclopedia. Make of that what you will.
• I recently asked for a desysop, and then a resysop a month later. I'd like to think that it wasn't a drama-queen, throwing-the-toys-out-the-pram type move, but again, YMMV on that; I meant it more as a thing on personal principle, rather than some sort of protest, statement, or strike, particularly the principle of rules-as-limits-on-power. No sense in hiding the fact that it was, indeed, about the issues surrounding Eric Corbett. It wasn't specifically about Eric (we've worked together on things before, and I'd consider myself on friendly terms with him, but given my aforementioned lack of content contributions, I'd guess he's not my biggest fan, not that it matters); rather, it was about a proposal to institute a restriction wherein an admin could unilaterally block an editor for something that's a judgement call, with no avenues of appeal. In my book, that's just not cool: the combination of unilaterality, lack of means to appeal, and that it was based on something subjective was just too much, no matter who it's directed towards or how much drama it's supposed to prevent. It wasn't a power I wanted to hold, so I decided not to. (Though the measure didn't pass, of course, so it didn't really matter). It actually became quite a nice break; to all you admins out there, I highly recommend turning the bit in from time to time, just for a while; it's surprisingly refreshing. But, some might see this as the kind of drama-queen move that would reflect poorly in a 'crat, so I wanted to be up front about it.

Anyway, this isn't really a big deal for me; I'd be happy to help out at CHU/S, CHU/U, and the like should the community see fit to trust me, but if not, that's fine, too. One less job that needs doing for me, so no skin off my back.

Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: They say it's 70% to 80% supporting that is the discretionary range for a 'crat, though I think it's more the low end of that range. Lower than that doesn't get promoted, higher than that does. In that range, one must balance the policy arguments on each side, the various concerns, etc., always keeping in mind that I am not the one who chooses whether they get the bit or not. My job is to interpret the community's will as close as I can, not to impose my will on an undecided community. If the community is truly undecided, I don't get to make the supervote; I just say that there's no consensus, and therefore don't promote. If you held a gun to my head to force me to say whether I would err on the side of overpromoting or underpromoting, I would probably say that I would err on the side of underpromoting. However, what I would really say is that I would err on the side of calling for a discussion. All that said, I don't have any kind of plans to be into closing RfAs. I mean, I did end up doing things as an admin that I didn't expect at all to be doing before I ran. I can't 100% promise forever that I'll disregard that side of things, so you shouldn't either, but it's not my gig, and really doesn't hold any kind of appeal to me at all.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: Discussion, discussion, discussion. The infamous 'crat chat. While I know that RfA is a stressful experience, and that having the close delayed will be unfun for the candidate, I can't imagine that a poor close wouldn't be even worse; it's better to discuss it with the other 'crats than force a decision that isn't clear. (Of course, if the decision is clear and will just lead to criticism regardless, then I suck it up and close it; absorbing criticism is a thing I can do.)

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: Because I think I am fair, I think I'm reasonably versed in policy, and I think I have a pretty solid record of engaging others. I certainly like to discuss things (as alluded in my statement, I can be entirely too prolix at times). I try to maintain an attitude of respectful yet easy familiarity; I try not to appear either abrasive or excessively formal, which I hope encourages people to come to me with any concerns they have about my (or others' behavior). The quote on my user page is the one that I try to keep in mind, as far as fairness goes: How can you expect a man who is warm to understand a man who is cold? It's a quote from One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which is a very interesting short book by the way. That's the attitude I try to keep in mind at all times, and it seems to me to be the best approach to fairness that you can get.

Additional questions from Wifione ^Message

4. Thank you for offering to stand for the RfB. An RfA is in the discretionary range and you have to close it. Which of the following oppose !votes will you reject/not reject while closing such an RfA (it'll be wonderful if you could give brief explanations for your stand; please do note that these examples are only intended to get an idea of your general stand while closing RfAs and not to put you to test):

• Oppose !votes - with no explanations given for the oppose - by established and respected editors.
• Oppose !votes by relatively new editors, again with no explanations given for opposing.
• Oppose !votes with the supporting argument that the candidate does not have the breadth of experience in administrative areas other than those that the candidate is interested in.
• Oppose !votes with the supporting argument that the candidate does not have editing experience.

A: To be honest, I'm not sure I would outright reject any of those (given that there's no evidence of sockpuppetry or other wrongdoing). Certainly not either of the two last ones: both are legitimate concerns. Editing experience is rather obvious, I should hope: we want people who hold advanced rights to be experienced enough to use them wisely, and if some voters think that the experience isn't enough, well, that's a legitimate concern. Breadth of experience, while in my personal opinion a pretty weak argument (IMO, one of the big things we should look for in admins is an ability to handle the unexpected, which includes researching the policies in unfamiliar areas), is again not illegitimate: admins frequently find themselves working in situations they didn't expect, and I don't think it's so unreasonable in a voter to desire enough breadth to handle such things that I need to discount their vote. The other two, the ones without any rationales, are different, but I still don't think they're worth discounting entirely, since even a general, je ne sais quois type concern is still a concern. If an RfA were to fall into the discretionary range, obviously !votes with no rationales are not going to help their case much, whether they're in support or oppose, and a mass of unexplained !votes on one end would probably lean me towards the other. But I don't think they have to be discounted outright. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

5. A newly registered user is warned of an imminent block because of the sameness of the username with that of an organization. The user has also made promotional edits to the same organization's Wikipedia page before the warning. Post the block warning, the user applies for a change in name - and the new name is acceptable per UPOL. What would be your stand with respect to the requested name change?

A: If it's within policy, change it. All of our templates, warnings, even block notices are geared towards allowing a request for a username change. Warnings and blocks purely for username violations are intended to steer people towards a username change, not away from it; denying them the change is basically blocking them for the username by proxy, despite their stated intent to fix the problem, and where would the prevention of harm in that be? Even better, since if we don't change their username before they're blocked, it stands to reason that we won't change their username after they're blocked, we have a delightful catch-22: they're blocked because their username is problematic, but they can't fix their username (despite their actual efforts) because they're blocked. Since their behavior evidently hasn't warranted a block yet, there's no call at all for such an action. Rename them, and let their edits and behavior stand on their own merits. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

6. In 2012 I was blocked indefinitely because my "Username sounds like an organization". I was told my case was not straightforward, so I tried to edit the policy to clarify the matter. My edits were reverted, and after a while I gave up and moved on. It appears from your nomination that, thankfully, blocking for username wiki-offences is no longer in the hands of a single admin. Can you tell me, and others who are worried about being humiliated in this way, how username policy is being applied today? Thanks in advance

A: Well, I'm not sure that I would say it's not in the hands of a single admin; at the end of the day, a single admin will make a call. But it's not so bad, I think. I looked at the ANI thread that resulted in your unblock, and I think the sentiments expressed there remain true: blocking an established editor (for any broad and reasonable definition of "established") for a username violation is a bad idea without getting consensus via an RFCN first. There is a concept of being grandfathered in, as shown by the case of an editor (I actually can't recall their full username at the moment, but it begins with "rms") who has an email address as their username; not allowed now, but was allowed at the time, so it's okay. Basically, I think the thought here is that an inappropriate username is considered an indicator that the user in question does not have Wikipedia's interests at heart, but rather their own; if someone clearly does simply want to work on Wikipedia, as shown by their editing tenure, then their username can't have been such a problem that they need to be blocked without first seeking consensus. Similarly, in the specific case of organizational usernames, the name can be taken as an indicator that the account is shared among multiple people, or perhaps shared by the successive holders of a particular role in the organization; this isn't allowed. But if a person has been editing Wikipedia for a long time, and is clearly the same person throughout, then we don't need to block preemptively on that assumption. There's an idea of "leaving well enough alone"; if there is enough history to see that there evidently aren't any obvious problems, then there's no need to block.

As for the new-account case: first of all, particularly disruptive names (i.e. names with a clear trolling intent, names created to impersonate or belittle other Wikipedia editors, etc.) are blocked outright. For promotional usernames, it really depends on whether the user has made problematic edits to mainspace or not. If they have, then they're typically blocked, with a message that promotional editing is not allowed, and advising an unblock along with a name change request (the combination of which is its own special template). It depends on the circumstances (and the admin), but if the editing isn't especially problematic (but still indicates that it's a company/organization account), this could be made a softerblock; the template for this says that the username is the only reason for the block. The yardstick here between a soft and a hard block is whether there is evidence that the user would continue violating the policy against promotional editing, even after being informed, which is admittedly a pretty loose definition. In addition to allowing the aforementioned unblock/name change, a softer block also allows the editor to simply abandon the account and register under a more appropriate name, since the block settings prevent an autoblock from taking place. If there haven't been any edits, or if there have only been edits to things like an AfC submission, then discussion with the user and encouragement for a user name change is indicated, not a block. Ditto for other username violations that look like they have been made in good faith; there's no need to jump straight into a block for someone who, say, put the word "bot" in their username (which would fall under the "misleading username" category), unless they're showing through their edits that they're trying to run/impersonate a bot. I think that more or less covers it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[email protected] (talk · contribs)? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my username is here? The question of the username has been administrated, adjudicated and is over ... kaput. And if you're going to throw my username around, have the guts to "tell" me, so to speak, on my talk page. Quis separabit? 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This should go on the talk page, IMHO. Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Entirely my fault. Please accept my apologies, both of you. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Epicgenius

7. Do you think that certain user rights should be given / taken away from certain users based on their conduct and performance on WIkipedia? Should indefinitely blocked users have their rights removed?

A: If I'm interpreting your question correctly, then my answers are "no" and "it depends", respectively. User rights are tools: we need to give them to people who are willing and able to use them effectively, and take them away from people who have shown they can't. User rights are not trophies or symbols of commendation, to be given to someone to congratulate them and taken away to reprimand them. Certainly, in specific cases, general conduct and performance will go into the decision to give a user right; since they don't have the tool already, we don't necessarily know how they'll do with it, and so we need to use other criteria. But even then, experience in a related field (vandalism reversion for rollback, article creation for autopatrolled, etc.) is still the main point. Removing rights (well, at least the "smaller" rights, so not including things like admin) should only be done if those rights have been abused. Again, rights are not awards, and removing them without evidence that they have been misused is not a viable "general punishment". It's akin to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: if the user hasn't shown to be a net negative with that tool, removing it is by definition harming the encyclopedia, with the only benefit being punishment, which we--at least in theory--don't do.

As for your second question, as I say, it depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, no, rights should not automatically be removed from an editor who is indefblocked. They're already blocked; there's no way they can misuse the rights while blocked. Removing the rights would seem like a petty slap in the face, like gravedancing, and as they're blocked, it provides no actual benefit. I say that it depends because, if they were blocked for something that suggests issues with the tool in question, then it should be removed, but even then, it's not a function of them having been indeffed per se; it's a function of them having shown issues related to the tool. So, for example, say a person who has autopatrolled and rollback has been blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. Autopatrolled should be removed despite the indef, since creating copyvios is a direct concern for the autopatrolled right, but there's no need to remove rollback, too, if there hasn't been any evidence of misuse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from TParis

8. Would you or would you not remove an editor's sysop bit based on a private email from a single Arbitrator claiming to speak for the committee without any on-wiki communication? If so, why and what would that Arbitrator need to supply or under what circumstances? If not, what would the minimum amount of information you would require to be on-wiki?

A: Essentially: no. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions, I would require that the request be placed on the bureaucrat's noticeboard first, to confirm that they are in fact speaking for the committee. I wouldn't mind being notified that such a request has been placed, but I think I would require that it's placed beforehand, or a hella good reason why they can't (like, say, the admin in question has deleted BN, along with all the other pages on Wikipedia or something). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

9. Could you expand on "or a hella good reason why they can't" because that's actually exactly what the question was asking. What scenarios, like a deleted BN, would you accept and what supporting evidence would you need? Would it require a number of Arbs to all email you? Would you accept any of these communications over IRC? What if the desysop had to be done 'privately' for whatever reason? In the explicit non-standard case, what could convince you to remove the bit?

A: I mean that there must have been something done to physically prevent the arbs from posting to BN. (Deleting BN probably wouldn't actually count, since I suppose one could still create the page for the request.) Basically, from reading the past discussion on this issue, it seems to me that there's no consensus that 'crats have the power to involuntarily desysop under anything but the delineated Arbcom procedures outlined in the above link. There would have to be some reason that such a procedure physically cannot be followed, since I kinda doubt there's any kind of irreversible harm that's going to happen in the like 3 minutes that it would take to post at BN (and if there is, then they should contact a steward, not a crat, since that's their job). To be honest, I can't actually think of anything at all that would cause this to happen (esp. one that wouldn't also prevent a 'crat from helping), but, y'know, anything's possible, I suppose. It would certainly take emails from at least three arbs, since that's the number apparently required to internally approve an emergency desysop. IRC doesn't count, though if I were to get these three emails, I might get on IRC to see if any arbs happen to be on, and then ask them if it's legit as well. I don't know of any precedent for private desysops, and there's certainly nothing in policy about it, so that's a no-go. (Could hardly be private anyway; changes to user rights are logged.) Arbcom can presumably explain themselves to a steward if they want it to happen privately, and I'm sure a shitstorm would ensue, but it ain't gonna be me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Miniapolis

10. Hi, and thanks for standing for 'crat. Would you mind explaining why you resigned as admin on October 31 (in good standing) and were reinstated a few days ago (December 1)?

A: Sure, though I did discuss it a bit in my nomination statement. As I said, it was about a proposal, this one, that was dismaying to me. The proposal was that, should an admin believe that Eric Corbett has made a comment that "crosses the line", then they block Eric without talk page access for 24 hours and protect his talk page. Now, I fully understand where this proposal was coming from: it sought to define a standard set of sanctions that can be used to prevent Eric's bad behavior, while preventing excess in the said sanctions, all the while minimizing the accompanying drama. I heartily agree with the goals. But the idea that a single admin could be authorized to place a block that is: a) unilateral, b) based on something subjective (for the community has never been able to agree on a precise definition of incivility, especially when there is context), and c) unappealable/undiscussable is anathema to me. Perhaps one or two of those points might have made it palatable, but the combination of all three was just too much. I could keep talking about this all day, but in short, it made me rethink my take on what an admin is and should be, and I just didn't really want to be a part of things while that was going on. But the proposal didn't pass, and my attempts to develop my philosophy petered out (I couldn't get it so that it made sense in every test case I could think of), and it turned into just taking a break. Over time, I found it to be very refreshing; as I said before, I highly recommend turning in the admin bits for a while if one is feeling burnt out. You'd be surprised how nice it is to not feel the duty to wade into a nasty situation and try your fumbling best to help resolve it. At the end, I just figured, "okay, it's been long enough, my batteries are recharged", and so asked for them back. Now, as I again mentioned, I can see how this looks like an attempt at a drama-queen rage quit. It really wasn't that, but I can see how it might look like that. And of course, that kind of attention-grabbing thing isn't a good trait in a 'crat. So, if that's a reason people would choose to oppose me, I can respect that. Heck, I'd respect it if people chose to oppose me based solely on the appearance, disregarding my actual motivation. Each must decide for their own self where they lie, and boringness is a generally desired trait in a 'crat (as befits the name). I know that, knowing my own motivations of course, I wouldn't consider it an issue, but I'm biased, I guess. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Rschen7754

11. Under what circumstances would you resign the admin and/or crat bits? As you may know, it is a bit more awkward to resign as a 'crat since it must go through Meta...

A: Well, generally speaking, I won't purely voluntarily resign the bits going forward. The incident I described above was a one-off thing, and there's really no need to add to others' work a second time. One of the things that gave me pause was that it would add to others' workloads, even in a small way. Certainly, if I were to receive a 'crat bit, I couldn't justify having to drag Meta people through it, too. So, yeah, one voluntary desysop was enough. As for recall, my standards would generally be: if a user, citing (with diffs) a specific misuse of admin (or crat) tools, asks me to resign as an admin and is backed by the support of two uninvolved, reasonably established (to be interpreted broadly and fairly; no "admins only" or anything) editors, then I'll post a request to remove my admin bit (I suppose I could serve the request myself, should this succeed, but I'd make a request anyway for the record), and then I guess I'll figure out where on Meta to request removal of my 'crat bit and do that. I wouldn't allow myself to request the admin bit back for a week (at which point, another 'crat will make a call about cloudiness), and I wouldn't ask for the 'crat bit back at all without another RfB. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Altamel

12. What is your position on voluntary admin recall? What role, if any, should bureaucrats assume if recall proceedings are initiated, and how would consensus be gauged on a hypothetical reconfirmation RfA?

A: Hey, Altamel, this is an interesting question (do forgive me for letting it sit so long without an answer!) I think voluntary admin recall is a good idea in general, but the problem is that it remains voluntary; it isn't binding. The jurisdiction of a 'crat to desysop someone is very limited; they can essentially only do it at either the user's own request or at the request of Arbcom. One would hope that the admin whose stated recall criteria have been met will request the desysop themselves, but if they don't, 'crats are not allowed to force the issue by desysopping without an actual self-request having been made. After that, to be honest, it doesn't really make a difference: a resysop request at BN would still be judged based on whether they resigned under a "cloud"; if an admin's recall criteria were met, it stands to reason that the same factors that led to the recall would indicate a cloud, but that judgement would be made the same way regardless of whether the admin had recall criteria or not. Similarly, an RfA would be judged the same way regardless; presumably, the community itself will see the recall as an issue and include that in their rationales for supporting or opposing, and through that, it would affect the final decision. But if the community chooses not to discuss the recall, then it's not a bureaucrat's place to make it an issue for them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jusdafax

13. A) Could you elaborate on your brief resignation as admin over the "unilaterial" and "subjective" (your terms in answer to Q#10) blocking of Eric Corbett, as opposed to your recent early ANI closure of an active ANI discussion about him, since your closure there is arguably both unilateral and subjective?

A:

13. B) You state in reply to my oppose that history shows that Eric Corbett is "unofficially immune to admin action from ANI threads." Please expand a bit on this interesting belief, and does not an admin saying that as if it is now common knowledge and virtual policy reinforce the perception that it is so, and must be accepted by concerned editors?

A:

13. C) Given that taking a case to Arbcom or conducting an Rfc are many orders of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than filing a report at ANI, do you see any "ripple effect" to other problem editors now that Eric Corbett's actions, in your view, are apparently no longer worth discussing at ANI? Jusdafax 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from SandyGeorgia

14. Writ Keeper, you said in Q1 that you would err on the side of underpromoting. What would your call have been in this case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A: Hey, Sandy, that's actually a pretty interesting case, especially since the task for which Trappist asked for the tools has since been made available outside the admin toolset via the template editor right (not that that could've affected the original decision). I'll have to take a closer look at it and give a real answer later, if you don't mind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I spent some time figuring out if there was a way to write a short answer to this, but I don't think I can manage it. I guess the first thing I'd say is that, were I to be the first on the scene, as it were, I would've opened a 'crat discussion about it; the closeness and nature of the request I think would've warranted such a step. And, given the 'crat responses in the 'crat chat, which are all reasonable I think, the discussion ended in a conclusion that there was consensus to promote. So, basically, things would've gone down more or less the same way that they did, had I been there. Now, I'm kinda torn about the opinion I would've had myself as a closing 'crat. My first instinct would probably be no consensus; the opposes raise valid concerns (e.g. about temperament), backed by diffs, that the supports don't really respond to (some do, but not many). I could make a reasonable (in my mind) case for consensus to support, though. Basically, the reasoning could go like this: there seems to be consensus that Trappist is qualified for the work they intend to do. There also seem to be reasonable concerns that they are less qualified for the other aspects of adminship. So, the question becomes: does the community have trust that Trappist will stay within his area of expertise? I'd say there is, so a case could be made for consensus to promote. Nonetheless, I think I would end up (tentatively) on the no consensus side of the fence: adminship requires communication, no matter what field it's in, and the opposes that cite temperament indicate that they think communication could be an issue here. A substantial number of opposes raised this issue; not many supports addressed it (a few even expressed similar concerns), so on those grounds, I'd probably say there was not a consensus to promote. I feel that the single-purpose admin question clouded the issue: it appears that it drew comments (on both sides of the fence) that were more in support for or in opposition to the idea of a single-purpose admin, rather than the suitability of Trappist for the role. I think that, while there were certainly a substantial number of people who felt that he was suitable, enough so that there certainly wasn't a consensus to not promote, there wasn't enough consideration of the issues with the person, instead of the role, to form a consensus to promote. Not to be so damned noncommittal about this, but I would definitely have struggled mightily with this decision; I definitely wouldn't have felt confident enough to close it myself, and in the 'crat chat that I would've opened, it is more than possible that I could have been convinced otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Trevj

15. What purpose does the User:Cthulhufish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) account serve? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A:

General comments

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/Writ Keeper

• Links for Writ Keeper: Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Writ Keeper can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. I have complete faith in WK's ability to handle both the renaming chore, and the other crat chores if he chooses to get into them in the future, with a minimum of fuss and drama, and a maximum of experience and clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Support No concerns, I think he'll make a fine crat. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Good work on usernames, says he will be focusing on that, and it will be useful, given the recent backlog. Dark Sun (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. I have seen lots of good things coming from them in the admin role, and I have no doubt they will act with as much or more thought and care in the 'crat role. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Support As I understand it we're expecting renaming to be transferred to stewards after SUL finalisation (?) but regardless, having just waited for around a week at CHU/S (no problem, of course) it wouldn't hurt to have some more 'crats. Best of luck benmoore 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Absolutely. WK has been a very sensible admin and another hand at the backlog would certainly be helpful. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per all of the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Andrevan@ 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Yes. Writ Keeper has an excellent record as an editor and admin, and I think he's well-qualified for the additional (limited) roles of a bureaucrat. Besides, anyone who quotes Solzhenitsyn in response to an RfB question must be all right. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Support I've not got much confidence in the moving of renaming to the stewards (mainly on grounds of numbers and workload - nothing personal), but I do have confidence in Writ Keeper. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - Reasonable, clueful admin who should make a fine 'crat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Support. By coincidence, I just observed a very nice demonstration of cluefulness at one of the noticeboards. I suppose that someone could nitpick over the promise to focus on the usernames, but the answers to questions demonstrate clear competence in the other crat areas. And that self-nom statement is quite a tour de force. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Support Writ has always been reasonable in discussion and in our interactions, and I fully expect he will continue to demonstrate that standard in his work as a bureaucrat. Writ doesn't strike me as someone who would spuriously promote someone to admin, grant/deny unreasonable username requests, or otherwise be abusive in this new role. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Support good admin, no worries --Stfg (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
15. Support trusted user. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
16. Support No qualms whatsoever with Writ Keeper getting the 'crat wrenches. —  dainomite   21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
17. Support See no reason not to. buffbills7701 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
18. Support strong candidate, trusted admin, no qualms whatsoever - Go Phightins! 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
19. Only seen good things. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
20. Support, very reasonable admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
21. Support when I started that thread at BN, I never anticipated an RfB resulting! Luckily, what we're looking at here is a very impressive candidate with excellent intentions and judgement. Go get those backlogs :) Gloss • talk 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
22. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
23. Support I believe Writ Keeper will be as efficient, helpful, and thoughtful a 'Crat as he is an Admin.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
24. Haven't seen one of these in forever. Writ Keeper is fully qualified and I trust him -- Strong Oppo...er ah Support -- Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 23:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
25. Support - I highly value Writ Keeper's opinion and trust his judgement. His intention to work on rename requests causes no worries (admins sometimes deal with stuff more complicated than that), and I have faith that he'll stick to his word and refrain from starting to close RfAs until he's got some more experience. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
26. Support - has the judgement and maturity needed for the job. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - Writ Keeper is someone who's name I automatically equate with trustworthiness and fairness. I have no reservations whatsoever. - MrX 01:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - My interactions with as an admin and observations of him as an admin make me confident he is both qualified for the job and will make a trustworthy bureaucrat. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
29. Support although I really wish he'd do something about those unicode characters in his signature that don't load for me and look bad... Meh, but I digress... Technical 13 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
30. Support Others above have said it well. Mkdw^talk 03:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
31.  :D :D Secret ^account 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
32. Support Yeah, Sure.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Trustworthy. Good nomination statement. Nothing more to add; others have said it well. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
34. Support because I think he'll do a good job. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
35. Of course. Graham87 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
36. Support has clue. Horologium (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
37. Stephen 06:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
38. Support Reasonable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
39. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 08:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Extremely open, trustworthy, thoughtful, technically competent admin - will make a splendid 'crat. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
41. Writ Keeper is an excellent and fair admin. Fine nomination statement and answers to questions. They'll make a quality bureaucrat, indeed. Acalamari 10:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Everything needing saying has been said :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
43. Support - a strong admin who will make a good crat - though I feel that sometimes their attitude is inappropriate. GiantSnowman 12:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
44. Support with appreciation for willingness to take another bit. Have reviewed neutral comments (and links), nothing worrisome there; on the contrary, I see requisite maturity and skills. -- Scray (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
45. Strong support - No issues here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - Why not? I see no reason to oppose.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Looks like this user will be a good admin.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

    He already is -- this is RfB, not RfA. --Stfg (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

48. Support. Why didn't even I see this at first? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
49. Support an awesome user! Epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
50. Support everything seems in order. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
51. —Kusma (t·c) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
52. Support "I'm sure a shitstorm would ensue, but it ain't gonna be me." - I love it. That's the attitude everyone needs to have.--v/r - TP 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
53. Support Knowledgeable, respectable, trustworthy, adept Wikipedian — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
54. Strongly Nuanced Dlohcierekim 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
55. Support - Looking good on the answers. ///EuroCarGT 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
56. Because why the hell not? Kurtis ^(talk) 10:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
57. Support. — sparklism ^hey! 11:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
58. Support I liked his sensible answers - seems level headed enough for me Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
59. Support - Has my total trust. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
60. Support Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
61. I've had a look at Writ Keeper's nom statement, answers to the questions, outstanding response to criticism on multiple occasions, his contributions, admin actions, and his talk page archives going back to May of this year. From those, it's clear that Writ Keeper is a trustworthy user who's easy to work with and is always open to discussing not only his decisions, but why he came to them. I like how he handles himself (both here and elsewhere on the project) and, bearing all these things in mind, I'm glad to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
62. I have great faith in Writ Keeper, who is well-mannered, balanced, knowledgeable, and helpful. I'm sorry I didn't check this page earlier: I would have loved to have been the first support but, as it is, I'm pleased to find myself in good company. That he handed in his bit for a bit is perfectly understandable, and I think it shows that he realizes the scope of the tool and especially what it can't achieve. I like a person with a sense of realism. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
63. Support Qualified, trustworthy candidate; very good answers to questions. Will make a fine addition to the 'crat corps. Miniapolis 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
64. Support. This editor has an impressively thoughtful approach to the questions arising with the job. bd2412 T 19:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
65. Support – Good answers to the questions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
66. Support. --Rzuwig^► 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
67. Support Being a crat is not nearly as big a deal as some folks make of it, WK is obviously qualified for the role. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
68. Support -- Well written nomination statement, and satisfactory answers to the questions. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
69. Support Thought he was one already! Just kidding. I have a lot of time for WK and don't doubt he will be an excellent 'crat. Specifically very impressed with his reply to the oppose. --John (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
70. Support. The negatives first: he resigned without asking my permission first and his writing style is sometimes a wee bit too folksy. Some of the positives: he's pleasant, smart, interesting, often verbose (terseness is often overrated), and even-handed. I particularly liked the preemptory analysis of his candidacy. Even though someone might interpret my support as equivocal, it's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
71. Support. WK is an effective, thoughtful, and careful administrator. I'm confident he'll bring the same qualities to the bureaucrat team. AGK [•] 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. I do sympathise with Jusdafax's oppose - I would have liked to see that ANI discussion kept open for longer as well - but I can't fault Writ Keeper's logic, and I don't think that his actions there should have any great bearing on his candidacy here. I can't imagine Writ Keeper applying the same logic to closing an RfA as he did to closing that ANI discussion, for example. There's also the fact that he is thoughtful, eloquent, and always willing to discuss his admin decisions. I think he should do just fine as a bureaucrat, and we could certainly do with the extra help in the area of username changes. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
73. Support - Solid editor. See ya around WP:CHU. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
74. Support I can say many good things about Writ Keeper, but what I like most at the moment is this editor's willingness to frankly acknowledge weaknesses, and the legitimacy of opposing opinions. This personal trait complements and enhances the entire project's stated commitment to the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
75. Support. Good contributions and an excellent nomination statement. (If only RfA nomination statements were like that.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
76. Support Trusted user, I fully support this user. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
77. Support Long history of helping where help is needed. Competent, careful, helpful, etc. in the past and sure to be same as a 'crat. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 17:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
78. Support Finally got some time to get on wiki. I see no evidence that the user will not do a good job and a lot that he will. Good luck! Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
79. Support As per Tyrol5,Doctree and Cullen328. User has been regularly editing since September 2011.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
80. Support I cannot see any valid reason why WK would not make a good bureaucrat, and no plausible scenario where they might "abuse" the extra couple of clicks ES&L 21:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
81. User seems practical and down-to-earth, and isn't afraid to make some judgement calls in the name of forward progress. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
82. Rschen7754 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
83. Support sensible - most likely to be a net positive with extra tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
84. Support, always found his judgment to be solid. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
85. Support - He has shown himself to be level-headed, policy-literate, and his judgment is keen. Achowat (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
86. Support - He is best-suited to perform this duty. Aeazer (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
87. Support - Looks good to me. Deb (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
88. Support Overqualified, over-competent and unnecessarily brilliant for this job. Honestly Writ, I'm foxed why you'd apply for the 'crat right for helping out just with CHU. Wifione ^Message 14:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
89. Support. Help at renaming will be beneficial. No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
90. Obvious support as his RfA conominator; pretty much everything I said in tha statement applies here, especially the bit about technically-minded people. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
91. Support Thoughtful answers to questions and always willing to help, exercises good judgement and keeps a lid on the drama. Altamel (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
92. Support Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
93. Support Most definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
94. Support  Giano  09:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
95. Support Trusted, competent, no issues from me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
96. Support A much cooler head than mine. Ignatzmice•talk 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
97. Support with gusto - Writ Keeper is, in my estimation, one of our best admins, despite the fact that he doesn't automatically rubber stamp any request I come to him with: the damn guy insists on being fair and impartial', which I find really annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
98. Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
99. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
100. Support - with gladness and full confidence.—John Cline (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
101. Support Sure. Spencer^T♦C 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
102. Support No issues. Widr (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
103. Support - I envision no problems and particularly appreciate the thought process outlined in Q10. Carrite (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
104. Support - the answers provided above are very good and the nominating statement is excellent. I would like to see answers to the newer questions and I've followed the oppose section discussion with interest but (while I respect the opinions of those in opposition) I'm not seeing anything that would personally sway me from supporting this RfB. Stalwart111 10:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
105. Support: A fine candidate with a cool head. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
106. Support - Although the candidate hasn't been involved in much content creation, his (or her) understanding of policy and good judgement are remarkable. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
107. Support Good candidate, no issues. Valley2city^‽ 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
108. Support Frood 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
109. Support. Sure. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
110. Support - Perfik' candidate. Soham 08:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
111. Support due to adequate evidence of commitment, answers to questions and past editing history. While more extensive article space experience is desirable, there's plenty of other good work (including technical tasks and determining of consensus), despite others' concerns which I don't believe amount to demonstrating inabilities. I've not seen anything which in my eyes warrants disqualification for crat tasks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
112. Support  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  15:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
113. Support - From what I've seen, Writ indeed has done some good work in many areas where they have worked in and helped. True to his words, I believe him to be pretty fair and reasonable whenever he takes any important decisions (including administrative ones). Their reasoning is good and quite helpful. And useful qualities like these are what is basically needed in both an Administrator and a Bureaucrat. Rest, all looks good. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - It's not an easy thing to be a first oppose on the Rfb of a well-known Wikipedian with 55 supports as of this posting. Nevertheless, I strongly question the recent ANI closure on a complaint that was only 24 hours old when it was prematurely shut down. A tendency to stifle discussion is exactly what I don't want in a Bureaucrat. And in case anyone is wondering, I have had very little to do with the subject of the ANI report (which should not be the issue here) nor Writ Keeper. Based on this outrageous closure, shutting down a vigorous and crucial discussion, I'd go so far as to question this editor's qualifications to be an admin much less a 'crat, among the most trusted in Wikipedia. Jusdafax 07:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Sure, I'm not surprised that close would attract criticism. (Probably should've included it in my nom statement, but I honestly didn't remember it.) It was certainly bold enough, in all conscience. And yeah, I can certainly see how one wouldn't want that kind of thing in a 'crat, even if one didn't disagree with the action itself. Though to be fair, I believe that closure was pretty much one-of-a-kind in my history, so I wouldn't say it was a "tendency", either; that was quite an extraordinary measure for me, in response to a quite extraordinary issue. Yet I'm still confident it was the right idea, because while what was going on in that thread was certainly vigorous, I wouldn't classify it as a discussion, and certainly not as a crucial one. Looking at the comments, I see a pretty consistent trend of increasing vitriol, name-calling, and partisanship in the posts (the so-called "haters" and "enablers"), what is quite obviously no consensus, and given the history of how the multitude of similar AN/I threads have gone, absolutely zero chance of arriving at any consensus. While of course the words sound hollow, my intent wasn't to stifle actual discussion, and I said as much in the close; I just felt that ANI had no chance of producing any workable results, and that it should be closed down there and moved somewhere else. Let's face it: the community is deeply, fundamentally divided on the issues surrounding Eric Corbett. AN/I, since it is devoted to providing direct administrative response to a single incident, is uniquely unsuited to dealing with divisions like this, since the very wide chasm that separates the community will never allow us to arrive at the single consensus about a solution that ANI in particular requires. It should be at some forum, it should be discussed somewhere; just not at ANI. That's why, in the close, I suggested taking it to some other forum, like RFC/U or Arbcom, rather than demanding that the issue be dropped. There was no reason in my eyes to allow the community to continue tearing itself apart when there was no possibility of any benefit in the end. (Not that it hugely matters, but I have received several very kind words since then, thanking me for doing so, so I can't be totally crazy.) If it ends up costing me your !vote, my bid for bureaucratship, or even my admin tools, well, it is what it is; I'm not going to apologize for something I saw and still see as the right thing to do. I certainly knew the risks (so to speak) going in. I'm a little sad that you can't see where I'm coming from, but such is life. (Also, as said above, this kind of thing is certainly not the kind of attitude I would bring to the 'crat tools in any circumstance, or even something I bring to the admin tools; I know very well that the use of advanced tools is not the place for such creative interpretation. But that's ultimately for you to judge.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for your reply. I must be blunt: my credulity is strained that you "didn't remember" an ANI closure from five days earlier that you say you have received "several kind words" over since then. I will have to reluctantly assume your memory is astonishingly bad, which itself is a disqualifying operational flaw. As I said in my original statement, it is not my intent to debate the merits of Eric Corbett here. What does reinforce my strong belief that you should not be given the high level of community trust that comes with this flag is your seriously questionable reasoning that ANI is not a proper forum for such debate. ANI has a history of contention and strife, undoubtedly, but that same history has resulted in blocks and bans of editors with longstanding supporters and detractors: often, a limit of community patience is finally reached. Your highly premature admin closure sets a terrible new precedent, in my view. Since you still see nothing wrong in your fast-track closure backed by the considerable chilling effect of possessing admin tools, I must adamantly oppose the granting of still further ones. Almost always the acts of an admin or 'crat carry more weight than those without such powers, even though they have not actually misused their extra buttons. That means those who possess them must take great care, and based on this dubious action, I can't see that you do. Jusdafax 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   I've not read the entire discussion, but did note "Someone should close this topic as nothing will be accomplished", some 3 hours earlier. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Again, the discussion was 24 hours old and was active. Posts from editors wanting to squelch debate are not uncommon and should be ignored, in most cases. If this is the new normal, God help us. Jusdafax 12:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Jusdafax, I think there is a way to add objective facts to a subjective opinion. You seem to dislike the closure, can I ask you if you're aware of any Eric/Malleus discussion on ANI that resulted in anything productive? If you can establish that ANI is or has been capable at some point of dealing with the entrenched opinions regarding Eric, his behavior, & those who enjoy poking him then you can established that Writ Keeper's action was unproductive. If you cannot, then that would seem to support Writ's action as a great application of IAR.--v/r - TP 13:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   I second TParis' comment. The closure was bold, but not reckless and, in view of the history, I don't think there was a better solution. Continuing the discussion would have allowed people to vent, but also to start more quarrels. Whatever problems there are with Eric/Malleus, it's more than obvious that ANI is not the place for solving them. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Jusdafax and I have a long history of agreeing with one another about not wanting to see administrative overreach, and I take this oppose very seriously, but I end up agreeing with Writ Keeper (whose reply, I think, was excellent), TParis, and Randykitty. I think that the close did absolutely nothing to prevent anything useful from being discussed, and it did a lot to save the community from further unproductive drama. I think that it demonstrated an understanding of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   I think any developing discussion is productive because it establishes a permanent record that can be referred to at a later date. Cutting off that discussion is therefore counterproductive. By coincidence I had closed a disputatious ANI thread myself just prior to Writ Keeper's close. The difference: it was nearly a week old and was stale. I strongly feel the sort of very early close WK has done, especially backed by his admin authority, is a slippery slope. Once we start down that path, where does it end? By making some editors effectively immune to discussion at ANI on the grounds of "drama", we open a new era of stifling community conversations. Sometimes it takes a large number of ANI dialogs to reach the point of community concern that enables an admin to take action against a controversial editor with an entrenched group of supporters. (To TParis: I say yet again I will not address the specifics of the ANI case in question here. As I also say above, in my view the candidate's polite but curious defense of their early close is further reason to mistrust the candidate's self nomination for further powers.) Jusdafax 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   It's really a shame that you won't discuss the specifics, because the specifics were entirely the reason that I closed it. You can't separate my close from the specifics of the case, because then you lose all context of why I did what I did. Early closes are absolutely not my general solution to solving ANI disputes or anything else (which I think I can say is borne out by my editing history); this was a very unusual response to a very specific scenario. For that reason, I'd say that the slippery slope ends where it begins: because this close was so very specific to the circumstances of this particular case, this is not an action that would set a precedent (and even if it was, nobody's obligated to follow a precedent that doesn't make sense). And anyway, unilateral admin action, such as the kind that one gets from ANI threads, has shown itself exceptionally unable to resolve the Eric Corbett problem; for example, he was blocked indefinitely in late October of this year based on one of these ANI threads: clearly it failed to solve the problem. If you want to put it this way: history shows that Eric is already unofficially immune to admin action stemming from ANI threads. But if you won't discuss the specifics of the case, then I guess we can't have a meaningful discussion about this. There are no generalities that can be discussed about it without discussing the specifics. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   I have a problem with this "in my view the candidate's polite but curious defense of their early close is further reason to mistrust the candidate" because it equates to "The candidate wasn't submissive enough to me and so they've failed." Defending oneself is not self-incriminating in and of itself...ever. If you have a problem with what he said, say it. If it's just because he defended himself, then your oppose isn't convincing to me and I doubt you'll convince future !voters either. Perhaps the failure isn't in Writ's inability to recognize fault in himself, but rather your failure to sufficiently describe his failure. And your blaming him for that.--v/r - TP 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   (ec) To Writ Keeper: Your reply leaves me incredulous. You have now elevated Eric Corbett (who I have had no or very low personal interaction with) to a powerful new status - "unofficially immune to admin action from ANI threads." Woah! Furthermore, all ANI future threads regarding him are now subject to speedy unilateral admin closure. Yet, you saw fit to actually resign your admin tools over his unilateral admin block, as you discuss in question #10. You appear to want it both ways. Your unyielding defense and de-facto support of a controversial editor is remarkable and in general, to my knowledge, unprecedented for an editor seeking the highest levels of community trust. Jusdafax 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   I don't think re-litigating the disputes about Eric Corbett's conduct is relevant to this discussion, and for what it's worth I think Writ Keeper's closure of the ANI thread was entirely sensible. AGK [•] 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   AGK, it should be noted that I repeatedly stated earlier in this thread that I did not wish to discuss Eric Corbet in any way but was pulled into it by the candidate, who insists on the specifics of the case being discussed. Now Eric Corbett's block, which the candidate actually resigned his adminship over, has become an issue as well. So I now strongly disagree that Eric Corbett is not relevant to the discussion. The candidate has made it so. Jusdafax 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Except that, y'know, I didn't resign because of Eric's block, as I explained above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   No it was issues surrounding his unilateral block, to be precise. Since this matter is getting cloudy and clogged with comments by supporters, I'll move to the questions section. Jusdafax 23:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   WK could resign from being an admin anytime they want to, as it is their choice. Eric Corbett is, after all, a troublesome user who has been known to spit profanities on his talk page—and narrowly missed getting indefblocked in an AN/I discussion a few days ago. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

   It was partly the fact that it could be taken, rightly or wrongly, as an early close to prevent an indef block that I found troubling. At that point I had no idea that Writ Keeper had briefly previously resigned his admin tools over issues around Eric Corbett's block. In any case, clearly the community had not had a reasonable chance to weigh in on a hot button topic. Important: please note that I am not accusing Writ Keeper of closing to protect Eric Corbett. I am saying it could be taken that way by others, given that there was substantial support to indef. I would have let the whole thing go, but then to have Writ Keeper self nominate and run for 'crat following this action seemed strangely, even glaringly, insensitive. And the responses have alarmed me further. Jusdafax 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

   Can we just please stop? Jusdafax had his say, and nothing will make him change his mind. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

   Probably a good point. WK closed a discussion that was generating more heat than light, and was going to be incredibly fruitless ... other than contributing to global warming (and ANY wise person should have shut it down) ES&L 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

   Completely agree. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Many fine things have been said about Writ Keeper which I am sure have merit and this RfB is surely gonna pass, but I choose to Oppose due to weak content contribution. Only about 11% of contributions are to articles, of which many were done the first 2-3 months of editing; so even lesser percentage of article contributions in 2013. 44% of contributions are to user talk. // I don’t know much about WK as an admin, but I am not pleased with his actions in regard to the Eric Corbett disputes. I very deeply dislike administrators asking for dysop’ing during a dispute to make a point, only to pick it up a month or two later. Such behavior can be seen as crybabyish as Writ Keeper himself suggests, but I mainly see it as a disruptive form of using admin status in a power play (“If this suggestion is not opposed, or if this user is not unblocked; I will stop admining, all good admins will stop admining; Wikipedia is doomed”). To his credit though, WK appears to have been far less melodramatic in this area than certain other admins that preceded him in pointy dysoping requests during an earlier dispute relating to EC. But WK cannot have been unaware of the wider pattern he chose to be a part of here. And now knowing that WK was so upset by a suggestion relating to EC that he asked for dysopping, I am not either comfortable with him closing the recent EC ANI debate. Not because I think closing the thread per se was wrong, but WK's dysoping request indicates that he is too emotionally or personally involved to be the right person to close a thread related to EC; he can reasonably be suspected of closing the thread out of fear that a similar suggestion to the one that upset him so much that he requested desysopping would be raised again. – Though elaborating on the EC dispute, I wouldn’t have opposed a candidate solely based on on that. Iselilja (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

   He may not have been the absolutely most uninvolved admin to close that thread, but closing it was the right thing to do. People need to cease running to the noticeboards everytime some editor upsets them, especially regarding the subject of the complaint in question. If an editor has a track record of upsetting others, then the place to seek closure is via a RfcU. I think Writ Keeper did the right thing closing that thread as it was going nowhere.--MONGO 17:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Unpleasant impressions from the recent accident. Writ Keeper took sides without trying to understand what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

   The thing Ymblanter is probably talking about is here. I don't have much to say about it, really, other than that I don't think I really took either side in the dispute, and that I did try to understand what was going on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

   Indeed. The result was however that for several days I was thinking whether I should give my tools back, and decided in favor of a Wikibreak in the end.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

   Well, that certainly wasn't my intent, so I'm sorry; the regret I talked about in that thread was regret that I had inadvertently antagonized you for no real benefit. I definitely could have been more delicate; I was trying to strike some balance between levity and seriousness, and I clearly missed the mark. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

   I will sit here for a bit while I make up my mind about this. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral....nothing alarming pops up, but my unwritten criteria for crat is at least 2 years as an admin and 3 years as an editor. Before I wish to see the tools handed over I want to see evidence of long term commitment.--MONGO 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral, and thanking Writ Keeper for the lengthy and considered response to my question 14. I appreciate that Writ Keeper laid out solid thoughts in answer 14, recognizing the difficulties and not wanting to second-guess current crats, but I have a long-term concern that 'crats are too lenient in borderline cases-- particularly those where temperament and communications issues are raised by opposers, as they were in the example I gave. We have numerous borderline admins who shouldn't be admins, and communication issues in dealing with them is a problem. I'm in favor of electing 'crats who come down solidly on the side of recognizing that when temperament and communication issues are raised by opposers, the crats should err on the side of not promoting, period. And when RFA candidates claim they will operate in only a certain area, we have no way of holding them to that once they have the tools. And the idea that only working in templates can't negatively impact all of us is wrong.

   I expect that Writ Keeper will be elected, extend my premature congratulations, and hope my concern will be heard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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