Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Dennis, I accept this nomination.
Even after the start of this RFA, hope remained for a community resolution to the case outside of ArbCom. This is no longer possible. Fortunately, some of the issues raised here have helped ArbCom to consider the problems of red-linked evidence and the inability of all but the Administrative corps to participate unless reasonable accommodations were made. I think this has been done sufficiently well and that anyone without the bit can participate in a meaningful way under the current framework, perhaps making use of Administrators who have indicated a willingness to supply files. I therefore do not feel that continuing this RFA for the ability to read applicable files is strictly essential, nor its success likely.
I thank those of you who have spent time in the consideration of this admittedly unconventional nomination. Thanks are particularly due to Dennis Brown for nominating me. If Jimmy Wales is the constitutional monarch of Wikipedia (And he is, Long Live the King!) I feel sure that Dennis Brown would make an outstanding Prime Minister. He would be beloved for his intelligence, kindness, acuity, wit, and wisdom. Thank you. The form of my nomination — limited time, specific purpose, foreswearing power tools — unexpectedly seems to have raised a huge potential legal problem at the Foundation, I speculate. What was intended to simplify the vetting process unfortunately made it more complex. For those of you who opposed more or less on this basis, I completely understand where you are coming from and respect you for your decision. I, too, am a Wikipedian simply looking for the best road forward for The Project.
This nomination has proven to be a fascinating and illuminating introduction to Wikipedia's backstage political culture. With its supercharged atmosphere it has also become a spectacle as well as a distraction from my real concern — the solution of a now-onging ArbCom case. There I shall continue to see a solution which is most beneficial to The Project, addressing very legitimate copyright concerns while enabling a prolific content writer to resume productive activity within carefully detailed parameters. My attention needs to shift there from here. I therefore withdraw this nomination and ask for this thread's closure. Thank you again for the confidence expressed for me by those who have expressed it. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, a bit about myself, since I feel one of the great failings of Wikipedia is its cult of anonymity. My name is Tim Davenport, I'm 51 years old, a married straight male living in Corvallis, Oregon, located on the West coast of the United States of America. I have a B.A. in Economics from Oregon State University (1983), did two years of post-bac coursework there to get into graduate school in Russian Area Studies at the University of Washington. I attended UW for one year (1987/88, I believe) but decided to abandon the path to a PhD in History in favor of returning to Corvallis to take over the family business, a small shoe store. I gradually moved from an academic interest in the history of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s to the history of the American radical movement from the 1870s through the 1940s. In 2004 I started a non-commercial website to coordinate and make available to the scholarly and activist communities primary documents gathered in preparation for a major book project (www.marxisthistory.org). This project was subsequently put on the slow track by activity at Wikipedia, where I registered and started to edit in December 2008. I've come to feel that work on the encyclopedia is more beneficial to the cause of expanding knowledge than any book I could write and have worked very hard to make our labor history coverage as good as it could be. There is always more work to be done, obviously. I do write on other topics as well, but that is my main emphasis.
Now, the specifics of my request. We content writers are a cantankerous lot. We generally work alone, we have our respected friends and associates, and we mutter under our breath about this problem or that dealing with Wikipedia. The notion that there is an administrative caste to which one is "promoted" from being a "mere" content creator is offensive to many of us. This sometimes creates sparks between grumpy old content writers and the corps of content inspectors and site managers, who have their own idiosyncratic ideas and practices. Periodically explosions result during the interaction of these groups. All too often valuable content writers are driven away in the process. There is a ArbCom case coming which has two potential outcomes, one of which will cause the loss of a highly productive, albeit problematic, content creator. I seek the outcome most beneficial to The Project, while at the same time ensuring the rules and expectations of the community are respected moving forward. To participate effectively in the case, I find myself needing to be able to read pages and page histories deleted during an ongoing CCI text investigation. The only way to do that is to be vetted for the full administrative toolbox here. I wish there were some other way, but there isn't — so here I am.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:None. I simply seek to be vetted here to be permitted to read deleted pages in conjunction with a forthcoming ArbCom case (Re:Richard A. Norton) in which I am a party. One must run the RFA gauntlet, there is no other way to gain the ability to read deleted material. I strongly believe that to be fully effective in the case I must be able to access files and edit histories deleted or revision-deleted by Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) during the past year.
I have no desire to become an "Administrator," per se, and hereby promise the following: I will not ban or unban, block or unblock any user; assign or remove additional user rights; protect or unprotect any page; use extraordinary administrative privileges to move any page not permitted to be moved by an ordinary user; delete, or undelete pages; close or unclose administrative or deletion debates; engage in revision deletion or undeletion, or otherwise undertake any other similar action. I ask that any violation of this pledge immediately be reverted without further investigation and that I be blocked. If I am overlooking any specific administrative action in this statement that concerns you, please ask a question below and I will be happy to amend this binding pledge to your satisfaction. Moreover, I promise to immediately resign the toolbox upon closure of the ArbCom case — a case which I now believe is inevitable, even though it is not formally launched at this writing. I seek one and only one thing, which is unfortunately unbundleable: the ability to read files and histories deleted by CCI in connection with a specific ArbCom case.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am a content creator, not a copy editor or a vandalism fighter or a volunteer involved in site maintenance, so my chief contributions have been in the area of writing in mainspace. I have contributed to no so-called "Good Articles," but written many. My user page is stuffed with links to most of the pages to which I have contributed something positive, pick a couple at random and investigate the edit history if you will. I think if I were to point to one piece that gives me pride as a Wikipedian, it would be helping to take American Legion from [THIS] to [THAT]. It's still far from a perfect piece, but it was pretty awful and now it's pretty good. This isn't uncommon with my work, it's just I usually work on matters of left wing politics and labor history, so it was a really satisfying affirmation of my deep philosophical commitment to the doctrine of NPOV working on a piece about an organization diametrically opposed to the 1920s trade unionists and radicals and politicians on whom I usually spend my time. There are other pieces I've done that are "better work," for sure, but that's a good one to point towards.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm actually generally pretty laid back at WP. Ironically, I was just in a dust up at ANI last week that I pretty much provoked in an attempt to stave off one of the all-too-regular lynch mobs that congregate there. My apologies again to Fram, who is a committed volunteer at CCI. That wasn't really a "conflict over editing." Would I go that route again? Only if I felt it was strictly necessary, as I did in this particular instance.
My most memorable editing-related stress was an incident a couple years ago with Kiefer.Wolfowitz over a history of a political organization that he was very, very boldly working over. There were ruffled feathers all around, I soon figured out that his intentions were pure and that he wasn't trying to whitewash history, merely to correct what he felt were serious POV problems, which involved the use of a sledgehammer for a full rebuild. I took the leap of faith and stepped aside while he did his thing. I'm sure he was at least as ill at ease with me as I with him. We slowly gained respect for one another because we are each in our way really committed to Wikipedia's mission and its underlying philosophy. Today I consider him one of my closest compatriots at Wikipedia.
4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what are these? (Self-submitted question.)
A. I have never edited Wikipedia under any other user name. If I have ever edited as an IP on mainspace, which might have happened once or twice when signed out, it was inadvertent.
5. Please can you explain the rationale behind Q4 ("Self-submitted question") - relating to previous names?
A: I think it should be a question asked of every candidate to help ensure that potentially problematic administrators don't sneak in without the whole of their contribution history being open to scrutiny during the vetting process.
6. Why do you want the Mop for such a short period i.e. why don't you wish to keep it permanently?
A: I'd like to see fundamental reform of the nature of the RFA process and debundling of less sensitive parts of the tool kit. Standing to become an administrator under the current state of affairs would only bolster a status quo that sorely needs modification. Additionally, I have no interest in blocking or unblocking anyone or changing the status of pages, or performing other maintenance tasks. I want to concentrate on writing and continuing to volunteer my time as a participant at Articles for Deletion.
7. Dear candidate! What do you know about automatized edit summaries?
A: I'm not at all familiar with that phrase. What can you tell me about them?
In the potential case here a significant number of articles created by the subject of the investigation were hidden from mainspace for copyright violation reasons, rewritten, and restarted with the edit history scrubbed. A piece which was originally created on, let us say, August 5, 2006 and edited 23 times by 6 people in the subsequent five years then reappears in mainspace with a date of origin of, let's say, November 5, 2011. At a glance, it looks like the article was created November 5, 2011 — and in a way it was. But what of the original article? Which of the 6 people involved were responsible for the copyvio? What the cause of the copyvio — was it sloppy editing technique, a hidden comment not published to mainspace, unattributed reproduction of a copyrighted text, cut-and-paste from a website, a botched effort to copy-and-paste a new article from an existing Wikipedia article, an excessively long use of the "quote=" parameter in the footnotes? There are literally ten things that might be at the root of the problem, but there is no way to see the root of the problem without access to the original deleted file. Now, how does one see those deleted versions? I don't know, I've never been an administrator, I will have to ask a couple and learn something new and find out. Thanks for the question.
8. Can you explain how your intended actions using Admin. tools in an Arbcom case would not constitute a violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE? Specifically I am thinking about "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins." You would be an Admin., you would be using the Admin. tools and you seem to be involved.
A: There is no "tool" involved, let alone "tools" in the plural. I only seek to read deleted files in connection with an ArbCom case in which I am a party, which is an advanced right, not a tool. I have explicitly sworn off the use of any administrative tool in my opening statement, under penalty of immediate reversion and block by any administrator with no investigation necessary. That seems pretty clear. Wikipedia only allows those who have cleared the RFA vetting process to read deleted files, which is why I am here. I have no desire to become an active "administrator" — that's not the form of my volunteerism at Wikipedia. I do need to be approved as an "administrator" to be able to read deleted files in conjunction with the case. I am a party to a potential ArbCom case with a legitimate need to read deleted files, nothing more or less.
In answer to your question, WP:TOOLMISUSE is a governing law of Wikipedia (a policy) prohibiting the use of advanced administrative tools and privileges while involved or in the advancement of a content agenda or to reverse the actions of other administrators. It specifies these tools at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools: Page Protection, Deletion and Undeletion (restoration of deleted pages), Blocking and Unblocking, Automated Reversion, Use of Bots to block mass vandalism, and so forth. I foreswear the use of all such tools, without exception. If there is the possibility of my using any one of these tools that concerns you, ask me about it. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have highlighted my use of the word "tool". I regard advanced rights as a tool but for the avoidance of doubt on your part let me clarify the question. Can you explain how your intended actions using Admin. advanced rights in an Arbcom case would not constitute a violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE? Specifically I am thinking about "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools (advanced rights) in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins." You would be an Admin., you would be using the Admin.advanced rights and you seem to be involved. Leaky Caldron17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading deleted files to understand the underlying problems which led to their being pronounced as copyright violations is not the use of a tool "while involved." This is clearly a specious reading of the rule and it baffles me how the argument can even be made, let alone accepted by sitting members of ArbCom. Using the same Alice in Wonderland logic, the Filer in the case also could also not use the "tool" of reading a deleted file in the course of presenting his evidence, because he is "involved" and "advancing an agenda" by being a party to a case. I would make no such claim. OF COURSE administrators have a right to read deleted files during the course of such a case. I am running for Administrator to be able to do that. And I'm not going to do a single other thing with any Administrative tool or privilege. I'll do what I need to do (read deleted files in the Norton case) as long as I need to do it (until the case closes) and then be done with it. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if your kept your opinion on the speciousness of my reading of policy and Alice in Wonderlandness of my logic to yourself. You are here to answer questions about your suitability as an Admin. (for a day, a week, a year or forever makes no difference to me). Leaky Caldron18:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple answer as in your first sentence would have been sufficient without the ephemeral snideness that followed. At least one Arbcom member thinks you are incorrect and that any involved Admin. should not scrutinise deleted material in a case. [1]. Maybe you are barking up the wrong tree with this RfA and that the detail you require will be available on application. I suggest you find out before wasting more time here. Leaky Caldron21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm unfamiliar with Arbcom, and I suspect other gnomish editors are, too. Is there anyway for you to be more specific about the details of this case: what exactly it is you think you may find? Is there a link that would provide more background?
A: There have been two ongoing investigations of the contributions of the subject of the ArbCom proceeding, who is one of the top 75 most productive editors at WP. These have been conducted under the auspices Contributor Copyright Investigations, a group of dedicated volunteers working to identify and resolve copyright problems. In over 14 months of hard work, fewer than 9% of the investigated articles have been examined. Some of these were clean of problems. Others had copyvio issues ranging from minor to severe. Some were fixed with edit histories preserved; others were taken out of mainspace and rebuilt from scratch. These latter pieces show creation dates in 2011 and 2012 with the rest of the edit history wiped from view to all but administrators. It is impossible to examine this group of articles, to analyze what happened and to postulate why, without having access to old "copyvio" versions of the pieces. Resolution of the problem follows from identification of the problem. Essentially, I seek to do forensic analysis of these early "bad" versions in the hopes of helping to craft a set of constraints that will enable the subject to be a productive contributor at Wikipedia again without the project being threatened on the basis of ongoing copyright problems. The alternative foreseeable outcome will be the subject indefinitely banned from the site for his transgressions, in which case the project will lose a productive contributor. I hope to help avert the latter outcome by helping the subject forward. Without getting into specific details of the case, I guess that's an outline. Thanks very much for the question. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm sorry but as at least one other editor had the same question as me, I'm going to post the link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, which I've been able figure out is the matter under investigation. Since many other people commenting on this Rfa are clearly aware of this, and it's hardly a secret, I feel it's only fair that the rest of us know what this is about, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this at ANI just as it was being proposed to be moved to ArbCom. Admittedly, I'm very dull on all the details or the exact methods of ArbCom, but do you feel that ArbCom would not thoroughly investigate and come to a fair decision regarding the matter with out you and access to the tools? Mkdwtalk08:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I learned of this list after I filed this RFA, I've now seen it. Technically articles that are copyright violations are not supposed to be supplied through this channel, I believe, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. One of the members of CCI has also subsequently been in touch with me and kindly offered to provide materials if necessary. I'd rather not bother them (the person is already overworked) and handle my own assessment as it becomes necessary. It might be only one or two files involved in the case that I feel a need to see, it will likely be a couple dozen, it might be significantly more. I just ask people to consider whether I am trusted enough to be an administrator and to make a decision on that basis. As for Deletionpedia and Full Wiki, I am not aware of those institutions. I don't think using those channels would be suitable for matters before ArbCom.
11. You mention that you would like to temporarily gain administrator bit for a review of articles deleted as an ArbCom decision. What was your role in the situation ArbCom handled? Are you the author of any of the deleted articles you would like to review? --Gryllida (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Second part first: I am the creator of none of these pieces and as far as I am aware have contributed to none of them. In terms of my role, that's a bit harder. I suppose one could say that I have been, in several ANI filings, not just the most recent, a participant who has advocated for a moderate and reasoned approach to a real problem, and have been one who has taken the lead in attempting to craft a settlement which would rectify the many legitimate complaints and demands of our hardworking copyright volunteers with the reasonable needs of the subject of the investigation as a content-creator moving forward. I've made a couple snap decisions on the fly in terms of tactics in my effort to get to a reasoned settlement which some might find questionable. (Clarification: the tactics are possibly controversial, the proposed settlement seemingly has had broad appeal.) Carrite (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I think the case may well end in a manner beneficial to the the encyclopedia project and feel sure that my motives and actions will become more clear. They are probably clear already if one diligently follows the ANI thread through the restart of discussion on the Norton talk page. I hope I'm found worthy of community trust here. Thanks for the questions. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Why did you start and promote the lie that I supposedly had financial links with the government of Gibraltar [2], when nobody had previously suggested anywhere, at any time or in any place, that anyone other than myself was paying for my trip there or that I had any connections of any sort with the government of Gibraltar, and why did you then repeatedly harass me on Wikipedia? [3][4]Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A:WP:DONTFEEDTHETROLLS Upon further review, that's insufficient. Chris, as much as I think the community might benefit by a careful revisiting of the lack of transparency and seemingly incestuous relationship between key figures at Wikimedia UK, private consultants engaging in business activities, and the government of Gibraltar in making use of their bounty-driven "Gibraltarpedia" campaign to turn Wikpedia's mainpage into an electronic tourism billboard seen by millions of pairs of eyes, this is probably not the place to do it. I leave it to others to ask themselves how it was possible for "Did You Know?" to be abused in this way and I sincerely hope it never happens again. It is those who participate in this sort of activity, not the outspoken criticism of this activity, that threatens The Project. My comments to you were a part of that effort to obtain clarity amidst the muck and I see no reason to retract a word.
You're just digging yourself deeper, Carrite. This was your opportunity to say "I was wrong; I apologise." Instead, you've just doubled down on your original attack without in any way addressing the questions I raised. I'm not seeing any integrity there. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. What was your involvement with the supposed copyvios before the ArbCom case? Did you participate in voting at their deletion discussions (examples)? Gryllida (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: The alleged copyright violations (and I say alleged just to be polite, the restarted articles for which I seek to read histories WERE copyright violations we may reasonably presume) were uncovered during the course of a 14 month case conducted by Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI), not during the Articles for Deletion process. They were never brought up for deletion discussion, CCI conducted what I call "forensic investigations" of the articles' edit history and isolated copyright problems. These were deemed fundamental, so that the entire page was pulled from mainspace before being fixed and relaunched with a clean history starting from the relaunch date. I've had no connection at all with this process, I only want to assess the nature of the specific violations so that the remedy can be correctly shaped.
14. Would you say that you are grasping the deletion and inclusion policies correctly and devotedly implementing them, or do you find them too restrictive? Gryllida (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: When I first came on board at WP, I was a hardcore inclusionist; I still include links to a couple excellent essays on the destructive effects of deletionism from my user page. These days I'm more 50-50 with Keeps and Deletes. I am constantly trying to push the envelope towards more expansive content with respect to pieces on political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders — regardless of whether they are left wing, right wing, or centrist. That's the sort of stuff that should be in an encyclopedia and it shouldn't matter so much if much of that information is self-sourced because the New York Times or Time magazine hasn't done a piece on the group. The key thing are the two Vees: "Verifiability and Veracity" — if the content is verifiable and accurate, that should be the main thing. This is pretty much an IAR approach. After several years of trying, I haven't managed to move the needle much. I'm very hawkish on Porn Bios, which are often promotional, usually badly written BLPs about pseudonymous fantasy characters and can be libel catastrophes waiting to happen. I don't measure these by the very weak special notability guideline for Porn Bio and make my recommendations based upon the General Notability Guideline — which is as it should be, I think. In this, I am once again attempting to use common sense rather than mechanically following special guideline recommendations. On schools, AfD has a longstanding consensus which is not reflected in the written guidelines; I support the consensus very vigorously, which is ultra-deletionist for primary schools and ultra-inclusionist for secondary schools. It is a grand compromise that really works but you probably aren't interested in the full rationale. I'm with the closing administrators almost 100% of the time on these matters — in short, everybody is using common sense rather than following the letter of the special guidelines on these matters. I take a harsh view of business spam. I take a very inclusive view of lists. I vote with consensus a high percentage of the time since I take GNG very, very seriously — as do most regular participants at AfD. I'm still an inclusionist, but very moderate in such things these days. It is also worth noting that I have never started an article that has ended at AfD. Thank you very much for the questions. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe the candidate should be able to carry out the tasks he says he requires the admin bit for, and because I trust him regarding his expressed intentions regarding the end of his adminship tenure and his intended use of the admin bit. Not an endorsement of his position on the arbcom case, nor his views of Wikipedia as a whole to which he alludes in this RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A rather strange request, but sure, he's been around long enough that I trust him to only use the bit for the purpose he's outlined. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - AfD record is good, spot check of edits reveals no problems. There's no requirement that admins do anything, so not intending to do much isn't a consideration (though promising not to do anything is pretty pointless, I think). WilyD17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I really hope Carrite to reconsider to expand his request for a full use of the tools. A bit outspoken yes, and we had our share of arguments, but he would make an excellent administrator in my view. Secretaccount18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I'll stay neutral unless he expands his request for the entire tool kit, and I would move back to support. Opposes are convincing in a RFA for once. Secretaccount14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with surprise that he isn't already an administrator; I always assumed he was. I often see him at AfD, he has plenty of clue and a good attitude. I would not generally support a one-use-and-out request like this, but I am supporting in the hope that he will decide to stay on as an administrator once his current issue is over. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be an ethical decision. He has stated clearly that this will be temporary, therefore a bait–and–switch would be downright dishonest and damaging to his reputation. Carrite might make a very good admin, but if he chooses to pursue that possibility, he would need to run for adminship again, this time as a permanent candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I grant you that. I would be perfectly willing to vote for him for unlimited adminship, but since he has stated he will use the mop for a limited purpose and then resign, I agree that it would be unethical (and out of character, given his honesty about his intentions) for him to stay on. So I will modify my rationale to say that I trust him with the mop in the current circumstances, and would trust him with it again should he resign and then run again later. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only needing to read deleted article histories now and will resign the moment ArbCom closes the case, assuming they take they case. If I ever were to decide to try to obtain the full tool set, it would of course be through a new run at RfA. I don't anticipate that eventuality. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with having a skeptic as a (temporary) member of the admin corps, in my view. Split toolsets would have made this request unnecessary, but it's the system we're stuck with (for now, at least). Intothatdarkness18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What Mark said; and there's no reason to believe that he's lying in his statements above. Consider this also a support for the notion of an unbundled flag for viewing deleted revisions. — Hex(❝?!❞)19:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to be a permanent admin, not just for the next month or however long the case will take; I've thought you should run for a while now. GoPhightins!20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Carrite is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and he's honest and direct. He certainly can be trusted to use the tools in a NPOV and polite fashion, representing the consensus of the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... okay - like others here, I would have liked to see a full RFA. I suppose my perception is that this looks like an attempt to get the mop to allow the wielding of the broomstick rather than the use of the squishy bit at the end. But I appreciate that it's being done to defend another, rather than the editor in question. Misguided or not, I have to give credit to a good-faith attempt to play the "defense lawyer". I don't think it would have been dishonest to request adminship on the basis that you wanted to help at arbcom cases, generally. If you wanted to resign the bit 6 months later (having done no other admin work) that would have been fine. But what happens when this case finishes and your excellent weighing-in on behalf of another prompts requests for you to do the same again? Will you resign the bit (as committed) but come back to RFA for another case-limited mop? Or will you retain the bit on the basis that ongoing arbcom work is within the confines of your original appointment? Anyway, I'd support you for adminship generally, so I can't oppose this. But I don't think it's particularly well thought through. Stalwart11120:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would support Carrite for a full-blown RFA, so I see no reason not to support him for this limited purpose request. I hope that he will reconsider his stance and keep his administrative powers, should he gain them, to use for the greater good of Wikipedia. He is a constant voice of sanity at RFA, he is an outstanding, mature, and sensible participant at ANI (which I have not necessarily found myself able to be), and he is a valuable, tireless, talented contributor of content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a good case for needing one admin tool for one particular use, and I trust him to resign when the case is over, and I trust him to not use any other admin tools besides looking at deleted edits. The fact that our rules are dysfunctional and there's no mechanism for him to request just what he needs is no reason to punish him by opposing. I'm surprised at those who don't trust him to keep his word, but if it helps, rest assured that if he violates his promise, I will block him from editing, and undo every admin action he takes, until we're both desysopped for wheel warring, at which time the promise will be enforced, and I won't be an admin anymore, which for many of the opposers might be considered a win-win. I'm disappointed in opposes "because he's anti-admin", and opposes from people who "would support if he made this a "real" RFA:, and would ask them to reconsider. It isn't Carrite's fault that there's no other way for him to do this, and being "anti-admin" (if that's even true) would, if anything, make it less likely he'd abuse the tools, not more likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unusual request, but nowhere is the assumption of good faith more important than at RFA. The candidate will do fine. Miniapolis23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tim Davenport, who we call "Carrite" here, is an outstanding Wikipedia editor, and a person of great integrity. I treasure every opportunity that we've had to work together. He motivated me to abandon anonymity and reveal my real name, Jim Heaphy, as an editor here. We are all volunteers with the absolute right to decide when and where and how much we volunteer. Through his work on this wonderful project, Tim has earned the right to administrative powers, and it is his right as a volunteer to exercise those powers as narrowly or as broadly or as briefly as he sees fit. I trust Tim. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For me the hardest question was the temporary adminship, as I think it's a pity he'll resign the tools when this is done. As I said in another RfA recently, when we broaden the base of trustable editors who have access to administrative tools, we take a step away from "editors vs. admins" and a step toward "editors with or without tools." I think most of us prefer the latter model. Tim: If this RfA fails, I hope you'll take a little time to reconsider the possibility of another run, and being a respected editor who just happens to have a few tools that get used now and again, when the need arises. --j⚛e deckertalk01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see anything wrong with a trusted, responsible user making a reasonable request to gain access to the admin tools on a temporary basis for a specific purpose; especially since the alternative 'ask another admin' solution appears impractical in this case. I would've preferred to see a full blown run for the bit, and I'd've likely supported that too, but overall I think we can trust that Carrite's motives for this unusual request are well-intentioned. — sparklism hey!07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does Carrite deserve to access deleted articles for the upcoming case? He's a named party and believes access would help him put his case, so yes, he does.
This will open the floodgates for hoards of editors wanting to do the same thing. There won't be a flood of these requests. Really. Think about it.
We don't give people the bit for just one job. Satisfying individual needs in what amounts to some sort of dispute is not what access to the Admin. toolset is granted for. Wikipedia is whatever we want it to be. We do what we want. It's crowdsourcing. This notion is wrong: Unless we're told we can do it in the rules somewhere, or we've done it like this before, we can't do it. That bold writing just before this sentence is false. Erroneous. We do whatever we want here, unless there is a policy that says we don't - and even then we do it if it helps the project. Sure, it would be better if, as some have suggested, we had a simpler means (perhaps an ArbCom fiat) but presently this is the only way, and the case is about to be launched.
To ask for the admin tools for the purposes of participating in an Arbitration Committee case is unheard of and frankly, outside of the purpose of adminship. See answer immediately above.
I won't support temporary adminship. 1) It wastes a week of our time 2) It's going to waste the time of the folks who are going to discuss this matter 3) It's going to waste Arbcom's time when future RFAR parties demand the bit. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to say yes to this request.
this editor is too frequently part of the group criticizing admins / ArbCom Duh.
I question Carrite's competency wrt copyright; he's not the right person to be reviewing the CCI case. Others involved in the case will have access to the deleted content, so will be able to check his conclusions, and make their arguments.
Temporary adminship is completely unenforceable on the English Wikipedia. Nothing would stop this user from: a) keeping the bit after the Arbitration Committee case has ended b) using the bit during the time he has it or c) resigning after the Arbitration Committee case and requesting the bit back on WP:BN in the future. There is no temporary or even recallable admin process at the moment, so while I wih every RfA candidate was open to recall, there's no teeth behind those commitments. If Carrite doesn't hand back the bit he'll have it taken off him. So he will hand back the bit.
If you need access to something that's hidden, you can ask someone. Maybe; if they're around. But leafing freely through the relevant pages is much quicker and much less disruptive.
He doesn't have the right stuff for adminship. So? He doesn't want adminship. He's a writer.
He might look at other deleted stuff, not relevant to the ArbCom case, or use the other features, even though he said he wouldn't. We can risk WP:AGF here.
Seems disruptive per WP:POINT. What point? I see no evidence for this bad faith assumption.
I don't like the idea of "temporary adminship". All adminship is temporary. In this instance, Carrite has done us the courtesy of telling us his plans. Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Last point added 10:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There won't be a flood of these requests. Really. Think about it." You've offered nothing critical to think about. So let me repeat your own sentence. There will be a flood of these requests. Really. Think about it.--v/r - TP16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it. Just now. Based on experience. One of the people that I've opened a CCI on, a moderately prolific editor, conducted a lengthy campaign of objections to the existence of the CCI, to my motives for requesting it, to the propriety of its being opened, and subsequently to the accuracy of just about all the templates and guidelines covering the CCI process. At no point in this stream of fluidly aimed objections, which covered just about every possible topic under the sun, did he even hint at requesting the ability to view deleted material as part of his defence. Perhaps it simply wasn't necessary - as it wouldn't be in most cases. Has your experience of lengthily contested CCI requests been different? If not, I would suggest that Anthonyhcole's suggestion to "think about it" is accurate. Incidentally, I support Carrite's request because I am absolutely confident of his motives and truthfulness. Copycat requests would be swiftly squashed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it likely didn't come up because such a suggestion hadn't been considered remotely possible beforehand. This is what we call a Pandora's box. But let's just settle for I hold an opinion and you hold an opinion and neither one can be tested or proved because the conditions have no existed yet.--v/r - TP22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This really just comes down to trust. I trust this user to do what he pledges in question one. In that case I can't see any harm in giving him the bit. To be honest I find many of the opposes based on versions of the slippery slope argument. I have never put much stock in such arguments. AIRcorn(talk)11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that this wasn't a temporary request, but I don't see the point in opposing over that, we are all volunteers and any admin could retire at any point. Viewing deleted edits is a very useful part of the admin toolkit, especially when evaluating RFA candidates. I have no problem with a candidate who sees that as the only part of the mop that they are likely to wield ϢereSpielChequers14:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unlikely to break anything if he's given access to the tools. But seriously, go for regular adminship...admin tools exist in part so that content creators can, for example, examine deleted pages, do certain sorts of page moves, and clean up after themselves when the create a malformed page (like "move without leaving redirect"). Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'd support him for full adminship, but will also support this limited request. For those who are concerned that his promise doesn't have teeth, I cannot conceive of the possibility of ArbCom not agreeing to desysop him if he used the bit in violation of his promise. RyanVesey16:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First, there is no reason at all to think he would misuse the bit while he has it. Second, it's a reasonable way to deal with the problem he has; when procedures interfere with fairness the solution is to work around them, either calling it explicitly IAR or finding some way to accommodate them within the existing rules. this is the latter, and it's a good and reasonable way to do it. (I do hope that subsequently he'll decide the bit on a regular basis would be worth it, but after the experience here with people opposing for highly speculative reasons what should have been the most straight-forward of requests, I would understand it if he did not want to come here again. I normally think that complaints about the way applicants are treated here are overreactions to mere noise, but this time, such complaints would be justified, though I expect the applicant will have enough sense not to bother making them. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting to say the least. Wizardman made a point that really stuck in my craw, and I almost declined support because of his very convincing post. Yep - I do hate the politics around this joint; but they are a fact of life here on wiki, like it or not. So in the end it comes down to "do I trust this editor to use any tools wisely, thoughtfully, and with the best interests of the wiki in mind" The bottom line is that I do. There's nothing in the admin toolset that I believe Carrite would use to ANY detriment to the project IMO, so here I sit. Be it a day, a week, a year, or longer - I trust this user with the tools. Many of you in the "oppose" section are often ones that speak of that word ... trust. Well I've seen nothing in this editor's history which betrays trust. — Ched : ? 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I feel about the one-off RfA, but would support the user as admin in any case so have no problem supporting. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Adminship is no big deal, and it would be helpful for Carrite in doing what he wants to do, it should be no big deal to give it to him. Beyond that, Carrite has demonstrated good judgement and has my trust. In my view, Carrite would make a good admin (on a permanent basis). TheOverflow (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mostly. I don't like this nomination. I don't like the idea of checking out adminship like a library card. I also don't like the idea that the candidate, once an admin, seems to feel like he would have to "ADMIN ALL THE THINGS", and that being an admin would take away from article writing. I can see no other reason for wanting to be rid of the bit so quickly. On the merits, I trust Carrite to be a reasonable admin, not to abuse the tools, etc etc, and thus must support. But I wish he trusted himself, too. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did21:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support because adminship is supposed to be no big deal, so a temporary admin should be no big deal. The oppose votes below give evidence that the literal and figurative teen-agers who make up a seeming majority of WP's administrators think otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support... this "temporary" stuff is silly, but he'd be a good addition to the meat grinder for as many days or moons as he is willing to offer. FFS people, this guy has been put through every sort of wringer on WR and WPO, and has proven himself a true believer in WP and its mission. WP needs 20 of him in the admin corps. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, this is an unusual request, but I must say that I was surprised that Carrite wasn't already an administrator. Anytime he wants to be a full-time admin, he has my support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I came close to going "neutral", and my support is somewhat ambivalent, but I ended up here, just barely. I think that Anthonyhcole's detailed list does a pretty good job of covering my reasons for supporting, with one exception: I'm not really sold on the argument that Carrite couldn't just ask an existing administrator to provide him the deleted material. I tend to think it would have been less of a hassle, for Carrite and for the community, than this RfA. On the oppose side, I feel that Fluffernutter and Coren have made particularly good points, and I take those points seriously. It's true, for example, that we have to take it on faith that he will only view what he says he is going to view. So I asked myself whether, in this case, this RfA (not some hypothetical future one about someone else), whether I trust Carrite enough to take that on faith. I decided that yes, I do. And I'm curious to see how it will play out, whether it will inform future thought about improving the RfA process, so I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see why not. I don't understand why so many people are so against temporary adminship. There's a first time for everything, isn't there? That being said, I'd support this editor's request for full adminship as well. MJ94 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of Wikipedia's finest believers in our community's goals. Absolutely no harm could come from his getting adminship. I only hope one day that he'll realize the Spartans are better than the Beavers, Ducks, and Badgers (combined). -- SimSaladBim (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absent some other mechanism which would allow a party to an ArbCom proceeding to operate on a level playing field with arbs and admis who have access to deep-sixed posts relevant to the case, I am all in favor of this. I've seen more than enough abuse of this over the years to know that it is a real issue. ArbCom is enough of a black box Star Chamber as it is. Others have been granted the mop who have stated they intend to use it for very limited purposes, and many don't use them at all. I have far less concern about Carrite having tools than for many admins who already have them. There is zero risk that Carrite will abuse them. Fladrif (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Carrite had simply applied to become an Administrator, I would have seen it as appropriate based on his edit history and his participation in AFDs. If he says he will not use most of the tools. or that he plans to resign, that is a shame, but not a barrier to granting the bit. I note that we have occasionally had opposing views in AFDs, but I still value him as a fellow contributor. He is a capable long-term contributor and I trust him to not to abuse the tools. Perhaps in the future he will make a standard application to become an admin. Edison (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Carrite is (to me at least) a trusted user who should have access to the tools and advanced permissions. What I find objectionable is the arbitrary and, I believe, false division between admins and content contributors. I am admin, and I think I've contributed some good content to Wikipedia; other admins have contributed far more good content. Carrite is clearly a content contributor; now he can be an admin as well; that doesn't mean that he should or would abandon adding good content, even if he keeps the bit - something I'd prefer he did. LadyofShalott03:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no likelihood that he will cause any damage with the tools, so he should have them. So what if he doesn't use them for other purposes? Neither do I, and probably many other admins. Kevin (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've not seen reason to distrust Carrite or to suspect that he'd misuse the tools if he were seeking to be a "normal" admin who keeps the tools indefinitely and performs blocks, deletions, etc. If we can trust him long-term, we should trust him short-term as well. I don't understand why people are objecting to the idea of him viewing deleted material as part of a dispute to which he's a party — let me quote WP:INVOLVED. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." A conflict of interest won't be a problem when he's viewing deleted revisions of pages; if he were the only party who could see them, he might be accusable of misrepresenting the deleted revisions, but the presence of several other admins in the Arbcom case means that things can easily be verified independently, and non-admins won't have a reason to see falsehood in Carrite's discussions of deleted content. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a short duration, single purpose use of the admin toolkit? Obvious support. Carrite, while we might have gotten into arguments at times, is a trustworthy user who really does seem to care about Wikipedia and its processes. I trust him for this. I would have also supported for a full RfA, but I know that's not something he wants. I'll be there to support you when you apply for the unbundled content creator toolkit that has a few, specific admin tools, an unbundling of adminship that I know will have to occur eventually. SilverserenC08:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a simple request. Carrite is trustworthy; if he says he will only use the tools for an Rfar, that's what he's going to do with them. For the record, I would also support a traditional RfA. ThemFromSpace18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSuper strong fucking support!!! Honestly Carrite is exactly the kind of admin/editor that Wikipedia needs if it's ever going to get out of the RfA hole/fiasco it has self created. I would prefer if Carrite stayed on for the full bit - but the fact that he wishes it to be temporary is neither nefarious, "dangerous", or a sign of weakness - in fact it's admirable. Basically a lot of the oppose votes seem to boil down to some kind of weird "he's not power hungry enough" sentiment (maybe not that weird, if you think of it in terms of projection). Note that he could've asked for the whole thing, skipped mentioning the temporary part then just laid down the tools in a few months time when done. Instead he was upfront and honest about his intention. Note that we've had numerous discussions about how broken RfA is and how some of the admin tools should be debundled. Of course given the inertia and dysfunction at this page (and others) that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future. Still the motivation and reasoning behind the nature of the request simply reflects what a lot of smart and insightful people have been saying for awhile. I'd say Tim is probably the best candidate I've seen pop up on this page in a couple of years.Volunteer Marek18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a reasonable, coherent request. As I'd be happy to support their request for full administrative rights and tools and the preeminent requirement for a successful RFA would appear to be community trust, there's no cogent reason to object if they choose to limit their use of rights and tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiachraByrne (talk • contribs)
He's an honest man. The kind of person who would do the right thing even if it helped someone with a political slant opposite him and visa versa. He's exactly what is needed and very rare. Even is a critic, but one who is not slavish to every critic meme. You really could not do much better than him. If not approved, it will be this site's loss.TCO (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am really baffled by the people here saying "he's honest". No, he's not - he's a barefaced liar. See my comments in opposition here. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who's willing to literally make stuff up and harass people on the basis of lies is not "an honest man". Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not running for adminship. Carrite is. People are under the mistaken impression that Carrite has been honest and behaved with integrity. I am pointing out that he has not. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The coward is offended by the brave, the dishonest by the honest. And rebutting people's votes is awfully persnickety. ;-) TCO (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman, it sounds like you got beef that you need to take elsewhere: this is RfA, not RfC. And I prefer someone who makes stuff up literally rather than metaphorically, since a fiction of a fiction is too Borgesian for my brain to process. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people who is supporting on the basis of my belief that Carrite is being honest in what he is saying about his need for the admin toolset and his intentions with it, I'm still also in support of Prioryman's right to point out Carrite's behaviour on the boxcutter site and his own opinion of what that says about Carrite's honesty. So long as it doesn't unduly dominate the RfA, which as far as I can see, it isn't doing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I might support a full admin run as well, but I'd need to evaluate that a bit more closely. No reason to think he will abuse the mop in the limited time he wants it for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrated Support - I strongly wish there was a better solution, but otherwise find no concerns of potential misuse by the candidate. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on the condition that he steps down as soon as the ArbCom decision has been made. I don't think he'll abuse anything in the mean time. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally good contributions. It is a shame that Carrite will not continue to use the administrative tools. He has the skills and experience to be a good admin. Axl¤[Talk]11:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely. Concerns raised by others and my own gathers has concluded me to go for a genuine oppose now. Raised concerns of anti Adminship and Arbitration is a concern for someone request adminship. In addition expanding onto the ArbCom case, others see it as a way of equalising against the initiator of the ArbCom request. I do not see it as an equalise but rather an attempt to gain temporary control. No party needs to have access to the history, only ArbCom would and if the feel the parties need it then they would provide it. This would be a starting point for everyone involved in an ArbCom case to come and request adminship and only saying 'I only need it to get the history' when there are valid administrators who are more than willing to provide article history. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Comment has been refactored at 00:49, 7 February 2013. Original comment hereWormTT(talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a cumbersome way to obtain the right to read deleted files for a limited time, but I was told it was the way to proceed — only those vetted as administrators are to be accorded the right. It would be nice if this was an unbundled user right, but it is not. All the best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your original comments rather than re-writing them, as otherwise you're making the candidate's response appear to be a non-sequitur, which is really not on for an RfA (but also anywhere else - see WP:REFACTOR). I've restored what Carrite was originally replying to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Demiurge also removed John's new comments, which is also really not on. Here is what John said in his updated comments (rather than further muck about with his paragraph)). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Quote: "Concerns raised by others and my own gathers has concluded me to go for a genuine oppose now. Raised concerns of anti Adminship and Arbitration is a concern for someone request adminship. In addition expanding onto the ArbCom case, others see it as a way of equalising against the initiator of the ArbCom request. I do not see it as an equalise but rather an attempt to gain temporary control. No party needs to have access to the history, only ArbCom would and if the feel the parties need it then they would provide it. This would be a starting point for everyone involved in an ArbCom case to come and request adminship and only saying 'I only need it to get the history' when there are valid administrators who are more than willing to provide article history. " Endquote, added 00:49 7 February 2013 by John F. Lewis)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I'm not convinced with the 'temporary' nature of your request, and feel that it sets a bad precedent for future. Why do you need access to the non-visible pages/contribs if it's already at ArbCom? Surely it opens the floodgates for every editor to request such access when an ArbCom case they might have an interest in appears? GiantSnowman17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a party in the case. The case was filed by a CCI member who participated in an ongoing investigation. The case is going to hinge upon editing practices and the interpretation of intent now obscured to me in deleted files. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that, It is not a requirement that all parties need to gain administrator rights to gather the data themselves and if ArbCom find the deleted material relevant; ArbCom would get it. If Carrite really needs the articles, instead of request adminship for this specific claim: Administrators would be willing to give it to him. Dennis Brown would most likely email him the article rather than saying 'Request adminship' John F. Lewis (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not practical, as the page histories are required - so potentially thousands of diffs across each of dozens (hundreds?) of articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The filing party already has the ability to view the material concerned (which makes things rather one-sided, hence the problem!), and the only other party is the person Carrite intends to defend; who hasn't expressed an interest in viewing the material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's going to have a BIG interest in viewing this material shortly, and he will discover that under Wikipedia's rules it takes 7 days to get such access; moreover, he hasn't a hope in hell of getting through RFA. Interesting... Carrite (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You've got my support if you go for the full deal, don't make it temporary and I'll switch to support. GO DUCKS!--v/r - TP18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. When I saw the nom, I thought to myself that I would've been happy to co-nom. Honesty has a history of being punished and unfortunately this is no exception. Had Carrite been quiet, grabbed his info, and resigned the tools then I would've been upset and disappointed later rather than now. I'm not asking the candidate to commit to doing admin tasks. If he wants to remain a content contributor than so be it. But I do want to see more content contributors have the bit so the bit itself is less of a trophy and more of a these are some extra buttons trusted people have deal. If Carrite intends to keep the tools, whether or not they get used, he has my support. I oppose the idea that we all have to go through an RFA so he can have the bit for the duration of an Arb request though for several reasons: 1) It wastes a week of our time, 2) It's going to waste the time of the folks who are going to discuss this matter, and 3) It's going to waste Arbcom's time when future RFAR parties demand the bit.--v/r - TP18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Dennis, it's ban enough he went to OSU. I mean, I don't want to make any personnal attacks here, but that almost guarantees he's a Beavers fan. Which, in turn, means that he was delighted by Chip leaving for the Eagles. I just can't support a candidate that hates Chip Kelly.--v/r - TP20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite says he went to OSU. I grew up in Eugene. I'm an Oregon fan, he went to Oregon State. The last comment was a joke. My original !vote was in the support section and it said "Oppose. GO DUCKS!" but that was because I knew Carrite and I didn't think I needed to review anything to support. Then when I saw the RFAR comments, I changed my mind and had to give an honest oppose. But that doesn't mean the rivalry doesn't still exist. Chip Kelly was the Ducks head coach and recently took an NFL job leaving the ducks. He led the ducks to the BCS championship his first season as head coach and he almost did it against this year if not for a brutal loss to Stanford. So, mixing a bit of seriousness with a bit of humor that Carrite will understand.--v/r - TP23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the concept of temporary adminship is completely unenforceable on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to other projects. In my recollection, I've also seen this editor on the anti-admin bandwagon a little bit too much and am not comfortable with this editor holding adminship. --Rschen775418:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not, simply because to my recollection, this editor is too frequently part of the group criticizing admins / ArbCom for taking legitimate and justified actions. In my book, that's incompatible with adminship. --Rschen775418:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have reviewed Carrite's previous comments on the CCI case which resulted in this request (slightly surprised no-one has linked to it yet - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108), and I have to say I'm not very impressed. On three occasions Carrite looked at one of the pages tagged as copyvio there, couldn't see anything remotely like copyvio, and jumped to the conclusion that the editor who tagged it must have been downright incompetent, even though what really happened was that he was looking at the wrong page. [5][6][7][8] He has also demonstrated a rather strange understanding of our copyright rules, including statements that including chunks of copyrighted text in hidden comments is not a copyright violation, transwiking content without acknowledging the source is merely “impolite” because we're not going to get sued over it, copying text from public domain or copyleft sources without acknowledging the fact is “very light”, or merely “bad editing”, and generally that anything other than more or less verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is “minor”, “technical” or “subjective”. Carrite has indicated elsewhere that he is seeking adminship in order to “defend” the subject of the CCI case at ArbCom, [9] an attitude reinforced by the acceptance statement above. I am not persuaded that the tools are being sought for the right reasons, and if ArbCom do need someone other than themselves to review deleted edits I'm sure there are plenty of administrators who would be prepared to do it for them. Hut 8.518:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to argue the merits of the case. That my interpretations have been hampered by an inability to read deleted files is the reason I am here. Hut 8.5 is one of approximately 5 CCI volunteers that has worked on the Richard A. Norton text investigation. As an administrator, he has access to read histories of deleted files which I don't. (It's worth noting that the subject of the investigation doesn't either. Interesting situation...) Carrite (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically requesting admin tools in order to conduct a slightly more detailed analysis of this CCI. Your behaviour at the CCI so far is certainly relevant. I have no problem if someone does want to conduct a review of the deleted pages for this case, I just think that (given your behaviour so far) it should be someone else. I don't think the pages in question are going to play any significant role in the case anyway. By your own count we are talking about 8 pages, all several years old and most dating back to 2006-7. Hut 8.508:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right about the scope of the case, but you could just as easily be wrong. Actually, it's my own preference that there isn't a case; if there is, I'm interested in a just result. I will note that there are deleted files that are part of Fram's evidence page, so the need for file access is just as real even if every file is from 2011 or 2012. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom isn't going to be interested in digging through every copyvio RAN has ever added or uploaded. Their main interest will be in how he has complied with community restrictions and attempts to modify his behaviour. For that much more recent material is required than deleted pages from 2006. Fram's page lists a grand total of four deleted files, I'm sure some admin would be happy to give you copies of those. Hut 8.519:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I have no issues with temporary adminship when it's dictated by personal beliefs (see Kim Bruning), I do not think the English Wikipedia has particular need to introduce temporary admins at this stage. Perhaps I could have supported somebody asking for adminship for one specific purpose (that is, "I shall help clear backlog X and then when that is done, resign"), but to ask for the admin tools for the purposes of partecipating in an Arbitration Committee case is unheard of and frankly, outside of the purpose of adminship. Tools are given to janitors to help clean up and run the site. Partecipating in an arbitration committee case is not part of that. I should also note that we have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever enforced as a mandate and limitation one's statements on a Request for Adminship, and so nothing would stop this user from: a) keeping the bit after the Arbitration Committee case has ended b) using the bit during the time he has it or c) resigning after the Arbitration Committee case and requesting the bit back on WP:BN in the future. As such, I do not believe this is a valid request that should be fulfilled, and if this would be done, it would set dangerous precedents. We do not have an imperative mandate system for administrators and we do not wish one, nor should we set the precedent that when one is brought before the Arbitration Committee or otherwise party to an Arbitration case they should or can request sysop rights for purposes related to that. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. SnowolfHow can I help?18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't support even absent the temporary part. But, the temporary piece should weigh heavily on the basic question of if the tools are needed. Carrite doesn't need the bit, or want it, apparently [10], outside of the ability to see removed content. There is no temporary or even recallable admin process at the moment, so while I wih every RfA candidate was open to recall, there's no teeth behind those commitments. If you need access to something that's hidden, you can ask someone, who I'm sure would be more than willing to help you. There's a lot of little things that bother me in addition. None are damning alone, but they influence my perspective so I'll include a few examples: this unsettling diff that lead to this ani discussion, especially in light of criticizing the same thing [11] (I have 0 opinion about the underlying issue in the previous link); similarly here; an old discussion about canvassing concerns; a few worries about tossing around "defamatory" here (which has more issues that are discussed in the thread), the mentality in this deletion discussion, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atop the Fourth Wall and this. I think Carrite's a fine editor, but his motivation for wanting the tools seems to be (and has been since at least July it appears) to have access to some of the removed content; nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's a strong motivation to have the tools, and I have concerns about his opinions on some of these deletion discussions, etc., as I indicated above. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Given that there's no way I know of to verify that Carrite would only be looking at particular deleted pages and not others, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting bits in a situation where we have no way to enforce, or even check up on, the strict limitations on tool use that are being proposed. If Carrite needs access to deleted pages in order to participate in the Arbcom case, I assume Arbcom or the clerks (or Dennis, or another admin) can arrange to give him access to copies of any relevant documents; it's not something someone should be granted single-purpose adminship for. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Hut 8.5. Someone without a good understanding of copyright or a strange interpretation of copyright I don't completely trust having the ability to look at deleted content. Plus he also would have access to all the other admin tools. Garion96(talk)21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully. Carrite has earned my respect as a solid and often clueful contributor, but this unorthodox request falls outside of the intent and practice of RfA. If the inability of non-admins to see deleted material pertaining to ArbCom cases they are involved in is recognized as a problem, I would like to see solutions that would help all future editors who find themselves in this situation rather than controverting process for a one-off fix. Dennis Brown indicated that he would not have nominated Carrite for adminship if he was not qualified in his own right, meaning that this work-around would not be an option for other editors who find themselves in a similar situation. It also sets a precedent for future similar RfAs. I feel that the question of temporary adminship warrants a larger arena than this. Please note that my take on this is entirely based on the temporary nature of the request and has no bearing on Carrite as an editor or potential admin. Gobōnobō+c22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"controverting process" - process is set by consensus. If the participants in this RfA think that this request is valid, that's what counts, not a "process" that must be obeyed rigidly and without common sense. — Hex(❝?!❞)11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Hut. I think Carrite would make a good admin, but this request reeks of politics. As Fluff says, if a deleted revision needs to be accessed, any arb could do it, most clerks could do it, I could do it. That being said, I don't see why that would be necessary anyway, since if it were going to arbcom it would be due to recent troubles, certainly more recent than both CCIs. Besides, saying that he needs to see deleted contribs is a strong sign of bad faith on those that deleted the foundational copyvios; they're deleted for a reason. (FWIW, my oppose isn't based on the temporary nature of the adminship) Wizardman22:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, changing to Strong oppose per [12]. He backpedaled from it later, but attacking a group of editors working their asses off on a backlog almost no one dares to touch is completely unacceptable to me. RAN has the third-largest CCI currently, and it's probably not going to go down anytime soon since there are more violations out there than people to tackle them. Wizardman22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I misinterpreted files with deleted histories. Once I realized that, I clarified (SEE MY COMMENT). Now I know what one should be looking for. There is only one way to gain the ability to read these files, which is to be vetted through RFA. That's why I'm here. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in one of the cases which prompted that comment (you tagged it 20 minutes before) the page wasn't deleted at all, merely redirected. Even in the cases where the page had been deleted looking at the timestamps should have told you something was wrong. Instead you jumped to accusing people of "extremely sloppy work". Hut 8.508:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left wondering what part of Actually I was misinterpreting articles pulled and restarted, a process which scrubbed the edit history and made forensics impossible. There were a couple errors made by CCI, but "extremely sloppy" is not accurate.'' is unclear... Now you know why I prefer personally communicate via email rather than notes posted on the tavern wall. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inappropriate really. Satisfying individual needs in what amounts to some sort of dispute is not what access to the Admin. toolset is granted for. Leaky Caldron22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concerns cited by Shadowjams and GiantSnowman. Also, the drama around this need for "temporary" adminship seems disruptive per WP:POINT, in my view. Something wrong here. Jusdafax23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JohnFLewis. Your own statement makes it clear this is a single purpose RFA - you want admin for one thing and one thing only. "To participate effectively in the case, I find myself needing to be able to read pages and page histories deleted during an ongoing CCI text investigation. The only way to do that is to be vetted for the full administrative toolbox here. I wish there were some other way, but there isn't" - yes, there is. - it's called ask an admin for help.Use it.FishBarking?00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply. Carrite will be looking for specific revisions of deleted text; trying to work through an uninvolved proxy admin who wouldn't know precisely what to look for would be completely impractical, like trying to do a jigsaw by giving instructions to someone wearing a blindfold. — Hex(❝?!❞)11:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily addressed by pointing out to any assisting admin that CCIs list content by diffs. Anyone who knows how to click a diff can easily find the precise edits in question. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per answer to Q1 there is not really a legitimate reason for you to have sysop tools. Looking at your contributions you seem qualified to be an admin, but adminship is for people who are planning to use the tools to help the project. Inka88802:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose largely per Wizardman. I'm not concerned about the "temporary" nature of the request, rather the reasons behind it. I think Wizardman and Hut are persuasive on that point. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Believe it or not, while I don't see why he couldn't just get another sysop to provide him with the deleted contributions (he can certainly be trusted in that regard), Carrite's proposed temporary adminship tenure is not concerning to me in the slightest. Even if the tools are only used once, but they are put to good use, that would be fine from where I stand. But the moment I saw Carrite's name pop up at RfA, I just had this not-so-good gut feeling. I couldn't back it up with any references right off the top of my head, so I had to look through the opposing comments to see if anyone else has gotten the same impression as me. Rschen7754's comments regarding Carrite frequently hopping onto the "anti-admin bandwagon" ring true with me, and while I'm neither against valid criticism of essential community processes nor in favour of any degree of censorship, it's an ominous sign to me when someone is so heavily critical of such a large swath of well-intentioned volunteers. But even then, I couldn't just oppose over that; there has to be actual evidence backing up my claims. The instances listed by Shadowjams and Wizardman's subsequent addendum to his own comment are what cinch it for me.
Another thing is that his acceptance statement gives me pause in a number of areas: "First, a bit about myself, since I feel one of the great failings of Wikipedia is its cult of anonymity." It's the internet, and I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to reveal however much they want about themselves; the important thing is that they're here and making contributions. "We content writers are a cantankerous lot. We generally work alone, we have our respected friends and associates, and we mutter under our breath about this problem or that dealing with Wikipedia. The notion that there is an administrative caste to which one is "promoted" from being a "mere" content creator is offensive to many of us. This sometimes creates sparks between grumpy old content writers and the corps of content inspectors and site managers, who have their own idiosyncratic ideas and practices. Periodically explosions result during the interaction of these groups." I am primarily a content creator, and aside from generally working alone and having a few respected associates, Carrite's description does not fit me at all. Now look, are there many occasions where I am uncomfortable with the cumbersome bureaucracy of this site and its administration? Absolutely, and I'll go on record to say that there is an endemic problem with the site valuing process over principle. But his comments come off as a blanket statement against administrators and maintenance workers, perpetuating the stereotype that they are detached from the encyclopedia and unable to empathize with the average editor — this is not necessarily the case. And indeed, we need those people to managing conduct disputes and working to prevent disruptive forms of activity, otherwise we'd be facilitating the creation of an all-around toxic environment throughout the site.
So while I think Carrite is an excellent editor who has made many good contributions, I wouldn't feel comfortable betraying my own feelings by saying something I didn't actually mean. The nomination statement by Dennis Brown is very persuasive (not least of which because it comes from somebody I know and trust), and there are many supporters and reluctant opposers toward whom I have a great deal of respect, but unfortunately I have to be honest. As a side note, I happen to agree with his sentiments regarding the content contributor in question, who is currently facing the prospect of an ArbCom case and any sanctions that may arise from it. I myself will probably come to their defence during the lengthy ordeal they're about to go through. I hope Carrite doesn't take anything I've said personally and that he continues to provide his insights wherever he goes. Kurtis(talk)11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would all be important if Carrite were going to use many of the tool's features over time. But he's just going to use it to look at hidden content, while the case runs. Can you trust him to do what he says? Personally, if he were running for adminship without these self-imposed restrictions, I'd probably vote oppose. I wasn't impressed with the way he characterised his opponents in the Cirt debates - and I think I recall some very offensive behaviour in the Muhammad images debates (I'd have to go back over that history but I was left unimpressed). So, your concerns are, I think, possibly sound. But I have no doubt about his character, which I believe to be good, so I'm happy to let him look at the hidden pages, and trust him not to do anything sleazy or to go back on his word regarding resigning (he's not that dumb - not dumb at all, actually). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I've been thinking about that myself over the past several hours. I'm going to indent my oppose and move to neutral. Kurtis(talk)19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; with no prejudice on whether Carrite should get the bit for the "normal" reasons. If there is a reasonable reason to access the contents of a deleted page during the course of arbitration, a simple request to ArbCom to temporarily undelete the page will do the trick. Getting the bit allows viewing of any deleted page, an action that isn't logged, and which Foundation Legal demands be restricted to people who have been made administrators through the usual process. — Coren(talk)14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're making him an administrator through the normal process. What do you mean? Where has Foundation legal said anything that would rule out what's happening here? That's a strong assertion you've made there, and you must support it - quickly - or you are tainting this process with false legal claims that may undermine considered deliberation by the participants here. Certainly, if what you say is true, I'll be changing my vote; as, I'm sure, will many others. I hope you realise the seriousness of what you've just said and act responsibly and very promptly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we indenting so deeply? </confused> I imagine he's talking about [13] and VP subpage. Current WMF stance is that only people who go through adminship or a process of equal weight should be permitted to see deleted content. I'm not speaking for the WMF at all, but I think probably this would be going through the process. However, if there are people who are supporting based only on the stated limitations, that would seem likely to be a problem. (Again, I'm speaking as Moonriddengirl, not in my community liaison role.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter's comment just below has introduced some substantial doubt for me that this does constitute the process, particularly given Anthonyhcole's statement above that "That would all be important if Carrite were going to use many of the tool's features over time. But he's just going to use it to look at hidden content, while the case runs." Hence, my striking part of my comment. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I'm aware I'm taking a different stance to Dennis and others. My view is that he may not be right for judging who to page ban in a content dispute, or whether to block someone for offensive behaviour. Presently, I don't think he has the cool for that. (I may change my view on reviewing his history but don't need to review his history because I trust he won't be doing those things.) Is this the process Geoff and Mike were talking about? Philippe says "Kelly is able to approve this plan [Wikipedia:Request for moderatorship] on the condition that the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators - using the same criteria, operating on the same page." What process? What criteria? I assume they mean thoughtful, wide, community scrutiny on this page over a week or more, and the criteria would be competence and trustworthiness. Perhaps they meant something else, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he were asking for the bit "under normal circumstances", we wouldn't have people arguing that because he only wants to use Right X in Manner A, it's unfair to him to consider his competence in areas Z, Q, and P, or how X can be used in manners other than A. In other words, we're being asked to approve a temporary adminship with the argument that, because he promises it will only be used in one limited way, it doesn't and shouldn't matter to us how competent he is with other things or how else he might use the tools once he has them. In other other words, we're being asked to do a "lite" RFA, considering one pocket issue only. This is not the standard process, in any way - the standard process assesses the user's competence in all admin-related areas (particularly, for WMF legal purposes, whether the user is competent and trustworthy enough to have the right to view every deleted thing on the entire project), and if an RFA is passed without that vetting, the submitter can hardly be said to have undergone the normal community process that grants +viewdeleted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is being asked in this discussion is, "Can he be trusted to do what he says he will - only use the tool to look at deleted content relevant to the case, and resign the bit after the case?" Everybody here knows that - at the very minimum - this is what's being measured here. Some are also taking into account his competency with other features of the tool (despite the fact that he won't be using those features), but everyone is weighing up whether he can be trusted to do what he says he will. We are pretty well only assessing his trustworthiness in this proposed very limited tool-use - and I don't think anyone has successfully impugned that, yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The problem here is that the request, as framed, taints the process. It is not possible to know whether everyone who has supported this request would have done so, or applied the same scrutiny, if it were not made for a limited scope and under a promise of giving up the bit later. Foundation legal is extremely clear that access to viewing deleted revisions needs to be granted only under scrutiny exactly as is currently the case for "normal" RfAs at the least. Note the links provided by Moonriddengirl above (who has incredible diff-fu! It would have taken me ages to find those exact diffs!) — Coren(talk)15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single "grasp of policy" question has been asked. We have no idea about the candidate's suitability because he doesn't wish to be an Admin. Despite his upfront honesty this RfA is a false premise and is subverting the normal scrutiny process for a single purpose (an Arbcom case in which he is involved), which in itself seems a bit dubious. Leaky Caldron16:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to ask such questions, because he's not going to be using the bit to protect, delete, ban, block, move or anything else - just look at deleted pages. I trust him with that right, and have seen no evidence that would undermine that trust. Hence, he has the competency and trustworthiness to merit the tool, for this case. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coren: Regarding "taints the process", no it doesn't. So what if some here (such as me) have only judged his fitness to look at hidden content? That's all he'll be doing with the tools. Why should his fitness to close XfDs or his fitness to close complex RfCs matter at all? I'm not seeing the substance of your argument. What am I missing? The Foundation is very clear that the process, forum and criteria should be the same. I say the criteria are competence and trustworthiness. He's got both for the limited use he'll put the tool to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... which is the point. The scrutiny was not the same as a "normal" RfA, and therefore he cannot have view-deleted per Foundation directive. Period. — Coren(talk)16:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you there. There is nothing about being qualified to close an XfD that the WMF assumes is necessary to view deleted content. The WMF requires RfA, or another process of equal weight, because in that process, someone's trustworthiness to view deleted content is analyzed. The "process of equal weight" is that it must be community vetted, this would be a community vetting. RyanVesey16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
View-deleted is "taking admin action". The only reason we generally don't count it is because it's not being logged so we don't know about it (and is one of the reasons why the inactivity desysop was so desperately needed). If, as a party, Carrite feels the need to view deleted revisions of a page then he should ask another, uninvolved, admin – or the Committee. — Coren(talk)16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you arguing that his looking at the relevant deleted articles in that ArbCom case would disqualify him from participating in that case due to WP:INVOLVED? If so, are you saying no one participating in that case should access the deleted articles, or just Carrite? I cannot see the merit of this line of argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is contrary to my perspective on involvement too. If I'm involved in a dispute with a user, I shouldn't view an article they wrote that was deleted? If that's the rule, I'll abide by it, but I don't think that viewing deleted articles would be against the spirit of the involvement policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, are you saying that Fram, the initiator of the case and thus a party to it, must not view the deleted diffs either, because that would be a WP:INVOLVED use of their admin "tools"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While Fram was working on CCI it was normal administrative work (and thus not creating involvement), so there is no issue there. Now that there is a case to which they are a party, propriety demands that some other administrator do this – it would be just as inappropriate for any admin to go fishing in an editor's deleted contribution they have been in dispute with for the same reason. In practice, given that deleted revisions are at issue, the Committee would normally undelete the necessary page(s) into a noindexed subpage of the case on simple request so that the evidence is available for all participants regardless of what bits they may possess. — Coren(talk)21:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, will arbcom accept Carrite's good faith and in fact place the entire history of all pages named by him as relevant into this status, promptly? Including all pages subsequently named by him as directly relevant to this case? If this is agreed, under strict conditions of honesty as to what is required, then we might draw this messy and unnecessary RfA to a violently juddering close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reviewing this RFA earlier this afternoon I was (marginly) leaning support. However some good points made just above (in the thread arround Coren's oppose) and more importantly the "cantankerous" (to use the candidate's turn of phrase) response to Leaky at Q8 move me here. There is, IMHO, no benefit to wikipedia whatsoever with you getting the bits. I'm willing to support candidates who will bring a smidge of benefit (specilists who want to do edit filters, those who declare likely to be fairly inactive) but not those who bring none. Pedro : Chat 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I am all for temporary sysop status (mainly to do a particular task), I cannot see how this is not a misuse of the tools when the tools (or advanced right, or any other term for what is effectively the same thing) are going to be sued only for a personal reason. Sysops should be there for to better the project. iComputerSaysNo23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose largely per Wizardman (a username I thoroughly enjoyed typing). This doesn't seem to be a request that is a benefit to the project. AniMate23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems to me to be an inappropriate request. The lack of specificity concerns me too. It seems that there may be other ways of accessing the materials with the help of arbcom, clerks, uninvolved admins, which will open these to view for the duration of the case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an uninvolved admin and if this didn't involve edits deleted per copyvio then I might well have been able to help. But these are not the sort of edits that an admin is free to show to a non-admin. ϢereSpielChequers15:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'd be happy to support if this were an RfA, but it isn't. Feel free to ask an admin to get deleted material for you, I'm sure they would be happy to send it your way. Prodegotalk05:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To ask for the admin tools in order to lawyer for another user in a dispute is a total nonstarter. Administrators are to assist the project in an unbiased way. Iselilja (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Wizardman, Coren and Fluffernut. If the user wants admin tools, he should go through a full and rigorous RfA process. If the community supports the idea of unbundling certain admin tools for specific use, then a proposal should be made on the village pump for an alternative usergroup to be created that would allow such access on a temporary basis. Perhaps, the better privilege for this user to seek would be the one for scholars that allows the viewing of deleted contributions, conditional the submission of an academic paper on the topic. --LauraHale (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I need the admin bit to prove that everyone is lying about RAN's copyvios" is weak sauce indeed. The precedent this would set is almost as ghastly as this absurd false dichotomy between "content contributors" and Others that Carrite harps on about at every opportunity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a point not to respond to most points made here, but this is such an unfair misrepresentation of my position that I really must object. I strongly encourage everyone to do due diligence here. This is absolutely an unfair characterization of my views. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's outrageous here is that the straw man is put in quotation marks as if the candidate had actually written it. But he didn't, did he? Either produce an accurate quotation supported by a diff or withdraw this smear. Warden (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's better that one side of the issue is already an admin and has all the deleted information to look through and present as evidence to Arbcom, while the other has to go through third parties, without even knowing what exactly to ask for, since they can't look through all the available edits themselves? Doesn't the current situation already seem like a stacked deck? SilverserenC18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this case isn't actually about Carrite, what you're implying is that if any random Joe decides to involve himself in an ArbCom case involving copyvio or other deleted material that admin status should be handed out on request. It's a somewhat... inaccurate framing to suggest that the allegation of copyvio, this late in the day, is basically just Fram's word by the way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sticks & Stones...", eh? Welcome to RfA. If you can dish out speciousness of my reading of policy and Alice in Wonderlandness of my logic you should be willing to accept a few harsh comments yourself, as a cantankerous content editor! Leaky Caldron17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, your vote here is entirely based on the fact that you dislike one of the parties. Good to know, i'm sure the bureaucrat will make sure to completely disregard your vote. SilverserenC18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kraxler, there was no intended secrecy regarding Carrite's intentions. He simply opted against referring to them by name in his acceptance, but a simple glance at the ArbCom requests page with the context of this RfA in mind would help in coming to a fairly obvious inference. Kurtis(talk)23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Kurtis - The part "(Re:Richard A. Norton)" was certainly inserted in the answer to question 1 at some later time. When I first read the answers and the first 50 votes, at least, there was no reference to the actual case, it was just "a case".
Re Silverseren - Not at all. My votes are based on analyzing the issue in question. I suggest Carrite continue to write content, instead of wasting his time with Richard Arthur Norton's deleted contributions. Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I see your good intention of helping RAN clear this case, I'm absolutely not comfortable with the way you're planning to do it. If RAN really needs a solicitor, it should be a) someone who has not already been involved in the case, and b) it should be someone who is already holding adminitrator rights. And I agree that creating a short-term, lightweight adminship for whatever cause would set a dangerous precedent. Carrite, if you were to run for a full administrator job without this Arbcom case pending, I would possibly support you. But under the given circumstances I can only voice my opposition. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have intentionally not gone to the ArbCom case, as I see this as beside the point here. I am not happy at giving the tool set to an editor, wowever trustworthy (which I accept he is) solely for the purpose, as stated, of undertaking activity which is not of benefit to the project. I apologise to the nominator, whom I respect enormously, but I believe that this is not an appropriate use to which the admin tools should be put. I have not, deliberately, been to the Arbcom site to look at the controversy in question. But I have a question; if this editor had already been an admin, and had used the tools to access information not available to other parties in a dispute, would that have been seen as a fair use of the admin skills? If the data in question are already available to other parties in the Arbcom case, then why not to all?--Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fucking. Way. Carrite is unfit to be an editor, let alone an administrator. He is a regular and prominent contributor to Wikipediocracy, where he posts as "Randy from Boise". He has an ugly history of aggressive conduct and assuming bad faith. Without any provocation or justification, he has lied, trolled and attacked other contributors to the project. I have myself been on the receiving end. Carrite has repeatedly accused me of financial corruption on the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever and has harassed me. Last March he accused me of non-existent financial links with Wikimedia UK.[15] A few months later I visited Gibraltar, at my own expense, as my last stop in a holiday in northern Morocco (as it was the nearest airport with direct cheap flights to the UK). Carrite accused me, out of the blue, of having financial links with the government of Gibraltar.[16] He then harassed me on Wikipedia by repeatedly demanding "who paid for your trip to Gibraltar".[17][18] There was absolutely no reason for him to assume that I had any financial dealings whatsoever with the government of Gibraltar, and there had never been any suggestion anywhere, at any time, by anyone, that anyone other than myself was funding my trip or that I had any connection or contact whatsoever with the government of Gibraltar (I do not). He had no basis whatsoever for his claim; he simply made it up. I was not the only one he hassled - he also went after User:Pigsonthewing.[19] Nobody with any personal integrity or honesty would behave in such a dishonest and vindictive way. He is utterly unsuited to exercising the responsibility that goes with having a sysop bit. Prioryman (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he also went after User:Pigsonthewing". Some day those fleas will catch up on you. Speaking from experience with that editor, which is within a shared and vast institutional memory; nice, honourably desperate, grasping at straws, stotical in a WWI doomed pilot way thing from you there. Im sure a lifeboad will present soon enough :) No. Fucking. Way indeed. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have reservations about the editor, but my primary concern is that running for admin for such a narrow purposes is just generally a bad idea, and a particularly dangerous precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are your reservations? If they involve concern that he can't be trusted to do what he says (only look at deleted files related to the up-coming ArbCom case and hand back the tool once the case is finished), that's a reason to oppose. Simply asserting, "running for admin for such a narrow purposes is just generally a bad idea, and a particularly dangerous precedent" is shallow bombast (empty of meaning and an appeal to emotion: fear). Explain yourself, otherwise this is worthless hot air. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Green text added 07:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever are you talking about? "Shallow bombast?" In this discussion? Your sense of proportion seems to be seriously out of whack. It's not "shallow bombast", it's a simple expression of my opinion of the situation, which I have every right to express and is as valid as anyone else's opinion. If I had wanted to say anything more about Carrite, I would have, but, given the circumstances, it was not necessary to do so. I'm satisfied that my comment isn't in the least "bombastic" and is an accurate representation of my views, so I suggest you rethink your comment, and perhaps strike it as unnecessary rhetorical overkill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Writ Keeper, isn't that essentially what RfA is for? We're here to determine whether or not this particular editor can be trusted with the permissions he is requesting. Yes, the ability to view deleted pages or revisions is probably the most sensitive of all sysop tools because it allows administrators to access an significant degree of private information — but what evidence is there that Carrite would abuse this feature in any way? Kurtis(talk)23:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any evidence that I know of that Carrite would abuse this, and that's why I actually really hate to vote this way. It really sucks, because I have nothing against Carrite whatsoever. And maybe I am just being a huge policy wonk and too uptight about this. And I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about framing this RfA this way, either; Carrite is definitely not trying to subvert policy or whatever. But the problem I have is that of precedent. If an RfA framed the way this one was succeeds, it opens the door for other RfAs to follow suit, and it becomes a whole thing. You can say, "well, just this once",and that's actually not a bad rebuttal, but even with that, I don't really see this ending here; I see it starting to crop up, either as similarly-framed RfAs where it could be a problem (since it does look like at least some people are taking the temporary nature of the request into account), or people whining about "well, Carrite got to do it that one time, why can't I?". I just think it sets too much of a bad precedent. I doubt it changes anything, but you can add me to the list of admins who would be willing to undelete stuff for Carrite if he needs it. :P Writ Keeper⚇♔07:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. If this is needed for an ArbCom case, the user should contact ArbCom to get their opinion on it. The community doesn't, through current policy, approve adminship on a temporary basis. Therefore, we cannot be sure the user will resign after the case is over. Also, the user explicitly says they need this for ~20 at the most views. I don't agree on promoting someone if they admit they're going to only use it 20 times before they either give it up or stop using it. Also again, the content of the copyvioed pages shouldn't be relavent, only that they were copyvioed, which has already been understood and affirmed by many who already have the right. Also, I have concerns about the user's civility and off-wiki actions (mainly the Prioryman question and others on similar sites). Fourthly, the Foundation has already expressed the lack of a legal ability for non-admins to view deleted pages, and this is the same thing. My suggestion to Carrite would be to contact a member of the Arbitration Committee privately and receive any text deemed necessary through that method, or otherwise recieve infromation from an arbitrator directly. This RfA should also be immediately closed as a request for the community to override the Foundation/Board decision that a non-admin should not have access to all deleted text for any reason at any time, without prejudice against a re-nomination for permanent adminship to include the tool in question. gwickwiretalkedits22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All adminship is temporary. In this instance the candidate is declaring how temporary his adminship will be. ArbCom is a group of editors and each is at liberty to comment here, we definitely don't need an ArbCom ruling on this, it is a community action, not disallowed by policy or any board of trustees decision. If he refuses to resign once the case is closed, we will ask ArbCom to remove the bit and I (if I outrun the stampede of others) will initiate RfCU/Carrite with the purpose of banning him as not fit for this community. The content of the copyvioed pages is relevant: Richard ArthurNorton is likely to be sanctioned by the committee, and review of the deleted content by involved parties is the least he deserves. (The likelihood that Carrite's analysis will uncover anything affecting the case outcome is slim, though, considering Moonriddengirl's expert view on the matter, and his seemingly tenuous grasp of the issues.) I don't see what civility has to do with this. This is not the same thing as us allowing non-admins to view deleted pages: if this goes forward, he will be an admin. (Also, see Philippe's comment on the talk page of this RfA.) This is not a request for the community to override the Foundation/Board decision. If you believe he can't be trusted to look at deleted content, that's a sound reason to oppose, but none of your present rationale is, in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When there's arbitrators that oppose because of WP:TOOLMISUSE and other policies, yeah, I'm pretty sure my rationale above is valid. Philippe never said this was okay. He said that any deleted page viewerright would have to go through an RfA-style thing. I don't see this as an RfA. I see this as a way for a user to get the bit for one purpose for limited time, which isn't the spirit of adminship. True, adminship is temporary on the users side. But once we approve this user as an admin, they can keep the bit for as long as they want. Also, I'd like Coren or another arb's comment on this, but if the community approves an admin through an RfA, ArbCom has no power to take that away unless significant tool misuse or other issues arise. Not resigning the bit is not a significant enough issue for ArbCom to step in, it'd require an RfC. By that time, it's just going to be a hell of a job to try to get the bit removed. Like I said, I have no opposition to Carrite running a full real-style non-temporary RfA, in which, pending my questions answered, I'd lean support. Also, on the comment of "he will be an admin", no, he really won't in your world. He'll be an admin for one reason, a tool he thinks he needs, and then would be taken away. That's not an admin. An admin is someone elected by the community to perform the administrator tasks, or at least not misuse the toolkit, for as long as they have the toolkit. The community, in this election (for lack of a better word), expects that the user will actively participate in the adminship jobs. This participation can be limited, or they can only do admin tasks, but the point is the community elects it on them to have in case they need it. They aren't expected to just resign it after they use it for an unfair advantage in an ArbCom case. And if you don't see the civility issue, please see the thing linked one/two opposes above mine to a forum site with a user claiming to be Carrite. I would've overlooked that, however Carrite responded to a valid question regarding that with a red-linked version of Don't Feed The Trolls, which is again uncivil to call an established user a troll after being called out on something. Based on this, I'm still opposing. (If someone wishes to condense this or hat it with a short version, feel free to) gwickwiretalkedits16:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was a tough call on which I have reflected for a few days. In the end, I cannot support for reasons as put forth by Beyond My Ken above. Kierzek (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthonyhcole, I gave a very specific reason for my opposition. I understand that you disagree with it, and that's fine, but there's absolutely no call to attempt to invalidate it with namecalling. Kindly stop, your comments are rude and inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This fact is known to everyone here. It is made plain in the candidate's acceptance. Can you explain why this fact would disqualify the candidate? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This section a few weeks ago, on blocked user, Legolas2186's talk page, was uncivil. Legolas had been blocked for disruptive editing, and then Carrite proceeded with grave-dancing - and regardless of their intentions, I don't believe that is appropriate for anyone to engage in. Legolas was blocked, and Carrite should have left it at that. On the note of temporary adminship, nicely asking an administrator to to assist you in reviewing those articles you mention, is sufficient. — MST☆R(Chat Me!)03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I'm not comfortable with people requesting adminship to view deleted content for an arbitration case. That the candidate is here for this reason shows that his view of adminship differs from mine, to the extent that I don't think he would make a suitable admin. wctaiwan (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen Carrite around the traps and his editing is impressive. If he was applying for the admin tools in normal circumstances I'd probably support his nomination. However, I'm not comfortable with handing out the tools because he has a need to look at deleted pages - as other editors have noted above, there are others ways to do this, and it would set a terrible precedent (eg, editors who aren't in such good standing would also have a case to apply for the tools on these grounds). Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not per Writ Keeper, Fluffernutter, Moonriddengirl, and Coren. The viewdeleted tool is provided to assist with admin tasks and should never be given on its own. Since the sole purpose of this RfA is to gain (temporary) access to it, this is essentially a "can I see deleted edits" request and must be denied. – PhilosopherLet us reason together.06:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this user is a viewdeleted tool user wannabe... Anyway, I chose to oppose this RfA per those opposing statements above because of this user's only purpose is to view deleted pages which is not the sole responsibility of an admin. This RfA existed for an Arbitration Case only and that's nonsense I think. Mediran (t • c) 07:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, users with the This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday. userbox on their user page probably shouldn't go calling others "wannabes". A bit of self reflection is in order before one shows up to offer an opinion.Volunteer Marek12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All the opposes are convincing enough to prevent me from supporting Carrite, and the further comments by Prioryman lead me to believe I cannot trust a man who edits like that with the tools. Rcsprinter(tell me stuff) @ 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nomination acceptance statement alone already shows that in terms of judgement and temperament the candidate is not suited for adminship, whether temporary or permanent. An admin needs to be patient, level-headed, even with some ice in their veins, and Carrite is the opposite of that. He is too much of a drama magnet, and tends to shoot from the hip, without thinking things through. Also, as the RAN affair shows, Carrite really does not know how to drop a WP:STICK, which, in my book, is a required skill for any admin. Note that, as explained in this post by Hersfold~[20], Arbcom is working on finding a way to let the parties involved in the RAN abritration case see the deleted content relevant to the case. I am sure that they will work out something reasonable in this regard. If Carrite simply had the patience to wait and to work with the arbitrators on this issue, instead of plunging head-on in this ill-advised RfA, the huge amount of drama that we see on display here would have been avoided. There are other things in the nomination acceptance statement that I find disturbing. The entire tone about "good hard-working content creators vs the evil admin caste" is highly problematic. The first part of the nomination acceptance statement, with all sorts of extraneous and irrelevant detailed personal information included there, also looks pretty bizarre. What on earth does that fact that he is a "married straight male" have to do with the candidate's qualifications for adminship? Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Arbcom is working on finding a way". Thats quite naive. Did you see the Pontius Pilatus on this noms talk page. So in the same way Jimbo was promising in December that he would work toward a way this last, in the mirror, January? As for the personal info Carrite has given up; I view that as part of an attempt by him to say, look, this is me for better or worse, I think this, I want that. A refreshingly honest approach I haven seen often here from the corps. Compare that level of balls to Priority Mans's guilt by association speam campain. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose granting adminship for a specific purpose. I have tried to set aside my own views about the RAN case (where I think that such a long history of copyvio is a big big problem), and look at this in terms of any arbcom case, or any other community dispute (whether procedural of content-based). The result is that I just cannot see any way in which it is appropriate to seek adminship purely to help one side in a particular dispute, regardless of the nature of that dispute. That seems to me to be an inversion of the general purpose of adminship, which is to have access to a set of tools in order to impartially uphold the principles and procedures set by the community. I have not considered whether Carrite is in any other respect a suitable candidate for adminship; the discussion here has focused so heavily on other points that I don't feel I have enough info to make a judgement on the concerns raised. So if Carrite were to reapply without the request for "temporary" use of the mop, I'd reconsider ... tho if that happened, I would not count this ill-judged application as a mark in hir favour. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose My god, this has become another one of those toxic Rfas. I feel I must reluctantly add myself to this column based on the troubling diffs and accusations raised by Prioryman, and the candidate's answer to q12. Whatever Pman and his Gibraltar trip (are you kidding me?) represent, he is more than a mere troll and I would have liked to have seen an answer from the candidate, who I've come to respect at Xfd. And please, for his supporters, badgering and attacking the opposes is not helping your case, it is hurting it, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd sit here until I can revisit this. Usually, deleted material needs to be reviewed by the arbitrators, not the parties involved, and all arbs currently sitting at the Committee are administrators. Notwithstanding, I may consider this and give a proper comment later. Also, if you can ask another admin (or an arbitrator) to email you the deleted material, why ask for the bit. I'd be willing to support if you make this RfA a standard one. — ΛΧΣ2117:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these edits didn't involve copyvio then getting an admin or Arb to send him a copy would have been a good solution. But as they involve alleged copyvio that doesn't work. ϢereSpielChequers15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In normal circumstances I'd support giving Carrite the tools, but the somewhat pointy nature of this request bothers me. I'm neutral for now, but I may change my mind. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not meaning to badger a neutral !vote, but what is pointy about this? Carrite has stated that he needs to be able to view deleted material, and is working within the system as it currently stands to get that ability; if they were trying to get things changed for just them, I'd be inclined to agree that their behavior was a bit annoying, but what I see here is a pretty good-faithed attempt at working with our limitations. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that, several editors had suggested alternative means by which Carrite might access the necessary material. I see now that those are not feasible. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really is quite a strange request. If you were running for a mop that you were going to use and keep I would support. Wouldn't it be great if the permissions were split up a little bit more..... I'll come back to this just before the RFA closes. ·Add§hore·Talk To Me!18:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I have no doubt about your trustworthiness, and you're here because we unfortunately don't have a way to grant granular subpowers of the admin userright, I feel this request is a misuse of the RfA process. If you are accepted, I would hope that you keep the bit, even if you don't use it often, because there may well come a time when you need those abilities again and I don't think it's appropriate to return here each time and request the abilities. Having admin powers does not make you 'not a Wikipedian' or 'not a content contributor'; it just gives you some extra tools. If you think those tools might be of any continued use to you then I'd encourage you to remove the limitations on your RfA and continue with an open-ended possibility that you retain the userright. Ocaasit | c18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support For someone who wanted this RFA to be "as uncontroversial as possible"[21], I think you shouldn't have brought up the temporary use thing. In politics/elections, you could get burned out for doing so, and RFA is almost the same. I don't think you'll be a bad admin or abuse the tools at all, but that's why I'm not opposing. Mohamed CJ(talk)19:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. For me, the temporary thing is irrelevant. Do I trust him/her to be an administrator? If so, it doesn't matter to me how long the administrative tenure is. If not, then I would oppose adminstratorship of any tenure. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to thoroughly vet the candidate and I intend to come back to it. That being said, from the very little I've seen, it's looking good. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not a position I'm usually found in. Like some others in this section, I think Carrite would make a good administrator, even if, like Jason Quinn, he only made occasional use of the mop. He doesn't need to block people - he could continue at AfD but close ones that come down on the delete side of the scales (obviously, ones where he hasn't taken part...). Peridon (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Had this been a straight-up RFA, I'd probably be in the Support column; based purely on previous experience of him, I think Carrite has admin potential. However, granting adminship solely for the sake of an Arbcom case is a precedent I'm not comfortable setting. There has to be a better solution to Carrite's problem than this. Yunshui雲水 08:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Moved to Support. Yunshui雲水13:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IAR would just as easily and with considerably less drama support temporarily restoring the content behind the {{copyvio}} template, if this is necessary. I do this routinely for people who decide belatedly that they want to rewrite an article deleted for copyright problems and need the history to do so. Doing that would allow others who are not involved also a chance to review the content. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this neutral vote could be considered a "support" for the temporary granting of sysop tools for the purposes specified in the nomination statement; I can certainly trust Carrite with that. I would be opposed to granting him full adminship, so my hope is that he remains true to his word and resigns after the ArbCom case has ended. Kurtis(talk)19:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Looks like you mean well and are experienced, but your message to Jimbo saying you weren't interested in being an administrator leaves me stumped. Were you lying, or did you just suddenly change your mind? Either way, that puts me here; I'm not concerned enough to oppose, but I'm not convinced enough to support. Regards, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I believe this can be resolved by providing, for example, the Researcher right and should be determined by the ArbCom in assessing the needs of all participants in the case rather than here. QuiteUnusualTalkQu11:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wp:Researcher is for accredited researchers where we have the reassurance that they are supervised by their university ethics board or equivalent. But also the researcher right lets you "view deleted history entries but not to view the actual revisions of deleted pages" so I doubt that it would do what Carrite wants. It should be useful for researchers who want to know what namespace people's deleted edits were in, and may show whether their edits were deleted or were deletion tagging. But not the actual revisions and whether they were copyvio, close paraphrase or legit. ϢereSpielChequers16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This RfA looks more like a request for temporary sysop status for a specific need instead of a full-blown, regular RfA. Echoing another user's statement, maybe if the permissions were split up a bit more (e.g. rollback, autopatrolled) instead of one big admin package, things would be more convenient. —stay (sic)! 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
#Neutral My own experience with Carrite has been great. But as this Rfa is not only "temporary" (which many seem to be, anyway, in terms of long-term engagement with the tools) but also single-purpose, I'll let editors who are familiar with the merits of this Arbcom matter cast the deciding !votes. From what I gather, the unique nature of this request means that we need to evaluate not just the candidate, but the wisdom of what he intends to do to "investigate" this matter. And that is beyond my ken.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC) moved to Oppose[reply]
The above adminship 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.
