Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Primefac

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

Primefac

Final (151/7/5); ended 16:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Primefac for bureaucratship. I've been after him for the better part of a year to run for this, and he has finally said yes. Primefac has been an administrator for over two years now, and has been an oversighter since 2017. In that time he has steadily done much of the behind the scenes work that keeps this project running smoothly. He has been one of our most frequent and trusted closers of contentious RfCs, and he is able to weed through the noise and focus on the quality of arguments and policy like virtually no one else I've seen on this project. As an oversighter, he has been one of our most active, and his judgement there is able to help the lives of real people through that work. He is also a BAG member, and would be familiar with that aspect of bureaucrat work.

While there is an argument that we no longer need bureaucrats, so long as the group does exist, I strongly believe that it is important to have individuals who are familiar with current practice and community dynamics in the role, and I can't think of anyone better than Primefac to help step into that role. I hope you all will agree with me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Amorymeltzer

I am overjoyed to co-nominate Primefac today. I don't think he needs much of an introduction, but he's a kind editor, a trusted sysop, and a thoughtful member of the community. A sysop and an oversighter, I think Primefac's most valuable asset is his ability to explain a tough decision or hard close he's made. I've seen firsthand just how good his communication skills are — especially valuable as an OTRS member — and there is nobody better to craft a response to a sticky situation. I know when I see Primefac comment somewhere that it is guaranteed to be well-reasoned and convincing.

Primefac is probably most active as a regular at WP:TfD. I especially appreciate how often he puts in the effort to note the broader conversations or ongoings elsewhere that might be relevant to his close. He is also an active bot operator: User:PrimeBOT has over two dozen approved tasks. Primefac actively participates in and helps out at other bot discussions, which is why he joined BAG last year. I think it's safe to say he clearly understands the bot process!

In short, Primefac is one of the more trusted editors around. He has a good read on the pulse of the community and is excellent at conveying the process behind reaching a difficult judgment. I can think of no one I'd prefer making a difficult close. I think he'd make a great bureaucrat and I hope you will all join me in supporting him here! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate the nomination and I accept with thanks and gratitude. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have read through each of the 'crat chats since the implementation of the 65% discretionary range (1, 2, 3, and 4 if you're keeping score). The is no "one answer" on when to promote, as what was contentious in one chat (content creation, temperament, etc) was not necessarily found to be an issue in other discussions. I hesitate to say that I know it when I see it, but in my view the criteria for promotion comes down to whether the community feels that the issue(s) observed regarding an admin candidate are of great enough significance to negatively impact their ability to successfully be an admin. In other words, one must take not only the arguments, but the strength and support behind those arguments into account.

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

A: A potentially contentious close should be backed up by justification, as seen in the closes for Brianhe and Oshwah. In some of the opening statements of the 'crat chats, the OP will give their rationale for why they chose not to close unilaterally and instead open it up for discussion, which is equally as important. By providing rationale the closer can demonstrate that they're not just counting votes and can give their rationale for why/how specific arguments were promoted/discounted.

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

A: I've always prided myself in being a logical person, and if anything one could say that I like weighing pro/con lists to determine the best possible outcome. In any discussion it's not necessarily about who makes an argument or takes a position, but what is being said; if a valid argument is made, then it's a valid argument. I find myself constantly refreshing my memory of policies and guidelines when closing discussions, if only so I make sure that its use in a discussion is being made properly. I'm always open to discussion with other editors, and if I've done something silly I'm happy to fix it, undo it, or otherwise correct the mistake. Likewise, I prefer to extend the metaphorical olive branch if I'm seeing something that could be contentious or otherwise problematic; it's easier to leave a quick note than it is to have a situation get to the point where the "drama boards" are involved.

Additional questions from Nosebagbear

4. Could you give several examples of RfCs (Or equivalently complicated closes) where you provided what you felt were good closes in tough/non-clear circumstances?

A: In no particular order:

WP:AN - unblock request
Talk:Kshmr (permalink) - both sides were using the same policies and guidelines to make their claim. This close was later endorsed at MRV.
Talk:Canada - no one could agree on anything except the criteria for a file that may or may not actually exist.
WT:RFA - another case where no one could agree on anything except that something needed doing.
WT:MOSDATE - multi-option RFC that (thankfully) had enough people listing their order of preference to make a close
Talk:Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi - another multi-option RM that didn't have enough consensus to get any closer than a procedural relist between options A and B.

I'll be honest, there are a few TFD closes that I would like to add to this list, but unfortunately none of the names of those templates stick out enough in my mind to remember when they were closed. If I remember them I'll list them above.

Additional questions from xaosflux

Bureaucrats have various discretionary privlidges, please discuss how you would handle some of these situations:

5. A non-local interface editor, that is a global interface editor, adds new styling to mobile.css to hide some sort of secondary content element on articles (such as an navigation template or the like); another editor has asked the GIE to stop and explain their edits, but they do not reply and instead make an additional update. The complaining editor posts at WP:BN for help. How would you handle this?

A: The post alone at BN would not be sufficient for any immediate action to be taken; after looking to see if the complaint is valid and/or reasonable, I would follow the set procedures and ask the GIE a second time to stop. If they continue to edit, I would block the account, notify WP:BN as well as the meta:Stewards' noticeboard (or contact the stews via IRC if I were online at that time).

6. A bot operator requests copyvio-bot access for their new bot account at WP:BRFA, and a BAG member closes the discussion as "Speedy Approve" - mentioning that it is urgent and was discussed on IRC, then they request flagging at WP:BN. How would you handle this?

A: Interesting question. There's nothing in WP:CVBOT (or the bot policy in general), the VPP discussion, or at WP:CRAT that says there must be a discussion prior to approval. I trust the existing crew of BAG members, so barring any glaringly-obvious failures of WP:BOTREQUIRE I would likely approve the request. If I had concerns (be it "my gut", a requirement issue, etc) I would raise it in the BN discussion, just to make sure any amendments or clarifications aren't necessary.

7. An administrator asked for removal of their permission in 2008, saying they don't have time to participate. Since then they have made a few minor article edits (i.e. spelling fixes) every couple of years. They now have asked for restoration of access at WP:BN. How would you handle this?

A: I'd follow the steps at WP:RESYSOP: check they were an admin, that they didn't resign under a cloud, and that their edits are frequent enough to not fail the "three years with no edits" rule. If all is square, then it's just a case of waiting 24 hours to resysop and welcome them back (following an update to WP:RESYSOPS).

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. BAG members approve the bot and the Crats flag it and it is Two-man rule Will you both approve ( or be part of the discussion to approve the bot) and flag the Bot ?

A: No. (see Q11 for a bit more)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. An editor has retired an account and made a clean start for privacy reasons would it be necessary to disclose to the community that he has gone through a RFA in his previous account if wishes to run for RFA again or cratship or arbcom? Can you state the policy on this ?

A: Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship indicates there is no obligation to reveal a past account when running for any advanced permissions, though it is strongly encouraged.

Additional question from WJBscribe

10. Elaborating on 9 above - During an RfA, you learn the identity of the candidate's account prior to a "clean start". The old account previously failed RfA primarily due to having received seven blocks for edit warring, including for 3RR violations, and aggressive responses to other users when engaged in edit wars. The user created and started editing with their new account before they stopped editing with their old account - the two accounts overlapped for 4 months but never edited the same pages. The new account never edited during periods when the old account was blocked. The new account has been editing for 2 years without any blocks or obvious signs of edit warring or other problematic editing. It is 2 1/2 years since the failed RfA of the old account and 22 months since the old account's last block. What issues arise from this scenario? What, if anything, would you do?

(PS. This isn't a "right answer" question - I'm much more interested in how you unpack and analyse the issues than what you would do...)

A: Oh goodness, this is a lot to unpack. I'll try to keep it short(ish) and use bullet points to break up the paragraphs.

To answer the first question - the main issue arises of the undisclosed alternate accounts, the huge block log, and now in deceptively seeking positions of community trust (quoted from WP:SOCK). The community doesn't really think highly of that sort of behaviour, and giving a rather two-faced editor like that advanced permissions turns into a potential good hand/bad hand situation (which we've seen in the last couple of years with a few desysops and/or paid editing accounts)
I'm going to make a few assumptions, first that someone emailed (or otherwise contacted) me with details/evidence of the two accounts being linked (because I don't tend to do those sorts of investigations), or maybe someone sends a ticket to OS regarding an OUTING and it's these two accounts. Who knows, just that the evidence appears to be worth investigating (i.e. I've looked over it and it's not like a certain individual who keeps emailing the functs list insisting this account or that account is a sock). The way you've described it makes it sound like a few SPI cases I've seen where it's a one-in-a-million coincidence that the evidence was uncovered, but that it's also a slam dunk, so... I'm going to assume it's pretty irrefutable evidence.
First thing to check would be their activity - if both accounts have actively edited in the last six months I'd file an SPI and/or have a CU check to see if there is a technical connection (if the evidence itself was sensitive I'd send an email to the oversight list so the CU/OS members would have access). If there is one, then it's a straight-forward sock block. I might even email the OSers first to get their opinions on whether an SPI is even necessary. In all likelihood (based on past cases) we'd just block the account and call it good (after all, it's a slam dunk, right?). But, down the assumption rabbit hole we continue...
Assuming there was no technical evidence (or the old account hadn't edited in 6+ months) and the OS email comes back with a "ask them and see" sort of approach, then we get a little fuzzy in the timeline. There are basically three places I could discuss this with the user:

In an email; this gives them a chance to self-disclose (which may help their case) and keeps any private info private
On their talk page; there's still the issue of whether the information is public or private, but I might even do something as simple as asking them "what's your connected to <old account>?" and see how they respond.
On the RFA itself; asking the "please disclose any other accounts" question at RFA runs the risk of me basically turning their RFA into a circus (i.e. how do I disclose — especially if it's private info — without it looking like I'm just trying to tank their RFA?) when the Court of Public Opinion starts debating whether it's okay for the user to have two accounts, one of which was blocked, etc (there would definitely be conversations moved to the RFA's Talk page).

I keep flip-flopping on whether I'd do #1 or #2 first, but likely #1 just to see if they'll do the right thing (keeping in mind we've already passed the point of we're-not-going-to-unilaterally-block-you-for-these-issues-without-discussion).
Assuming they do do the right thing, then I've done my job and the Court of Public Opinion can deal with the rest.
Assuming they don't, then we get into the public/private information issue:

Assuming the content is public and I've gone through steps 1 and 2 above, I'd go to ANI regarding their past editing, and leave a comment at the RFA linking to the post. Job done (I'd of course stick around and answer any clarifying questions I would be able to).
Assuming the content is private, we've now hit the point where there are so many assumptions and unlikely scenarios that I honestly don't know what to do. It's compelling evidence (but not enough that a CU or OSer would block), but I can't publish it (so it's my word against theirs). I suppose if it got to that point I would contact ArbCom for their advice on the situation.

Interesting question, though; hope I satisfied you.

Additional question from Hhkohh

11. You are a BAG member, if you ~~close~~already comment in a BRFA for a new bot without a bot flag, will you go ahead to give them a bot flag (or/and an admin flag if it is an admin bot)?

A: No, unless I am commenting as a 'crat (e.g. if someone had a procedural question).

This appears to be a repeat of Q8. –xeno^talk 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshed. Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hhkohh

12. If a non-admin obviously wrongly close a TfD, What will you do?

A: First, discuss the matter with them on their talk page; it could have just been a mistake. If they don't reverse, I'd revert per WP:BADNAC giving my rationale for why the discussion is being re-opened. If by chance I'm somehow INVOLVED in the situation, I'd instead bring it to DRV following the initial user talk discussion.

Additional question from Hhkohh

13. If an RfA S% is 70, what is your choice and what will you do in crat chat?

A: Regardless of the percentage, I would read through and weigh the opinions presented by both sides in order to make an informed decision on how the community feels about the admin candidate. 70% falls right in the middle of the discretionary range so it would be a question of whether the arguments made by those opposing outweigh the arguments made in support (or in rebuttal to those opposed).

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

14. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?

A: An interesting question, one which I hesitate to answer with a blunt "no". The job of a 'crat is to weigh consensus at RFA and ensure bot requests follow the community norms before granting any bot flags. There isn't much room for a supervote in a 'crat chat (it would either be ignored, voted down, or otherwise result in consequences), nor would it be acceptable to ignore policies and grant a bot flag. A 'crat is of course expected to use their best judgement in the above matters, but how any given 'crat interprets the policies and guidelines cannot really be considered "IAR" in the truest sense of the expression. Every decision needs to be based on either policy or consensus (or both). If as a 'crat I needed to justify a decision with "because I say so" then I'm not doing what I was authorized to do.

Additional question from Davidelit

15. Hi. I have been an editor since 2006, and have over 7,500 edits to my name, but have no interest in going for Admin because of the confrontational and humiliating (and hoop-jumping) application process. I have been in contact with other editors who feel the same. Do you have any thoughts about ways to improve the process so it is still rigorous enough to ensure that only the right people get the job, but that is a bit more friendly to those who stick their heads above the parapet?

A: That's a difficult question to answer, mostly because there have been dozens of editors over the last few years that have had some major discussions about it, often without any end result. Because everyone has their own strengths we cannot simply make a "check list" (though obviously many make their own personal criteria), but that means that there will be some necessary hoop-jumping. I also don't think we can force anyone to "be nice" or have unrealistic expectations or not say something potentially hurtful (though obviously insults can be struck or otherwise removed). I suppose we could go with a closed system like with ArbCom, but then we run the risk of losing transparency. I hate to dodge the question a little bit, but there are just so many thoughts and variables (and consensuses to build) that I cannot really answer it in 1000 bytes.

Additional question from Leaky

16. Do you regard this application as an application for "promotion"?

A: Not really. I am honored and appreciative of the support of those who nominated me (and in the case of Tony, bugged me for over a year to go for it), but I never set out to become a 'crat. I expect no accolades; there's a job that needs doing and people who feel I am a good candidate for that job, which is why I accepted the nomination. Another reason why I don't really see it as a promotion is because being a 'crat doesn't give an editor any more "power" in the day-to-day operations of improving Wikipedia; my voice in a conversation holds just as much weight as an editor who joined the day before yesterday (sure, I may know more about policy than that editor, but when it comes to building consensus they are still entitled to their opinions and are welcome in the conversation).

Additional question from Xeno

17. Please provide your thoughts/opinions on User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul.

A: My initial thought was "wow that's a complicated process!" immediately followed by "that's a great idea." I never really thought about reforming RFA from the "back end" of the process, and I think it's a really well-thought-out proposal. I completely agree that part of the issue at RFA is that people feel it's essentially "for life" with no reasonable method of recall/desysop short of the drama-fest that is ArbCom. By making a complicated-yet-reasonable process, it will decrease the number of "revenge" nominations while still allowing for reasonable concerns to be brought to light. Of course, the proposal could maybe be simplified further a bit; I say this mainly because of dealing with PERMs, where even our "easy come easy go" attitude rarely results in someone losing their perms.

It's definitely a really good place to start, though; if people with concerns know that there exists a method for keeping admins in check, they might be more willing to overlook (or less strongly oppose) those issues.

Additional question from MarginalCost

18. Should Bureaucrats give more weight to comments from more experienced or respected users in evaluating RfA discussions? If so, how should that be measured (time, edit count, reputation)? (Ignore for the moment suspected sockpuppets or extremely new users.)

A: Ideally no. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of who made it (and regardless of whether it is made in support or opposition). A respected user might sway the opinions of other users, but it is the role of the bureaucrats to determine if overall weight of arguments presented, not just the opinions of any one editor.

Discussion

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

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

Support

Whether we need the role or not in the longrun, while we have the role we should have people like Primefac be one. He's a credit to the project and I am pleased to support him here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great editor. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Jianhui67^T★C 17:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two RfBs in the space of a month? This must be some kind of record. (Hopefully this isn't an April Fool's nom, seven hours too early; although it's been 1 April for a few hours in some countries.) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Primefac always shows thought and care while closing discussions. While the role of the 'crat has been reduced over time, it is still necessary to have a broad and active group of bureaucrats. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial to the point of blandness, and knows when to dig in and when to accommodate others' views. I'm less than convinced we need to have crats at all, but as long as we still have them Primefac is exactly what they should be. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need 'crats that are actively engaged with the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The phrase "better late than never" springs to mind. ——SerialNumber54129 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sure, will probably be able to read, interpret, and implement the relevant policies. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whenever I see that name in my watchlist, I just skip over it, confident the matter will be well-handled. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duuuh. As the guy who persuaded Primefac to run for a second RfA which was successful, I had full confidence in him then, and that has been strengthened by his excellent skills as an administrator since. Give him the screwdriver (or whatever tools 'crats use). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always picture them with a giant light switch to hand. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LindsayH and Ritchie333: - I've always assumed the reason they had 2 tools was just because there wasn't a firm consensus for one or the other and, being 'Crats, that couldn't be allowed. Fiat consensus fieri ruat caelum Nosebagbear (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Certainly Full confidence this is right. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly. Cabayi (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support—passes my criteria — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns, good to go. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Nihlus 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Helpful and civil in all the interactions I've seen. Schazjmd (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thoughtful and levelheaded editor. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Also per Beeblebrox. —DoRD (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, helpful and well mannered ~~ JJBullet 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – thoughtful, responsive, seems to take every editor seriously and is willing to make tough decisions but to make them carefully and to explain them well. Leviv ich 20:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bradv🍁 20:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see one for years and then two come along... Anyway, yes, Primefac seems ideal Crat material to me, pretty much as per what everyone else has said above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a good editor to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support no risk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As enthusiastic co-nom. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason against this. The nominee has definitely proven himself worthy. Noah^Talk 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted admin, calm, thoughtful. Huge positive. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Iri. Nick (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support CLCStudent (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problems. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Exercises good judgment. A spot check revealed no issues. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will be as good a 'crat as they are an admin. Miniapolis 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely!--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great editor. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natureium (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An asset to the 'pedia and this will enhance that. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Having looked through your two RfAs, a few administrators pointed out that you seemed to have trouble in the AfD area. However, this was a long time ago, and you seem like a good choice for a crat otherwise, so I'm going to support based on the assumption that it won't happen again. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been off-wiki for an extended period, and the fact I remember this user positively is certainly a good sign. –Sb 2001 23:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms ~Awilley (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Vermont (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Primefac's work as the de facto coord of AfC is already more than enough to convince me that there is nothing standing in the way of him having the bureaucrat bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. — 🦊 00:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No doubts at all. Primefac is one of Wikipedia's awesome people! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I gave this lengthy consideration given Primefac's relatively short tenure as a 'crat, but I have no concerns about his ability to fulfill the role. bd2412 T 00:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
erm... I think you meant "admin" there, BD2412. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes I did. bd2412 T 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hope this doesn't mean the time he spends in other areas where we really need him will be drastically limited. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support per noms--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Unparalleled judgement, technical knowledge, and attention to detail. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns and I trust Primefacs judgement! -- Dane ^talk 01:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ideal candidate. -- Begoon 02:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but next time, wait until April 2. --Rs chen 7754 02:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasure to work with Primefac. Lourdes 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% Sro23 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have never seen the candidate before, but based on the answers to the questions, I say I would have been proud to nominate them. But in all honesty, I have same concerns as of Atsme. But on second thoughts, crats arent that busy either. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 07:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No concerns and I consider the second oppose to be an issue of semantics rather than whether or not to trust Primefac with 'crat. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed this one. Definitely support--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good candidate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obv. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In general I am really not a fan of this kind of rapid "promotion," if I may be excused the expression. Less than three years tenure as an admin would normally provoke an oppose (or neutral at best) from me. But Primefac is such an outstanding admin, coupled with my respect for the noms, that I am making an exception. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted name. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No-brainer. A dedicated member of our community who can do a lot of good with the bureaucratic toolset. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted admin, no concerns. aboideau^talk 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly capable of perform 'crat duties with equanimity and competence. Also able to listen carefully and accept criticism with grace. Clearly cares deeply about the welfare of Wikipedia and it's goals. Waggie (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great contributor with unequalled judgement. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support Good luck. 1989 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others have noted, Primefac has been an admin for a relatively short period of time but their excellence in that role surpasses an expectation for a longer tenure. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted, competent, and per Q3, an ideal candidate for the job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have seen nothing but good work from this editor and I trust him. No issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support no concerns Hhkohh (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressed by Primefac's light touch. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best of luck.--Mona.N (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the best! Tolly 4 bolly 09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great editor, no objections to the candidate becoming a 'crat. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 09:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good contributions and good answers to questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Consistently shows good judgement, and in my experience takes time to explain decisions clearly. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine admin and will make a fine 'crat.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support Primefac is the ideal candidate and will be a great crat! Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted editor. FitIndia ^Talk 13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No negative incidents from this user as far as I can remember. SemiHypercube 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Clearly an appropriate candidate. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the response to Q4 was one of the best provision of examples Ive seen in any RfX. I don't really feel qualified to comment on the 'Crat/BAG discussion so I've had to discount that from my considerations. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No brainer. Thorough, careful, thoughtful, and has sound judgment. ceranthor 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one of the best. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find a reason "Why not?" Best of luck to you, and thank you for volunteering. —Amiodarone ^talk 20:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clueful, representative of the current community, and WP:100. J 947^{'s public account} 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear thinker, with a good grasp of policies and practices. I would trust his judgement without reservation. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I particularly like the answer to Q10. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Primefac will do a fine job as bureaucrat. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Best of luck to you. :) Neovu79 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Qualified & trusted. --rogerd (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Katie^talk 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked this candidate's answers to RfB question 9 and RfA question 7. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right sort of editor for the job.Jacona (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My few interactions with Primefac have all been positive, and I just spent a fair amount of time looking at his edit history. I think he would be a great addition to our 'crat corps. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Especially useful asset to the crat team because of his bot experience. He will be well-positioned to actually know what he's doing when he hands out bot flags. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Editor is value-add to this project, and I cannot think of a reason not to support this nomination. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a lot of time for Primefac. He an exceedingly industrious, kind and fastidious editor who seems to be everywhere and is one of core group that is holding up the roof at Afc. I hope he continues his good work. ;8) scope_creep^Talk 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns, seems to be a good admin who'll make a great 'crat vwilding ^talk 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The candidate has the skills, experience, and trust necessary to carry out bureaucrat tasks.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - without equivocation.--John Cline (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- absolutely. Quality admin, good judgment. Give them a raise too, while we're here. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support has been supportive to newbies, consistent admin activity, and also per noms. KCVelaga (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted administrator, good record, good judgment, good temperament. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly worthy of it. Bingobro (Chat) 08:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comes across as competent, fair and hard-working. Davidelit (Talk) 08:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has many clues, and the opposes don't raise anything that concerns me. The closest is the "check and balance on BAG" one, but the candidate's answer wasn't wrong or wrong-headed, just not as far to one side as the opposer would like. The content-contribution stuff isn't 'crat-relevant. The rest of it just seems kind of extraneous to me, or a matter of personal interpretation. The community ban thing I would have to look into in more detail, if if they community itself has accepted Primefac's solution, then there seems to be no actual issue (cf. WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shurely you mean iff. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This candidate is almost too logical in their application of written guidelines, but that's what we want from a bureaucrat. Deryck C. 11:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more 'crats. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No doubt. Thank you Primefac. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A trustworthy and qualified candidate. I'm not persuaded by the arguments about length of tenure. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No-brainer. ∯WBG^converse 06:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well-argued responses to the questions combined with track record as an admin show the kind of judgement required. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have confidence they will do the role with no issues. A consider friendly admin, and if a case were the community disagreed with an action they had taken showed the abilty to listen to others and not just defend their position. I believe they will do the role with due diligence and consideration KylieTastic (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No good reason not to. /Julle (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A good and trustworthy admin, no issues with him becoming a crat. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hell Yeah/About time Tazerdadog (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well-argued responses + admin record. Balabinrm (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns --IM3847 (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perhaps not perfect, but good enough. Probably way better than good enough. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with some editors that becoming a crat already may be a bit fast but I have confidence that it'll go well. Yintan 14:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support. CThomas³ (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Candidate is clearly trustworthy and qualified. Concerns regarding tenure are wholly unconvincing. ebbillings (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support stwalkerster (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Impressive nominators, opposes are wholly unconvincing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Candidate is trustworthy of the tools. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to oppose. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the candidate's good record. AGK ■ 13:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust the nominators as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Having seen Primefac's work over the years, I have no doubt on their judgment and ability to carry out the duties expected from a bureaucrat. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One last one from me, Primefac's a cool guy who deserves the big B.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Besides seeing this as happening too early and thus WP:NOTQUITEYET (for coming a bureaucrat), I have seen concerns arise from the ways in which Primefac has executed their discussion closes in their administrative capacity. I have major concerns with Primefac's attitude toward closing discussions to an extent to where they seem to not even consider the discussion itself and show off a "It's my way or the highway" mentality. In addition, Primefac has closed discussions that resulted in additional on-wiki drama where it did not seem that Primefac took enough action after their close to figuratively "douse the flame" they started. (See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Page move.) So, with these concerns in mind, I have little to no confidence that migrating these behaviors into a bureaucratic role are a positive to the community, and thus I must oppose this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to "douse the flame" if a close is essentially uncontested. Primefac promised to undo the close if there were significant opposition at WT:RS, and insignificant opposition seems too weak to overturn a RfD move. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on answers to my questions above. In Q6, I expect 'crats to be a check-and-balance with BAG, but your response feels like you would have acted as a rubber stamp for BAG. At the very least I expect 'crats to ensure that new bot that can tag other people's edits as potential copyright violations is well documented and discussed on-wiki, such as how it may interact with other such bots. In Q7, this seems like another rubber stamp situation, where at the very least I'd expect that would need to coordinate a discussion with some vocal community opposers (as have been raised on prior such requests). I expect 'crats to follow community policies, but also to keep in mind that 'not acting' upon or otherwise challenging requests may be the best course of action, at least initially. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
—usernamekiran(talk) 06:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I can easily echo some of the supporter comments above that it is usually a pleasure to work Primefac throughout the project, including on BAG, and wish him well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yay! You guys are back in the tree again! —usernamekiran(talk) 15:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, as a matter of interest, what would your response be to the scenario in Q6? To be fair for the candidate, it would probably be make sense to imagine yourself a recently promoted bureaucrat for the purpose of your answer... WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux I must agree with the others. I don't see crats doing anything but rubber-stamping actions. You may see this differently because you yourself are BAG, thus have the authority to approve and flag. Recall Maxim recently was admonished for using his discretion as a crat. Crats are supposed to follow policy to the letter, which gives them very little room to use their judgement. If ArbCom says to remove the bit, the crats will remove the bit. If BAG says to give this bot a flag, they will. Why? Because each authoritative body has a unique skillset that qualifies them to do so. BAG has a technical skillset to understand how bots work, assess the operators competence, and be able to predict how the community will respond to said bot provided there's a lack of discussion. ArbCom because they have been entrusted by the community to fairly solve complex disputes and issues, especially regarding private matters. Bureaucrats are entrusted to hold the high trust of the community as enforcers/followers of policy, and handing out sysop when they believe it is okay to do so at the request of the community.Cp678 ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: actually Maxim was not admonished (by ArbCom at least) in that matter. But in any case, "not acting" is not the same as acting against standards. I was not looking for a {{not done}} type response on these questions, more so that they warranted additional exploration and how that may have taken place. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: I would have kicked it back to BAG for additional consideration, there is very little that actually is urgent on Wikipedia - so I'd take that claim as suspect (the red flags being off-wiki discussion and speedy approval). Copyviobots are rare (there is only 1 running right now) and could easily interfere with each other, so I would be looking to see that the BRFA discussion was well advertised and attended to. As far as the "recently promoted" consideration, I'd also have been more comfortable with a response indicating a non-decline action such as deferring to a larger discussion. I don't expect even half of our seasoned 'crats to be very familiar with that access group, but as a current BAG member I expect Primefac to be, and that when processing such a request as a 'crat ensuring that BAG members have taken due care in the review and approval process is important to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Community sanctions cannot be removed by a single admin as they require community consensus on WP:AN. Primefac went against the policy when he removed the community imposed topic ban on an editor. BukhariSaeed was unblocked "with a topic ban on saints and religious figures (broadly construed) and a requirement that all new pages go through WP:AFC," after a discussion on WP:AN which was itself controversial as Primefac, who was the closing admin, deemed there was consensus to unblock when there were 8 opposes and only 11 support towards unblock.[1] In the closure, Primefac said "Both of these restrictions can be appealed after six months", and contrary to his words, Primefac unilaterally removed the topic ban on Bukhairsaeed from article creation without initiating discussion on WP:AN first.[2] Not to mention that the user in question was violating copyrights as recently as 3 months before the removal.[3] This is clear evidence of abuse of admin tools by Primefac and that's why I cannot trust him with B-Crat right. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm; the community did not support (or, FWIW, reject) PFac's additional unblock condition; it was of his own design and was explicitly clarified in the closure. So, revoking the page-creation-ban, out of his own will, was perfectly policy-compliant. Usual ARBIPA shit-fest. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not within WP:BAN. Primefac interpreted both restrictions as "Per this discussion"[4] which means he is not allowed to overturn either without community consensus but still he did. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose countersigned the closure of the first Daily Mail RfC barely 24 hours after it was created. This isn't due process for wide RfCs, thus I have concerns that he does not understand how community processes work. --Pudeo (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pudeo, I can't understand what you mean by "barely 24 hours after it was created". That's not evident in the link you've provided. Am I missing something? Warmly, Lourdes 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mixed up the months. The RfC did in fact run for a month. But the closure was contested at AN regardless and the strong wording of Yunshui and Primefac was criticized: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive287#Closed. Eventually a 2nd RfC was held. So I struck my oppose, but voters should be aware of the closure of this landmark RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Softlavender. The last successful RfB was for DeltaQuad, who has been an admin for about eight years; long enough to know the history of promotion standards. Primefac is a fine admin, but just doesn't have the experience I expect. Jonathunder (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per admin criteria. While a Crat is not an Admin, they almost always have to have been an Admin to start with, and content creation remains the reason for WP. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, are you checking the wrong name? Primefac is an admin, and has over 50,000 content edits. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any featured or good articles created by Primefac. He's not on the list of editors who have nominated a featured article, but there is not a comparable list for good articles. I'm aware that there could be some that he took to that level, and I'm willing to change to support, but I would have to see those articles first. The fact that Primefac is already an admin has no bearing on this, there are far too many admins that don't have a clue on content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I think I mentioned on the RfA where I nominated Primefac, his principal contribution (or at least the one I noticed) is Astronomical spectroscopy where's he's contributed about 60% of the prose. I don't think he's been particularly interested in getting it passed through GA, and to be fair not everyone likes the process as the results are somewhat variable and the criteria can be arbitrary - sure, if you can cite everything to an inline source, great, but at the moment I'm stuck on improving Kensington (Olympia) station because it needs book sources I don't have. I quite like it because I don't trust my own writing quality and prefer to get an honest second opinion that it's actually "good", but not everyone has the same views. I've never had a solo FA pass, I don't think I've got the patience to hold down a review for the two month window where it sits in FAC, I just get bored with it and lose interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My criteria is either one FA or two GAs. If you don't have that, I'll oppose an RfA or RfB. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't demand several high-level content baubles for sysops, but I think it's a reasonable demand and respect those who do; for bureaucrats, though, I don't think it's particularly germane. Bureaucrat is about trust and judgment, and there's nothing in the toolset that interacts with content. The closest connection is that the bot flag may be added to or removed from bots editing in the mainspace, but but approval is through BAG, not bureaucrats. Ideally I'd like my bureaucrats to be capable of everything, sure, but a good 'crat would spend a lot of time interacting with the background processes and discussions going on in projectspace and talkspaces. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer to have a longer time of admin experience before promotion to bcrat. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's hard for me to find myself in this section, because I really think Primefac is a good administrator and a fine contributor, and has shown himself to be a reliable and solid oversighter. But I don't think he's had enough experience for this role (I'm looking for at least 3 years as an admin), particularly as we already have an overabundance of bureaucrats. I might have considered things differently if there was any indication on the part of Primefac to focus almost exclusively on BAG, which doesn't get the same attention as RFA, but I'm just not seeing it. I realize this is probably spitting into the wind here, and I'm also aware that one of the reasons people choose to "not notice" RfA/RfB of users who they feel aren't ready for a role is that they don't want to adversely affect what is otherwise a good collegial working relationship. (In this case, not only am I a fellow oversighter with Primefac, the same is true of both of the nominators.) So guys...this really isn't a dig against any of you, and I hold you all in high regard. Risker (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Two years as an admin is just too little for me in this day and age to transition to cratship. The user has plenty enough hats already; we don't need any more bureaucrats; and so forth. I might feel differently in another year or so. Softlavender (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what SL says (particularly as she's said it betterer than what I could). - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tenure isn't enough for me to oppose - but it does keep me from supporting. Steel1942 and xaosflux also make convincing arguments.--v/r - T P 01:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due to concerns about tenure. GAB^gab 08:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral FWIW I see a lot of positive things, but also some matters mentioned above hold me back from the support section. I agree with TParis—tenure isn't enough to oppose, though perhaps more sysop time is needed to refine admin/crat skills. d ross (c · @) 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I personally agree with your general sentiment of using common sense and good judgement, Xaosflux, but I was under the impression that crats were not supposed to ignore community policies at all, but adhere to them closely. When they don't do this, there tends to be an outcry from the community (or at least the portion that disagrees with the action). For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder#Findings of fact #9 resulted in a reminder from Arbcom for a WP:IAR action from a 'crat. Additionally, I think the problem with Q6 is that it's hypothetical and not based on real world events, which would give us further information as to what the correct cause of action would be. Q7 would undoubtedly result in wailing and gnashing of teeth from many users, not least Beeblebrox (I think I'm on solid grounds saying this as he's expressed this view many times) but I think it would be consistent with what 'crats are expected to do.Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of flaggings, xaosflux intentionally asked in Q6 about copyviobot, but it's worth noting that for the typical bot flag, WP:BOTPOL and WP:CRAT are slightly different, with the former saying bureaucrats will and the latter saying bureaucrats may. Wikipedia:Bot policy has since 2008 and 2010 said "will" (Bot accounts will be marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request and Should the task be approved, the "bot" user group flag will be assigned by any bureaucrat...). Indeed, WP:BOTPOL explicitly gives to bureaucrats and expects of them much more meaningful discretion when it comes to adminbots, stating that [t]he bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus..., which suggests the continued use of will for typical bots is intentional. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, on the other hand, has since 2011 said "may" (Bot flags may be granted or removed in accordance with the bot policy, often on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group). The changes stretch back to when we started flagging all active bots rather than just some, but if a reasonable reader could take will and may to mean different things, the two pages are in disagreement about the level of discretion expected by bureaucrats. The VPP discussion allowing crats to manage copyviobot asked that bureaucrats be allowed to issue and revoke this flag in the same manner as the bot flag (emphasis added), which would suggest that when it was added to WP:BOTPOL, it likely should have used will rather than may, although admittedly the two points in the discussion are, in light of the above paragraph, similarly unclear. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats have no special veto power over bot flagging but if a bureaucrat noticed a significant issue with the BRFA (e.g. consensus for a controversial task not demonstrated, or the task violated some unconsidered policy or guideline), they may decline to grant the bot flag at that time and send it back for (wider, if necessary) BAG/community attention. (I would consider the “rubberstamping” of such a bot to be a lapse in bureaucrat diligence.) –xeno^talk 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Primefac said "If I had concerns (be it "my gut", a requirement issue, etc) I would raise it in the BN discussion, just to make sure any amendments or clarifications aren't necessary." which sounds in line with your views. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complicated bit of process. The authority of bureaucrats/BAG are more parallel than one having authority over the other. BAG is a creation of the community, which predates the ability of local bureaucrats to grant/remove bot flags. I think if you ask BAG members whether they would like a bureaucrat to refuse to flag and remit to BAG for further community discussion if they spot an issue (e.g. a policy issue that has been missed, or a query about the extent of consensus for a particular task), they will say "yes" and that they expect us to do just that. If you asked whether ultimately bureaucrats can overrule BAG once they've considered the issue, responded to it and have agreed that a bot ought to be flagged (which has never happened!), I suspect the answer may be somewhat different. You may also get a different view if (as in Q6) the request was stated to require urgent action. In reality, moving away from the language of any policy, I would agree that it is a "checks and balances". That said, Q6 was a very difficult exam question particularly as it included the need for an urgent response. WJBscribe (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: You appear to have asked three questions; I thought procedure was now for a limit of two each. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: the question limit is only for RfA's. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above bureaucratship 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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights