Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 24 May 2007 (→Discussion: Support, conditionally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:44, 24 May 2007 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: Support, conditionally)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Gracenotes

Voice your opinion (102/24/4); Scheduled to end 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes (talk · contribs) - I am honoured at being able to nominate Gracenotes for adminship. Since he joined in September 2005, he has gained over 11,000 edits, although he only really became active in October 2006. His edits are firmly spread across a wide range of namspaces, with nearly 1,500 of those being in wikipedia space. Some may argue Gracenotes is the parser king with his excellent template work, the mop would help perfect all those protected templates. His MediaWiki talk space edits show he has a firm understanding of how wikipedia works (how many people can say they actually have any MediaWiki space edits?!). He is active at the help desk showing that he assumes good faith and steps in to help all those users that have problems. He's got very good contributions to XfD's and I think Grace's home will be closing those neglected TfD's. His mainspace contributions show that he has a firm understands of our inclusion criteria/guidlines and would be quite capable of enforcing policy when required. On top of all that - he's a nice guy! I really hope you can help me give Gracenotes the mop - he will be more than an asset to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Co-nom by Snowolf: Nothing unusual, just I wanted to nominate Gracenotes but Ryan did it before me ;-). As always, I think that we can trust this user with a couple of extra buttons ;-)Good luck! «Snowolf » 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs): It was just in fact a few days ago that I asked why Gracenotes did not want to nominated for adminship. I mean, from what I saw, he was better qualified than most of our admins were when they went up for adminship. As Ryan stated, Gracenotes has a thorough knowledge of the inner workings of the Misplaced Pages interface, and he definitely can be an asset in editing MediaWiki pages. As for admin chores, one can easily see that Gracenotes will be very helpful at closing TfDs, granting/denying RFPP requests and handling AIV requests. Gracenotes has the experience that we look for in our candidates, and he surely demonstrates a need for the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I prefigure that most of my admin work will be maintenance: for example, deleting broken redirects and temporary user pages, looking for high-risk templates that need protection or semi-protection, reviewing Special:Protectedpages for pages for which unprotection is overdue, several other janitorial tasks, and essentially whatever comes my way. I plan on going through CAT:CSD, and helping fellow Prometheuses with the task of clearing it out. :) Fulfilling or declining protected edit requests, seeing if administrator intervention against vandalism is needed, and responding to requests for page protection are things I'd be excited to do. I also plan on continuing my non-admin wikignoming, template work, et cetera.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: My general attitude regarding contributing to Misplaced Pages is helping where assistance or improvement is needed, and then looking for more places to help when I'm done or when I feel that other editors can handle the problem without me. My contributions to mainspace are mostly wikignomish in nature, but I am nonetheless proud of them. I am particularly fond of the early development of 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (diff, diff), wikifying, and expanding several articles. I'm also a copyeditor: for example, see Zaireeka, Maine Summer Youth Music, Red rain in Kerala, Einstein-de Haas effect, just to mention a few. I also work to ensure compliance, trying to keep Misplaced Pages connected with other WMF projects, and formatting refs. All of this is pretty minor, but there's a lot of it, and I feel as though I've overall made Misplaced Pages more useful and complete as an encyclopedia.
Another area of my contribution is the template namespace. I thoroughly enjoy trying to get templates to work with ParserFunctions: for example, {{Template shortcut}} {{User warning set}}, {{Infobox World Series}} (most recently), and {{Infobox School}}, among others. More importantly, I am a member of the user warning project, where I've had the opportunity to create, modify, and otherwise improve the templates that Misplaced Pages's vandal-fighters use every day.
And last but not least, I help clean up vandalism. Certainly not least: I believe that, by volume, I have more vandal reversions and user warnings than any other sort of edit. Maintaining the integrity of our articles is, I believe, very important (although less important than writing them), both for quality-related and legal reasons. I've written a couple of scripts that I've used to (well, I hope I've used them to) improve Misplaced Pages, including this one for reverting vandalism.
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: Most of my work is improvement, and I tend to dislike wikipolitics, so, as the Scottish RFA puts it, I don't often "feel that ither uisers hae caused ye pain". I do remember my first conflict, over my 6th edit (thankfully not indicative of future interactions with editors); a record of the discussion can be found at Talk:Newton#More Newton Definition Things. I do attend TFD debates often, and can get into disputes about whether templates should be kept or not. However, both at TFD and in general, I try to keep discussion logical and based upon improving content and reaching consensus (preferably, though, the consensus I want :]), not on other users' faults or strengths. I usually only become wikistressed by observing wonkery, a subjective phenomenon. However, I do not see that often, and have neither reason nor desire to recall such actions or hold grudges against those that did them.
4 (additional question from SlimVirgin):
Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please? SlimVirgin 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A: Certainly. I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Misplaced Pages.
I came to view the proposed WP:BADSITES as an extension of our policy on No Personal Attacks, as several others did. Personal attacks are restricted on Misplaced Pages, but not on other websites, where nonconstructive criticism has no consequences. (This can be compared to Misplaced Pages, where action can be taken upon personal attacks.) If posting a link to an attack site is intended, in any way, to be a personal attack in itself, then Wikipedians may wish to rephrase or remove their comments. If the issue brought up by the attack site is valid, surely Wikipedians can discuss it on-wiki.
In the discussion at WT:BADSITES, I thought it unhelpful for editors to either add or remove links merely to make a point; I was also frustrated by the enforcing of a proposed policy for cases without a clear personal attack.
To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Misplaced Pages (if rules make you nervous or depressed...) Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith. Both adding and removing links should be justified by logic, and not by enforcement merely for the sake of enforcement (something I see way too much in real life). Temperance, rather than prohibition, is the best route. (There has not been an amendment enforcing morality since the 18th, and for good reason.)
To conclude, it is an interesting fact that (to my knowledge) MeatballWiki has no articles on dealing with external sites of criticism. Wikis are meant to be their own self-sufficient world, taking care of their own problems, not meant to be in the real world. However, Misplaced Pages no longer has that option: the recognition of this is helpful in dealing with such sites. Now, if these comments seem without focus, it is because the issue has many, many facets. Hopefully I've explained my views on the facets you're interested in.
4a (clarifying question from Geogre:
For the record, I'm not thrilled with those links being part of WP:NPA, but your answer above conjured a situation where links to attacking/non-encyclopedic sites were made in good faith. Can you think of an example where such an addition has been made, or can you describe a hypothetical where such a link could be made in a way that it adds to encyclopedic coverage? I have not followed all the debates on the subject, and I would imagine some of the voters have not, either, so an example would really help. Geogre 11:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope Geogre won't mind if I jump in here. Any example should be either hypothetical or given without details that would violate someone's privacy. My stalker's website, with his sexual fantasies about me, his references to parts of my body, his speculation about my menstrual cycle, and various other personal (including contact) details for me and members of my family (some accurate, some not) was taken down after a year of severe real-life stalking in which people other than myself got (badly) hurt, and after the stalker was arrested by police. But to use my case as a hypothetical one, if that site were still up (and yes, it did have some pages that weren't of a stalking nature), it would be completely inappropriate to post a diff here of someone linking to it, in order to discuss when links might be appropriate or inappropriate, as that would simply be a continuation of the violation of me. We had an RfA a few months ago in which the candidate repeatedly named a website so that voters could find it and see if he had been right to link to it previously, as he was getting oppose votes as a result of his previous linking to it. The site that he was naming gave the real name (or what may be the real name) of a Wikipedian who was trying to remain anonymous (and had various attacks on Wikipedians), and the RfA had to be deleted and partially restored. Musical Linguist 11:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Musical Linguist, with all due respect, I don't know if your comment here belongs underneath of a question intended for an RfA candidate. Moreover, the ordeal you went through sounds horrific, but note that I have learned more about your incident from you than any other source on the internet. daveh4h 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I don't think Musical Linguist's concern is that you shouldn't find out what happened to her; her concern was simply that it happened. The point is that editors who have been stalked and harassed need to know that admins will protect victims of that kind of behavior, and not increase the readership of the attackers' websites by linking to them. SlimVirgin 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, SlimVirgin. Dave, I assure you I'm capable of thinking this through. For over a year, I never posted publicly about this, partly because I knew that people could become curious and start looking for my stalker's site, but mainly because everything I posted was being tracked, and I would be likely to get a gloating, sexually sadistic e-mail about my post, with a copy to my superior, and perhaps even a copy to the media. After more than a year, and knowing that the man has been arrested (though not over his harassment of me), I have started speaking out, mainly because I don't want other people to go through what I went through. And I will say that the greatest distress caused to me by Wikipedians other than this sexual predator came from administrators (a very, very small number) who were callous and unsympathetic, and who didn't think his posts should be reverted or that pages should be semi-protected to prevent him posting about me. Musical Linguist 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A: Geogre, the example that comes to mind is where encyclopedic coverage is needed. If, through a bored reporter or two, Encyclopedia Dramatica became notable enough for an article (with reliable sources), we'll make one. It is our custom to link to websites in the infobox. I'm interested in building an encyclopedia, and think that we should exercise caution in censoring these links out of mainspace (an activity some have suggested below).
To digress, I do believe strongly in the right to anonymity: it is a right that everyone should have (and I am grieved that Musical Linguist lost it), and it is one that should not be defaced by abuse thereof. As Milan Kundera said, "curtain-rippers are criminals" (although there are counter-examples, e.g. Nixon). Thus, instead of keeping all links, sensitivity should be applied. Completely removing all such links can lend itself to abuse in enforcement. (The appropriateness of Kelly's Martin blog is how much you like Kelly Martin; the concept of an "attack site" can be a means to an end.)
Kelly Martin criticizes; she doesn't defame, she doesn't out people, she doesn't stalk them or encourage others to do so. There's no comparison. SlimVirgin 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The point that I was proving is that enforcing WP:BADSITES can be a matter of subjectivity, depending on the person enforcing it.
Misplaced Pages did not have to face this years ago. Though I adhere to it, the WikiWay is dying, and in this brave new world, no one found the time to mourn for it. I am not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites; if needed, others may do that. I protect Wikipedians by advocating them if I believe they need help; I support Wikipedians by sharing with them knowledge of MediaWiki and Misplaced Pages policies; I respect Wikipedians in argument. But ask me to censor in murky situations, and I may not be able to help you. Not everyone can be both a lover and a fighter: thankfully, the admin work I plan on doing does not involve much of the latter.
5 (additional question from SlimVirgin):
Sorry if this has been answered already, GN, but can you explain why you redirected your user page to Gurch's a couple of weeks ago? SlimVirgin 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A It's an inside joke; when I accidentally got a message he was supposed to receive, we reverted it.

General comments

  • See Gracenotes's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Links for Gracenotes: Gracenotes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • This user is not Grace Note (talk · contribs).
  • Statement by candidate. Let me make a clarification here, if I may. There has been a lot of discussion about websites critical of Misplaced Pages. I feel as though my comments have been misinterpreted; others may believe I have deepened the wounds they have suffered.
  • Now, you may notice that sometimes admins can fit vaguely into groups. There are image admins, who deal with advocating free images and keeping non-free ones to a minimum. There are anti-vandalism admins, who could block, revert, and semiprotect all day long if they wanted to. There are wikipoliticking admins, who like to congregate around controversial issues. There are article admins, who improve content and use their tools to protect and then start discussion in disuptes.
  • While I dislike partial adminship, let me say that I plan on being a template admin. One who you'll rarely see doing what he's doing. One who improves, protects, unprotects, and deletes templates, among other menial tasks. I do not labor so that I can one day win a cabal of users who follow me around and support me. I do not pour dozens and dozens of hours of my life into this project so that I can place a collection of glorified hunks of digital metal on my user page. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to maintain an encyclopedia, and to help keep what I can running smoothly. I can do this with or without adminship. For all else, I hope that my contributions stand for themselves. Thank you, Gracenotes § 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gracenotes before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong opinions, nice answer to Q4, and should be useful SqueakBox 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Already, wasn't, you know the rest. --Slowking Man 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Excellent contributor who will make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Definitely a nice guy, should be good. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Gracenotes is an excellent contributor, a funny and genial collaborator and a great guy who will make a great admin. :-) --Iamunknown 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support as nom - best of luck squire! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support—at the risk of sounding cliché, I was under the genuine impression this user was an sysop already; nevertheless, Gracenote's contributions speak for themselves, and I have every confidence in him and I hope the community thinks likewise ... oh, and I suppose the icing on the cake is such a trustworthy nominator ;-) good luck ~ Anthøny 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Gracenotes is an excellent contributor and would make a really good Admin..----Cometstyles 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sean William 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support had interactions with him before and he seemed like admin quality for sure. Let's give him a mop. —Anas 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I reviewed his contributions over the past month and am impressed with the range and civility of the edits. Would be an asset. —Ocatecir 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support This user is in my Top 3 non-admins who should be... hopefully not for much longer. GDonato (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support-Certainly. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet of banned user Molag Bal. Riana ⁂ 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom and what I witnessed from this user. Seems pretty much alright. —AldeBaer 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Can't wait to see who's eventually going to show up and oppose for what reason. I'm so excited, I just can't imagine who that might be... —AldeBaer 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, won't abuse tools. Has TONS of experience on Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages could benefit from him editing protected templates (like Ryan said). *Cremepuff222* 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support I seem to recall I had a bad interaction at one point in time, but I can't find anything wrong with him as an admin. Actually thought he already was one. ⇒ SWATJester 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I don't foresee any significant problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, confused the hell out of me while trying to get me to edit a protected template for him Support, of course. Picaroon (Talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Absolute Support for him! Great editor. Definitely deserves it. ~EdBoy 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Yow! (aka support). Done deal for me, good job, good luck. The Rambling Man 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Gracenotes isn't already an administrator?! :O Funpika 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support-Great user, great edits (and now he can make all those protected templates better without having to ask someone to do it for him). --R Contribs@ (Red Sux!) 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. «Snowolf » supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
  24. Support - good candidate with an excellent track record. Go for it! - Alison ☺ 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support-Seems like a great user. Lεmσηflαsh/(c) 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support: I've seen this user on #vandalism-en-wp. He could use the tools. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Excellent candidate. With respect to gaillimh, I'll point out that April Fool's Day has confused more than its share of fine admins over the years. Unfortunately, this place just enters the Twilight Zone for those 24 hours. :) Xoloz 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Impressive record. the_undertow 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Now that I see you're the "good one" (see comments below)...just kidding. — MichaelLinnear 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strong support I should have watchlisted the page. Gracenotes has been reasonable in discussions and accurate in AIV reports. —dgiesc 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. SupportThis user's broad experience and work with templates is impressive. His willingness to assist others seems well documented. JodyB talk 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. My experience with Gracenotes has been the exact opposite from Gaillimh's. I've seen Gracenotes display good skills, good reasoning and a good sense of humor.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Amazing grace! The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine, but God who call'd me here below, will be forever mine. --Deskana (AFK 47) 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    ROTFLMAO! List this at WP:MOTD ASAP! :-PReal96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. RfA clique #1 G1ggy! 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support This user is patient with others and would be fair towards others. Real96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, This user meets my criteria. --Random 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support for my favourite janitor, hoping that he will be one of the additions that the admin team desperatly seems to need. Be as little an admin as you can :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong Support, A great editor who will use the new tools wisely. --Mschel 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support I like what I see. Jmlk17 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - very active editor who consistently finds useful areas in which to involve themselves. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I know this user, he has strong technical expertise and good experience. Wooyi 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support An excellent candidate for the mop. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau 01:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Excellent editor and will be great admin. κaτaʟavenoC 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Strong support An excellent user from what I've seen of Gracenotes. He is always civil and respectful. This user will make a great administrator. Acalamari 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support My experience has been positive, although ST47 and Gurch may have a point. alphachimp 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support – Has demonstrated an excellent breadth of knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy. Always willing to participate in discussions. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, surely. -- Phoenix2 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Wait, you aren't an admin? bibliomaniac15 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Why did it take this long? Yonatan 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Strong, strong support. I ran into Gracenotes several months ago at the help desk, where he was courteous, informative, and ... well, helpful. Thus, my personal experience leads me to view him as both "easily approachable" and skillful in communication. Not long after that, Gracenotes was kind enough to correct a template I had tried to create (the important word here is "tried" ... at the time, my knowledge of templates was limited to "If I poke around here, I can cause changes elsewhere"). So, in now considering this RfA, I am struck by three things: (1) Gracenotes has an excellent contributions record; (2) I am more than satisfied with the responses to the questions; and (3) you're not an admin?!? Cheers, Black Falcon 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    By the way, I am curious: what's this about? Cheers, Black Falcon 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Gracenotes is clearly a sockpuppet of me and must be banned immediately – Gurch 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support - I think he will be a productive and helpful admin ˉˉ╦╩ 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Good candidate. Disagreed with him last time we crossed paths on AFD, but still I found his approach there to be thoughtful, as well as a willingness to acknowledge the concerns of those who disagreed with him, and that is a very positive attribute which bodes well for responsible adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. A4 is a valid viewpoint, and this is not trolling. –Pomte 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. $upport. I've seen you around, and you deserve the chance. Good luck, Dfrg.msc 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Sounds reasonable. But perhaps your userpage could make clearer that you're really not Grace Note? >Radiant< 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. Should make a good admin. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Strong support will not become a fine asset, already is. 08:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  59. I have faith he would not abuse administrative abilities nor make rash decisions, so why not? He looks like a well rounded guy that knows his stuff. Matthew 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  60. I know him from WP:UTM, and I think his adminship will be very useful for template administration. Phaunt 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  61. Jumping up and down on chairs support, if this is what he wants. – Riana ⁂ 11:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  62. Pile-on Support From what I've seen, the user's net effect on Misplaced Pages would be overwhelmingly positive as a result of having the tools. Anybody else thinks this'll make the Wikipedian 100? Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Wow, This guy has clocked in alot of edits in the past two days alone. I believe he would make a great admininstrator. QuasyBoy 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Nice answers to questions, plenty of experience and I think you'd make great usage of the tools. Good luck! Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  65. Strong Support per his promise to help out at CAT:CSD. Believe me, that's one area where we need all the help we can get. Walton 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  66. Weak support I'm not thrilled with your policy on attack sites, but I think you'll make a fantastic admin. —METS501 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support -- good record. Should make a good admin. --A. B. 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support on the blance of arguments. Also, a quick check of contribs shows a clear ned for admin tools. Will do lots of good and , IMO, no real harm, with the bit. Eluchil404 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. Can't see any downside here. —Xezbeth 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support - GN is a fantastic editor. He doesn't 'support attack sites', but supports using your head about links and not just going 'oooooh, think of the children' and hitting the delete button. He'll be a great admin, I have no doubts. JoeSmack 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support Can't say that I agree with extracting an unbreakable blood oath from every prospective admin about any issue, if nothing else because admins should be flexible and who knows when doing something might be a good idea in the future? I'm not even sure what site's we're talking about beyond Brandt's, and that's easilly findable with Google I'm sure, this seems like a symbolic effort that would restrict people's free speech but not really accomplish much. At any rate, the candidate is a good faith editor, no one disputes that, and we need admins who'll get their hands dirty with CSD and other actual work. It just doesn't seem like there's a very compelling reason not to promote here. --W.marsh 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support Gracenotes is certainly a well known and respected editor, and I must admit that I was quite surprised to see this RfA, as I had always assumed he was an admin. The opposition here would be wise to compare the their opinions to the most unfortunate of opinions found during the Cold War. --Constantine 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support because of the willingness to express an opinion of attack sites. Ever for those who disagree with it, I don't see how being an admin would cause problems this way. I think it shows a welcome distinction between pages attacking unfairly particular individuals in a damaging way, and those discussing--however unfairly--WP. Divergence from the WP orthodoxy is sometimes a good thing. DGG 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    So you think that there should be links to sites which not attempt to, but in fact actually do, disclose the real names, addresses and work locations of users on Misplaced Pages, for the sole purpose of real-life harrassment of those people? Corvus cornix 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Huh? That isnt what DGG said, SqueakBox 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. Differing opinions on one issue that many people feel strongly about aside, answers are well thought out, contributions are impeccable. Lexicon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support, I thought he was already an admin! Tim.bounceback 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support he is a hard worker whose contributions are of excellent quality; he is allowed to have his own opinions, as is any admin, provided they do not interfere with administrative actions. I don't think that Gracenotes will have a problem with making bad decisions based on his views and I certainly do not think there is any chance of abuse of tools on his part. — Editor at Large 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support. Far as I'm concerned, Q4 is a plus. --Gwern (contribs) 22:30 23 May 2007 (GMT)
  78. Support I'd also like to ask people opposing on the basis of Q4 to reconsider their opposition. I happen to disagree (to a certain extent) with Gracenotes on this subject but why should that prevent him from being a competent sysop? It's not like he's advocating his right to link to these sites in disregard for the consensual policy. I'm afraid a lot of people are opposing giving Gracenotes as a way to make a stand against his position on this particular question. I'm not sure what this will achieve other than forbid Misplaced Pages from having an extra competent admin. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. Frise 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support I'm confident this person would use the tools well, and I applaud their clarity and openness in their personal opinions on an area which I'm sure many people have differing opinions on. What's important is that consensus is followed in any key debates, and that's something that every admin signs onto regardless of their personal opinions. Robchurch's comment at the bottom is also worth a read. Orderinchaos 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Robchurch's comments have been moved to the talk page of the RfA.. (diff) -- daveh4h 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support. Seems qualified, and the attempts on the part of an extremely vocal minority to impose a litmus test regarding the "attack sites" policy (which seems to be the Wikipedian equivalent of the War on Drugs... a moral panic that's pursued in opposition to all semblances of common sense, and all opponents are heavily vilified) only make me more inclined to support him as an advocate of rationality on this issue. The suppression of a link to Daniel Brandt's site in a Signpost article about him is just one of many examples of silliness perpetrated in the name of this idiotic policy. *Dan T.* 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support - I trust this user. — mholland (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  83. Strong Support - Good answers to questions, especially Q4. One's personal opinions on off-wiki attack sites doesn't affect a user's ability to be an admin, nor should it affect community trust, unless they're the user actually running the site. Gracenotes is long overdue for the admin bit, and I admonish SlimVirgin for attempting to deny that over trivial and unrelated grounds. ^demon 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support Answers to question four/4a indicate that the candidate considers context, intent, and effect to be relevant and intends to use judgement. Those are qualities I want in an admin. GRBerry 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  85. Strong Support The only moral distinction to be made in the "attack sites" debate is that making references to such in NPA or any policy page suggests their existence to random individuals just visiting or blocked per those pages. Otherwise, whatever users want to do when they come across a link to an off-site attack is up to them per the circumstances, and I highly doubt Gracenotes would get in an edit war with anyone who decided to remove an off-site link. Gracenote's answers suggest pragmatic awareness of and concern with personal security issues, and that is enough for me.—ACADEMY LEADER 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support. Majoreditor 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support. Answer(s) to Q4 seem very sensible to me; no other serious concerns appear to have been raised. -- Visviva 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support common sense over unbending rules, yes! SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support I am happy with his(?) response to the BADSITES bit. Viridae 07:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support Smart user, has a sense of humour, and says what he thinks instead of what he knows people want to hear. Kla'quot 08:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support I note he is quite candid as to where his interests and intended work are directed, and where the extra buttons will most likely prove useful. As for his views regarding "attack sites" I can only direct interested readers to the 'Crats comments regarding my own very recent RfA. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support per above. Bucketsofg 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  93. There's way too much me-too-ism going on in the Oppose section. People are opposing because Gracenotes wants to take a nuanced, not-one-size-fits-all approach to a problem. I'd say "unbelievable", except it's all too believable. I support Gracenotes' request for the sysop bit. -- nae'blis 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support. If nothing else, to balance out this unfair exercise. I'm not going to see another RfA go down because of a SNOWball on one of SV's opinions. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support Appreciate the nuanced and careful responses to questions, and appreciate the extent of this user's contributions to the encyclopedia. JavaTenor 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support Why do I even need a reason? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  97. support seems like a trustworthy editor, my few prior encounters have been positive. I particularly like the nuanced resposne to Q4. DES 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support Appears trustworthy to me, and objections below don't seem to have a lot to do with use of admin tools. - Ehheh 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support. I wasn't crazy about the initial answer to Q4 but am satisfied with the clarification provided by the candidate. Also, on a more general note, what's with all the co-nominations? This isn't a High School yearbook and I fail to see the point. Expressing one's support is all fine and good but let's not overdo it, please. -- Seed 2.0 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  100. WP:100 support, per nominations, good communication skills and honesty. --Guinnog 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  101. Support I have interacted quite a bit with Gracenotes and always found to be helpful, polite and friendly. One of those "I thought they were already an admin. MECU≈talk 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  102. Support. While I'm not a huge fan of the attack-site stance, there's way too much weight being put into it plus me-tooism below by folks like Grace_note. It's a big issue, but it's not enough to blast an RfA for. If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place. It's more important to have reasonable folks who are trustworthy in the position (even if they have different opinions on stuff) than people who will say what others want to hear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  103. Support, conditionally You are welcome to hold a minority view, as long as you agree to honor the consensus if people disagree with you. If you feel unable to do that, say so now. Jehochman / ✔ 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. From my experience with Gracenotes, I've found the fellow to be the very thing he apparently eschews; a "process wonk", in his own language. In addition, he is not at all easily approachable and I forsee some community difficulty in working and communicating with him, which is a problem, as potential candidates need strong communication skills and a certain degree of social graces (pardon the pun). gaillimh 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, could you elaborate (with diffs, perhaps) upon why you think Gracenotes is unapproachable. I guess in my experience he has been the complete opposite! ^^;; --Iamunknown 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect, this user is not User:Grace Note who you are most probably confusing them with. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I love that you feel free to say that. I don't think I've ever had anything to do with you though. Hang out on IRC much? Grace Note 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's interesting, though, that there are two of these "Grace"s, and they're both guys, despite "Grace" more commonly being a girl's name (as in Princess Grace). *Dan T.* 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Grace Note, I don't see the response from Ryan as a mark against you (although perhaps poorly worded). It seems like a simple statement that there might be confusion (and for what it's worth, it took me about a month to realize that you weren't the same user...) Ral315 » 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    No, I believe Gaillimh is talking about my objection to the deletion of several "joke" processes that were started on April Fool's. I commented that the deletions were out of process and a bit pointless, and Gaillimh indicated that he saw the pages as, essentially, a blemish to Misplaced Pages. After a while, I saw that it really wasn't worth fighting over, so that was that. He's entitled to his opinion. Gracenotes § 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sure thing, Iamunknown. As Gracenotes mentioned, he acted rather silly when he saw that I was deleting Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales, because "it didn't meet a criterion for speedy deletion". In addition, the fellow proceeded to troll my talk page before deciding that "it really wasn't worth fighting over." I harbour no ill will towards Gracenotes personally, of course; these diffs and my experiences with the fellow simply lead me to believe that he is a bit too immature and does not possess the necessary candor/grace/affability, etc. to become an admin, where he'll certainly need to employ strong communication skills and a level head gaillimh 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    (removed irony perceived as personal attack) Are there other compelling reasons to oppose or is your lack of providing such reasons equal to admitting you can't think of any or that you actually deem this single "reason" as sufficient? (rephrased:) Do you really believe that it's best practice to oppose for what could be perceived as purely "political" reasons? —AldeBaer 06:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm, funny that you mention "Don't be a dick" when that is exactly what you are being by taking up an accusatory and bad faith tone when Slim has done nothing wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Funny how irony works sometimes huh.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's a strangely aggressive response, AldeBaer, especially as you've indicated elsewhere that you agree with me. I have no political agenda; I just feel strongly that websites that stalk or attack Wikipedians (and I mean attack, rather than criticize) shouldn't be linked to, and I don't want to vote for anyone who feels otherwise. SlimVirgin 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if it comes across as aggressive, it surely wasn't meant as an attack of any kind. Maybe I'm getting a bit paranoid. Or is there actually some kind of pattern? It just reminds me of what happened in two other RfAs. You see, I do absolutely agree that attack sites should never be linked to, but RfA shouldn't be the arena for "political activism" of any kind. Besides: Taking into consideration the reassurance that my comment is not meant to be aggressive, I'd really like you to answer my questions if at all possible: Is there another strong reason to oppose Gracenotes? Is it best practice to oppose for differing opinions on policy? —AldeBaer 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it is "best practices" to oppose adminship based on matters that can affect users' offline lives. It's a legitimate concern and one that SlimVirgin or anyone is entitled to hold as opposition. Something like "your opinion of what Misplaced Pages should be differs profoundly from what I believe necessary" ought to be a good enough reason for opposition, as long as the concern is raised in good faith, which it certainly is here. You can call it politics, if that's your preferred dirty word, but whatever it is it's not being done for politics' sake or for power's sake, only for the safety of real people. That I may argue this unhindered, I won't be registering a vote in this RFA. I'm more interested in the ability for editors to raise good faith opposition without being hounded. You may find SlimVirgin's reasoning unconvincing, but it's unfair to suggest that her concerns should not be raised in this pertinent venue. ··coelacan 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While I have had only minimal interaction with this editor and have never been even remotely involved in a dispute with him, I have to agree with Slimvirgin's analysis. I just can't imagine why Grace would think linking to such a site would be okay. In my opinion, there could simply not be any encyclopedic value added by including links to such websites.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think slim virgin meant in dicussion or wikipedia space, not in articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I was referring to anywhere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I cannot see us accepting any admins who support links to attack sites. To me that attitude indicates no sensitivity to the plight of the attack victims, and is tantamount to attack in itself. There is no reason to ever link to such a site - if need be, the information can be emailed discretely to ArbComm or anyone else, on a need-to-know basis. Crum375 08:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree, but this is not the place for that specific debate. —AldeBaer 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you agree that an editor who supports a link to an attack site is effectively promoting that attack, why would we want to accept such a person as an admin here? Crum375 11:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I do not support links to attack pages. (Side note: at least, those that are not actionable; there are a fair amount of pages, i.e. Misplaced Pages diffs, that constitute attacks of Wikipedians, but action can be taken upon them.) I said "pages", not "sites". My problem with banning "all links to all such sites in all contexts" (as I said above) is the possibility that walled gardens can result, and good faith efforts to improve Misplaced Pages coverage of such sites (if they become notable), or trying to civilly interact with such sites (not a likely solution, both on our and their parts), or semi-private discussion between users about those sites, may be suppressed by 1984-esque actions. Imagine two editors calmly engaging in discussion about a non-attack page on an "attack site" when a third, probably coming from Special:Linksearch, removes the link forcibly. What benefit does this bring Misplaced Pages? While erring on the side of protecting Wikipedians is ideal, many that reverted links to sites on WT:BADSITES showed no sensitivity about erring on the side of anything. Gracenotes § 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    "I do not support links to attack pages" means that you do support links to attack sites. A link to an attack site, from which a simple scroll or click can easily go from one page to another, is an attack on your fellow editors. There is no reason that I can see for wikipedians to discuss attack sites while publicly posting their links. If the issue is an ArbCom case, then the links should be quietly provided via email on a need-to-know basis. Any posting of such links to attack sites is an attack, and supporting such posting is tantamount to an attack. Anyone who posts or supports such posts clearly does not understand the harassment and pain it causes to the attack victims, and should not be an admin here. Crum375 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Gracenotes states valid concerns that many users had/have regarding "attack sites". User:Dtobias pointed out that an individual used the policy to remove User:Kelly_Martin's blog as an attack site. This is why many people oppose the "attack sites" language and the use of an ArbCom ruling in policy. Those that oppose the "attack sites" language do not advocate attacks on people (we are people, not just Wikipedians). They are not concerned with allowing off site links to attacks on people, as that is disallowed as a personal attack under current policy anyway. What is considered an attack site and who decides that an entire site is off limits is of concern to many. daveh4h 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Crum375, in your line of argument, is it likewise tantamount to a personal attack to support the RfA of this user? —AldeBaer 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    ArbCom very clearly defined 'attack site' and ruled on this issue. Removing links to attack sites, and blocking editors who persist in posting such links after being warned is current admin practice, and was upheld by ArbCom. As an answer to AldeBaer, supporting promotion to admin of someone who misinterprets and misunderstands current policies is not 'attacking' anyone. Everyone is expected to vote his/her conscience on RfAs. Crum375 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Arbcom interpret but they dont make policy and I have seen no evidence that Grace is likelty to misinterpret any policies we have re attack sites, SqueakBox 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    ArbCom make binding decisions when there is a dispute about issues, based on their interpretation of our policies. As they have clearly ruled on this issue, if it were to come to them again they would likely rule the same way. But my point has to do with my desire to see admins understand the plight of attack victims, not ignore them and thereby promote the attacks. Crum375 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    It already did come up again, and they didn't rule the same way. Frise 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    I dont know of a single user who opposes BADSITES because of indifference to the victims of said sites, indeed I would say the exact opposite, ie that opposing BADSITES is also an attitude designed to suport the victims of off site attacks and (without wanting to speak for him) this is nmy impression of Grace's motivations, SqueakBox 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Gracenotes, the BADSITES proposal is not the only issue here. You also expressed opposition on Misplaced Pages Review to Guy asking that it be added to the spam blacklist. Doing that would have prevented the scenario you mention above, where an editor intervenes in a discussion to remove a link, because the link wouldn't have been posted in the first place. Your opposition to that, and your expression of it on that very website, suggests you actually support linking to these sites. It worries me, as someone who has been one of their targets, that you want to give them oxygen. SlimVirgin 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    The blacklist is a bad solution to a troublesome problem, and it conflicts with my case-by-case argument (that seems to make sense to me). It affects all Wikimedia projects (this would have to be a policy on meta for the links' addition) and allows no exceptions. The links have not been used extensively for spamming, but rather, mostly included in logical discussion that does not promote the site in a spammy manner.
    I was about to note this on-wiki, and had already written some more delineated versions of arguments I suggested above (in opposition to Guy's support), when I saw that the part of the proposed policy about the blacklist had been removed. Surely you can agree that the links should not be added to the blacklist unless each and every major Wikimedia project reaches a consensus on the issue, not just en wikipedia. Perhaps I should make this more clear: I don't support linking to attack sites. I support common sense in dealing with linking to them. I assume you read my "temperance, not prohibition" argument above.
    I am sorry about what you faced. However, your approach to dealing with attack sites reminds me of radical Republicanism: we've been hurt and we're angry, so now what are we going to do? Well, Reconstruction. Gracenotes § 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response. My concern is both the position you expressed and that you posted the opinion to Misplaced Pages Review, which lent them support. I suspect that if a webite had been trying to out you for 18 months; had posted what they think is your name, photograph, location, and IP address; had accused you of working for various intelligence agencies; had called you a whore, an antisemite, and a Nazi; had posted material from someone who has contacted what he thinks are your friends and colleagues in real life; and had published their names and locations too — then you might think differently about approaching the situation on a case-by-case basis. I fear there's a lack of imagination and empathy in your approach. SlimVirgin 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm one of those that can find no reason to ever link to a website that supports efforts to collaboratively work to expose the real life identities of our contributors. While I do believe that Gracenotes is trying to be practical in his response to the related questions regarding this matter, Admins should be prepared to protect our editors, not permit links to websites that potentially put them in harms way.--MONGO 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I find the idea of supporting links to attack sites very disturbing and even potentially dangerous to some editors. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. At first I thought that this applicant deserves a support. I was ready to go ahead, mainly because I had to scroll down to see the oppose. After reading some of them, I have to agree. These attack websites are appalling, and there should be no support for them. Orangemarlin 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I don't get it. From what I have read is that Gracenotes advocates the use of ones head, before starting to directly censor anything that someone says is an attackpage-link in a discussion that was about creating policy exactly on those issues and therefore was served with a small example here and there for the less initiated. I find this commendable reasoning for an admin, and one i'd love to see from more admins. You might not agree with him on this one position, but when was the last time all admins agreed on all POVs in Misplaced Pages. I'm of the utmost confidence that IF Gracenotes were to link such things, he has a good reason to do so. We can always censor that stuff once the discussion is over. The fact that the wording of the arbitration commission is so bad, that it is causing so much confusion already, says more then enough about how to the letter we should interpret arbitration decissions. NOT, AGF and try some thinking for youself once in a while. The results of the Arbcom are not the Misplaced Pages lawbook, there is no book, only precendences. (and people wonder why no one wants to go trough RfA anymore and others are renouncing their adminship......) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    "At first I thought that this applicant deserves a support. I was ready to go ahead, mainly because I had to scroll down to see the oppose. After reading some of them, I have to agree." In other words, you have proven yourself incapable of evaluating Gracenotes yourself and reaching your own conclusion. You took one glance at the tally, saw the prevalence of support and thought "yeah, I'll support". Then you scrolled down a bit to see what the opposes were about and thought "oh no, that's bad, I'd better oppose". You probably didn't even read the user's discussion archives or contributions. You clearly have minimal interaction with the user, and had the above oppose votes not already been there you would not have opposed. You have certainly not made a thorough review of the guideline discussion pages on which Gracenotes has commented and formed your own opinion on the issue. Your comment is worthless – Gurch 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Nice comment. Really appreciate it. Of course, you could track my movements across wikipedia, but you didn't notice that maybe by reading the oppose, I decided to dig deeper. I apologize. Orangemarlin 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    OM, how dare you change your mind, such things are unheard of (in Gurch's world anyway). You must be a fish of conviction, not a waffler who actually admits he might have made a mistake. Tsk, tsk. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, apparently. A review of the applicant's mainspace edits, their user page edits, and the issue above all lead me here. That's why we have these "votes" I presume, so that we don't take things at face value, read the dissenting opinions, and come to our own conclusions. Treating me uncivilly of course always convinces me of changing my mind. BTW, puppy has already bitten my hand. Bah. Orangemarlin 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - An administrator should be one that not only cares about the project but cares about its main asset: its editors, being these newbies or long-standing contributors. Same as we welcome newbies, admins should be mindful to protect those that volunteer large amount of their free time to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. Look at the above comments. Just look at them. Five are from administrators. Is that a group of people I want Gracenotes to mingle with? No way – Gurch 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don’t know, Gurch... all of those controversial broken redirects... Gracenotes § 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, reluctantly, as he is hardworking, knowledgable, and otherwise quite qualified, but his opinion on attack sites is highly troubling; unfortunately it's hard to trust him with the tools in light of this, particularly the ability to view deleted information. Krimpet (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, also reluctantly, because of answer to attack sites question. --Mantanmoreland 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Also, I just noticed his rejoinder to Gurch. I think having a sense of humor is a plus, and I appreciate his effort to defuse a tense situation, but I don't think this was an appropriate response to trolling.--Mantanmoreland 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per answer to Question 4, and per Gaillimh. Musical Linguist 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per answer to question 4. Corvus cornix 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per question 4 sorry, I also blocked Gurch for 24 hours for disrupting this RFA. Jaranda 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I see no reasonable or compelling evidence of trolling, Gurch is just expressing his opinions. Wooyi 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    It was disruptive though and the pedophile comment completely unnecessary, SqueakBox 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per the answer to question 4 in particular to this comment " Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith", and as Hipocrite points out you state you are not the type that protects editors by removing links to attack sites. No link to attack sites could be termed good faith. (Musical Linguist sums that up quite well) and unwillingness to protect by removing attack site links is a distressing thought so much so that I fear what could happen with the tools.--Dakota 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    You may also wish to read my response to Hipocrite, if you have not already. I believe that it addresses some of your concerns. Gracenotes § 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    No link? Even if the attack site is referenced elsewhere? Even if the attack site is notable enough (with significant media coverage, for example) that it could have its own article? Even if the purpose of the link is to advise other editors of the existence of the page, perhaps to warn an editor that there is an attack page revealing their personal information? How does removing a note to me about a page that reveals my personal information "protect" me? As a more extreme example, there are people in the world who do not have my best interests in mind. I would be better "protected" by having all of them killed. Considering your views espoused here, would it not distress you that there are those in government who are unwilling to protect me by shooting all those who might harm me? Would this lack of concern for my well being and security not cause you to fear what could happen with the government? --Constantine 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per answer to Q4. --Denis Diderot 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per the answer given for Q4 and per Briangott's and Dakota's input here. No way. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong oppose per Slim and others. Protecting other editors should be top of your list, not something you're not concerned with. Grace Note 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. I don't like your stance on links to attack sites, and feel that this casts significant shadow over whether you have the outlook and judgement needed for an administrator. Daniel 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Daniel and Musical Linguist make good arguments on this point. Ral315 » 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, I'm not comfortable with the whole attack sites/Q4 thing. Guettarda 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose answer to Q4 concerns me. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. The inclusion of external attack sites on Wikipedians is indefensible. —Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose with apologies to Gracenotes, Gurch and the noms. Q4 -- Samir 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Agreed, he deserves better than this. --ST47Talk 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. zOMG drama! —Миша13 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Anyone who would write that they are "not the type that protects Wikipedians by removing links to attack sites" cannot have access to deleted revisions. Sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral per clarification of poor turn of phrase. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    "in murky situations", which is what I meant and clarified later in the paragraph. Please meatball:ReplyToTheWholePost. Gracenotes § 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I find your explanation unconvincing. The next words you wrote were "if needed, others may do that." My reading is that you will not remove links to attack sites, like, for instance, a picture of the encyclopedia dramatica talk page with personal and defmatory information about a valued editor if you were the first to see them, instead waiting for someone else to fix it. Your reference to "murky situations" appears to be to the entirety of links to attack sites, even the revolting ones. Would you, or would you not, remove any instance of the link to the encyclopedia dramatica attack site regarding me, if, for instance, you found it on the article about what was assumed, by them, to be one of my many notable real-life identities? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    No need to have the extra buttons to remove attack sites, SqueakBox 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hipocrite, in my mind, the only way such a link would end up on Misplaced Pages would be as a personal attack, either blatant or veiled, so I would remove it. I'm glad to see that someone understands that my logic is based on case-by-case analysis, rather than completely allowing or completely forbidding. In the case you bring up, there is not even a possibility of "erring on the side of protecting Wikipedians", that is, erring at all, (as I said above) by removing the link. Gracenotes § 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Swayed by discussion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. # neutral I agree with Gracenotes that what constitutes an attack site may not always be clear cut and there may be examples where it would make sense to link to such sites. My favorite example of this is google groups which includes a variety of usenet posts which insult and out Wikipedians. I don't think anyone is going to argue on that basis that http://groups.google.com should be blacklisted. Furthermore, the ultimate goal does need to be what is best for the project and if an attack site such as ED became sufficiently notable it would make sense to link to it. That said, Gracenotes seems to be saying that the candidate would never or almost never remove a link to an attack site. I find the attitudes thus signifies worrisome. However, I'm not convinced that this would necessarily interfere with Grace's proper use of the admin tools. JoshuaZ 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)