Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse

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

Rlevse

Final (154/7/2); Originally scheduled to end 02:28,

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Candidacy template questions

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. Yes I have. The key is that there be consensus for the adminship. I am also aware that there are different schools of thought on this. While consensus is paramount, people love numbers (we even have RFA % tables at

WT:RFA

) The numbers are not the key, trust of the community, ie, consensus, is the key. The expressions of the community in the opposes and neutrals are critical in the less obvious cases. In such cases, I’d seek the input of other crats.

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

A. I’d do what I did when I became an admin, start with the easy crat tasks and work my way up. I’d certainly not close a contentious nom without getting input on consensus from other crats and when the decision was made, I’d explain my reasons, onwiki of course. Contentious cases are a time to take extra time and make sure the correct decision is made.

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 been involved in many areas of wiki. People often ask me for help on many things (check my talk page). I feel that is one indication of this trust; if they didn’t trust me they wouldn’t ask me. I’ve learned a lot by being a wikipedian, including real life things too. My understanding of wiki grows steadily. I’m not the same wikian I was when I started nor not even when I became an admin.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit

WP:CHU

on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Absolutely. I edit wiki virtually every day (yes, I’m a confirmed wikiholic) and if the community entrusts me with cratship, I would start by working at CHU and RFA, the crat areas I am currently most comfortable with.

Additional question by

John Vandenberg

5. In question seven of your

WP:RECALL

was raised, and you said

I have noticed that you are not currently in that category currently, and would like to know a little more of your thoughts on the issue. To save everyone else the trouble, Rlevse did follow through with his plan to be open for recall at 03:00, 27 February 2007 and removed the category on 00:43, 15 December 2007.

Firstly I'd like to know what motivated you to remove it. For context, I'm not in that category, nor have I ever been, because I think it is a source of unnecessary drama, encourages people to conspire for each others downfall, and I would rather reserve the right to resign at the appropriate time (either by my own volition or a gentle tap from a colleague I respect), and in the appropriate way which will vary depending on the situation which I cant predict.

That leads me onto the second half of my question. There are a lot of good people in that category, and I worry about abuse. How will you help ensure there isnt any abuse, while also responsibly handling good faith recalls - those two are often hard to distinguish between. Good luck with that if you pass.

chat) 10:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A. I have always been and always will be of the belief that if an admin loses the confidence of the community that he should step down, and that includes myself. I removed myself from the cat due to a spat of abusive recalls around that time—as you said “unnecessary drama”, see

CAT:BOR. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question by User:Apoc2400

6. You have a userbox saying This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles. Is that true? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. I used to believe that. Now I’m not so sure. I think wiki’s biggest strength is also it’s biggest weak point—allowing all to edit. This both brings together the world to build an encyclopedia-which is an utterly brilliant idea-but it also allows easy access by the vandals, trolls, socks, etc. Imagine if all the time spent on the disruptors could instead be spent on making the encyclopedia articles better. Is it worth the trade-off? Maybe, maybe not. But I do think it’d be worth exploring more. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that as an administrator, you see a disproportionate amount of vandalism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from seresin

7. In light of recent discussions, (Riana's bureaucrat chat, the various discussions and polls, and the section about the RfB bar in the adminship poll page, Avraham 2) what do you believe the pass percentage is for an RfB?

A: Passing percentage for RFA/RFB is very interesting. It appears the lowest successful RFB was Cimon avaro’s back in March 2004 with 78.57%. I looked at Riana’s rfb and the crat discussion about her rfb from March 2008. Riana was unsuccessful at 85.86%. The Avraham 2 was in May 2008, which was also unsuccessful at 82.58%. I also looked at the three most recent successful rfbs: WJBscribe from Nov 2007 at 98.28%, The Rambling Man from Mar 2008 at 97.08%, and EVula from Jun 2008 at 99.19%. To gauge broader community consensus I looked at a disrectionary range discussion and the rfb bar. The Cimon RFB passing at 78.57% would clearly not pass today and I agree, that’s too low. Standards evolve over time. The consensus for passing those over 90% is very clear. The RFB Bar had 72 votes in the 80-84% range and 62 votes for 85% or above. One can see in Riana’s RFB that several crats firmly felt the standard should be 90%, whereas the community seems to feel it should be somewhere in the 80s. I feel the standard for the discretionary range should be somewhere between 85-90%. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. With respect to bot flaggings, do bureaucrats have any discretion? Or, rather, do they merely follow direction of the BAG? Is it within the purview of bureaucrats to refuse to flag a bot even if the BAG has approved it for a flag?

A: Yes crats still have discretion at BAG as shown by the Baldbot episode from early this year. Here

WP:DRAMA. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

9.' We often see comments in RfA to the effect of "the bureaucrats will disregard the comment" (often about Kmweber). Do you plan to disregard comments? What types of comments do you foresee yourself disregarding? Do you see a community mandate for such disregard?

A: In some cases, yes I would. Everyone has a right to say things, but

WP:RFA also says “Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections.” So IPs can not vote at RFA/RFB, though they can participate in the encyclopedia in general. These two instances can be viewed as mandates. As for IP edits at places other than RFA/RFB, I’d likely weigh them, but less heavily that users with accounts. There are other instances I can conceive of where I might disregard a vote, such as a new account with few edits and socking behavior and/or no explanation of their reasoning. I’d always consider a participant’s reasoning, including Kurt’s, who has supported sometimes in recent months, since RFA is not a vote but about consensus. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Questions from east718

10. You didn't think you'd get away without dealing with the dreaded Danny question, did you? ;-) How would you have closed the DHMO 3 RFA if you'd ended it immediately after my opposition? How about before it was blanked and withdrawn? What sort of value do you place on the "tyranny of numbers" - an overwhelming amount of support with weak justification versus a broad spectrum of well-argued opposition?

A: Some consider the DHMO 3 RFA the most problematic RFA of all time so this is an excellent RFB question. While there were several valid reasons to support, there were also several serious issues among the opposes that are cause for concern. Assuming your two scenarios were the actual scheduled closing time and the only options were close as successful/unsuccessful, if I closed it after your vote (then at 79.84%), I think I’d have closed as unsuccessful, ditto for just before the blanking occurred (then at 77.86%), due to the number and nature of several of the opposes. See

Farsi wiki of extending RFAs when new information comes to light or 2) ask DHMO if he would permit it to be extended based the new information or simply use crat discretion to extend it to allow for more evidence—on the basis of the already large number of significant and meaningful opposes and the high liklihood that the new information would have a material effect on the RFA. Many of the opposes were related to important wiki policies. 3) Recycle the RFA, ie, restart it with a clean slate. There is precedence for this from the ABCD RFA, where the vote was “nullified and restarted because of significant new information”. I think this addresses your “tyranny of numbers” question. If not, let me know and I’ll address it more. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

11. Let's say you're the poor sap who ends up promoting the next Archtransit and realized this was a mistake as soon as they flew off the rails. Would you make any attempt to correct the problem yourself? I am aware that this is currently beyond the scope of the b'crat position, but what are your thoughts on this possibly changing?

A: I would personally feel partly responsible for this, even if the pertinent RFA result was 100% support. My initial impulse would probably be to talk to the ‘next Archtransit’ first. But the wiser choice would be to start a user conduct RFC on the person—where the consensus of the community could be gauged, communicate my concerns to arbcom, and ask other admins and crats to act on the matter as I would be too involved to act in a neutral and unbiased manner. As for giving crats the authority to endorse a desyssop (the actual desyssop can only be done by a steward), I think this is possible. However, the venues of doing so via crat and/or arbcom would have to be worked out. There would have to be a consensus among active crats to desyssop as it should not be done by just one person. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Davewild

12. Do you think that in closing reconfirmation RFAs the bureaucrats should use a different measuring stick than regular RFAs?

A: There are two types of reconfirmation RFAs, such as like Keilana's, where a current admin seeks to confirm they still have the community's trust. Others, such as Carnildo's, are done by desysopped admins seeking to show they have regained the community's trust. I think it important to remember that any admin that has tried to enforce wiki policy is bound to have upset some users. See my answer to Question 5 for related info on this topic. The important thing to keep in mind here is: Is the trust of the community still there? See Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. Therefore, I would hold an admin who had not resigned the bit or had resigned it under non-controversial circumstances, to a slightly lower level of demonstrated support, than an admin who lost the bit under controversial circumstances. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Acalamari

13. What is the difference between an RfA closed as "no-consensus" versus an RfA closed as "failed"? Acalamari 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. As far as the net result as to whether the candidate receives the tools or not, there is no difference since the candidate will only receive the bit if the crat can tell there is a consensus to promote (either clear promote or within promotable crat discretion range) by the community placing their trust in the adminship of the candidate. Therefore No consensus will have the same net result as consensus not to promote (a clear 'failed' RFA). I prefer to use the terms successful/unsuccessful. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent, well-detailed answer. Thanks for taking the time to answer it. Acalamari 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Rlevse's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Rlevse:
  lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves
  )

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• By the way, can we get links to your RfA(s) and anything else related? —Giggy 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  First nom for RFA which he declined: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlevse, second nom for RFA which was successful: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlevse 2, no RFC or RFAR that I can see, successful nom for adminship at Commons commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Rlevse, here is Newyorkbrad informing the community that Rlevse has been appointed an arbcom clerk Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive1#New_Clerk_appointments, and here would be where he was formally appointed lead coordinator of the scouting project. Am I missing anything? MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  More than I expected! Thanks mate. —Giggy 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, it was great finding one of Brad's old edits, the memories. ;) MBisanz ^talk 14:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I also added a link template for contribs, blocks, etc and so on. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sensible opinion regarding the recall category. --Deskana (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support As nom, I think he will make a trustworthy crat. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support I believe that Rlevse should've been a bureaucrat already. He has a full package to get the position and would dedicate to developing Wikiepdia better place. He has abundant experiences in various Wiki spaces as well as proving that he is humble, thoughtful, civil, neutral, impartial and insightful. He listens closely to people's pleas or complaints and help them with his best. When he makes an error, he quickly admits and apologizes, and grows even more. Therefore, I believe he will be a great bureaucart.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support - I've spent a long time interacting with Rlevse and I've found him to be an extremely thoughtful Wikipedian. He spends a log of time thinking about disputes, and only comments when he's positive he's got the communities thoughts in mind. He does some great work at
   WP:AE and closes a lot of the discussions, showing a great ability to judge consensus. I'm sure he'd be a great crat, and would seek input if at all unsure. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Strong support - Dependable. High integrity. Does not play politics. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Rlevse is a good admin and a trusted member of the community. --B (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Has common sense, which is the most important trait. Kylu (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, I see no reason not to make him one. Wizardman 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - has always been very efficient and fair in the times our paths have crossed, and would, I feel, be a very good 'bureaucrat'. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, trustworthy, knowledgeable, civil, content contributor, experienced, ArbCom clerk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Trustworthy administrator, CU clerk, ArbCom clerk. I believe he will continue exerting good judgment as a bureaucrat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. No reason not to. Synergy 02:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support This user has just about everything I look for in a potential bureaucrat. Performs his current tasks admirably, and covers a fairly wide swath of areas. We need more bureaucrats, and Rlevse fits the bill in more ways than one. Happy to support. Enigma ^message 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. (ec x3) Support - In the experiences I've had with Rlevse, I've found him to be a respected, knowledgeable administrator, and I think he would make a fine bureaucrat. You have my full support.
    Steve Crossin (contact) 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Weak support It's my private fantasy to have a bureaucrat who will boldly interpret an RfA by actually weighting the validity and truthfulness of the !votes, and not giving every drive-by vote the benefit of the doubt. The answer to question one makes me think that Rlevse will do more of the status quo; unless it's in that tiny window of 74-76%, I doubt he would ever go against the current climate. However, that said, he's a great admin, integrity, etc etc etc.
    Tan ǀ 39 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Heh. If that's your "private fantasy", you need to watch more porn. Or at the very least, edit Wikipedia less (I keed, I keed :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Strong support – Level-headed, responsible, knowledgeable, etc. Definitely qualified. —Animum (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - (ec x2) He's deserving of the crop (
    93 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Shibby! Long overdue.--KojiDude ^(C) 02:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    #+S Please tattoo Jehochman's third comment somewhere prominent on your physiognomy. <insert smiley icon here>

    Sorry, thinking about it. Waiting for full details on Coker.

    Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

18. 'Back to +S. I'm stating publicly here, though, and on your talk: I urge you to ping my talk if you run for ArbCom. I will then publicly call for you to recuse yourself from any and all cases involving Scouting WikiProject. I think this is only fair.
    Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 03:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support I see no reason why Rlevse shouldn't be a bureaucrat. Alexfusco⁵ 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - I've always respected this user and his contributions to the project only enhance my enthusiastic trust and appreciation for his work. He has my full support, and unless something absolutely dreadful pops up, likened to him not being who he says he is, then I can't foresee changing my mind. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - We need more 'crats —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Sure.
    talk) 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Strong support, Rlevse is an excellent, fair-minded, trustworthy and knowledgeable editor and administrator. He has been fair, honest and true to the spirit of Wikipedia; and I firmly believe that Rlevse will make a fine bureaucrat.
    Dreadstar † 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Sounds good to me. Best of luck! SQL^{Query me!} 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. For sure for sure. I had to stop myself automatically voting yes and take some time reviewing a the evidence. Waste of time really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I had to look at this twice to see if this is what I thought it was :-)
    miranda 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Support. Great editor and a great admin. I've had nothing but good interactions with Rlevse and think he would make a super bureaucrat ( ... if anyone said to me in another context that I'd make a "super bureaucrat", I think I'd be offended, but this is one of the few instances where no offence is intended!). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Yes. I wish I would've known sooner... —
    Discuss 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Per all of the above. user:Everyme 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Proven record of fairness and commitment as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - plenty of admin work, contributions to RfA are superb, all in all, a helpful, friendly admin, traits which I find especially handy in a crat. Good luck.
    weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support - Candidate is actually helpful to unfamiliar users. I made a few duff reports to
    WP:UAA, which he picked up on and told me about on my talk page. I then asked for further information and was really enlightened by his response. The candidate clearly cares about the experience of all users, both newcomers to the project and established users, and I feel comfortable supporting him. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Naerii 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, and delighted to do so. Pedro :  Chat  08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. I won't rely heavily upon the 'we need more bureaucrats argument', mainly because at time of posting requests at CHU (which is often the most backlogged area) are dealt with fairly swtiftly, say within 5-6 hours of making them. However, saying that Rlevse is an excellent choice for bureaucrat no matter the current climate; he is highly intelligent making reaonsed, well-balanced and most of all explainable choices. He has experience in RfA, which although may be minor in terms of supporting or opposing, is reasonably significant from a nominator's aspect. His work at RFCU and SSP (which is greatly appreciated) is yet another great reason to support him. Good luck Rlevse. Rudget (logs) 09:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support No reason not to. Good luck, --Cameron* 10:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support, need more bureaucrats.
    talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support Rlevse, through his actions, has shown himself to be a very capable and effective admin, I have no doubt that these traits will continue were he to be promoted. Rje (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support seems sensible, experienced all-rounder who is also a contributor of content. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. support. Dlohcierekim 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support A trusted user. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. ^T 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support A great user, very trustworthy. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Yes he will do well. The comments in the oppose section seem to lack substance in the extremed.
    Chillum 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Rlevse's a reasonable admin, he'll be a fine bureaucrat. I would prefer him on ArbCom instead, as he's highly experienced there, but if he'd rather be a bureaucrat, that's fine. Acalamari 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support - Without a doubt. He's a good guy and a wonderful contributor. I've seen him handle himself in disputes and I've seen a calm, controlled sort of guy. At RfA's he knows what consensus is and would clearly make a great bureaucrat.
    Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support Should be a well mannered and courteous crat who knows exactly what to do. Prodego ^talk 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Looks fine to me. I can recall at least one time when Rlevse did recuse himself from acting in an SSP case when it involved an editor that he worked with in the Scouting project. (Dear God, don't ask me for diffs, it was in January I believe). I believe that if there is a perceived conflict of interest in closing an RFA ofa scouting member, etc, he will show the same judiciousness. Keeper ǀ 76 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, it was bugging me, so I went and found the diff. The SSP case is here, Rlevse's diff where he recuses himself, specifically citing his involvement with the user in the Scout project, is here (note that he was the first to respond after the opening of the case - he didn't recuse because someone asked him to, he recused on his own good judgment. Good show!) Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

49. Strong Support In my stalking of Rlevse recently (I'm trying to learn from the best as part of my 'coaching') I've always held him in the highest regard. Everything I've seen him involved with has shown maturity and neutrality with the best possible outcome for the community always on his mind. He is a distinguished administrator, always making appropriate use of the tools at his disposal and still a formidable editor. I could not think of anyone that I have encountered who would be better suited for this position. Mattie^TK 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support No concerns here, All the Best, Mifter (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Based on what I have seen of this editor, I think they would make a great crat.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support a brilliant admin, will probably make a brilliant crat' as well. - Icewedge (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Great editor, I've seen him around under my former account, he's a very helpful editor, I think he'd be a great crat. Minerva 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Great admin and contributor to wikipedia in general, from what I've seen
    WC+ ] 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
56. Support Trustworthy, loyal, friendly, couteous, kind, etc. Philly jawn (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, as I've seen Rlevse be a cool head, with good judgement in several disputes I've lurked around on ANI and RfA. These are the most necessary qualities that a bureaucrat can possess. S. Dean Jameson 19:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support, of course. Rlevse is a fine admin, has always shown himself to be fair and balanced, and I trust him in the utmost. He'll be a fine 'crat. GlassCobra 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Fair minded, good judgment, lot's of experience, he will make a good crat. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - exceptional judgement. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support →
    .И 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
63. Support. Now that I've slept, worked, and attended class, I'm back and moving from the neutral section. I still think that he's a little inexperienced in the realm of CHU, but that's easy to pick up. Other than that, I trust Rlevse to discern consensus. Useight (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Very trustworthy from my experience. Support. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support; without reservations. — Coren ^(talk) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - He has my complete trust as an administrator and I've come to expect sound judgment from him. I believe he would meet those same expectations as a bureaucrat. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support will make a fine bcat, has the right qualities. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong Support changed mind after reviewing candidate in more detail per my criteria. In my opinion, Rlevse is one of the 4 or 5 top wikipedians out there. While I would like to see more experience in some areas, it is silly to oppose somebody of his calibre for such trivial reasons.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Seen him quite often, and looking at his contribs explain why... (O_o) No reservations whatsoever. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - I've crossed paths with this editor, and have complete confidence. Though we need more bureaucrats anyway, this decision is easy because he is such a good candidate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Keegan^talk 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Willingness to make the tough decisions, and yet open to discussion. Superb qualities that serve Wiki very well. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Will be a good 'crat.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. For president Viridae^Talk 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - as an
    Eagle, I salute you. Best of luck, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support. An excellent candidate who can be trusted with the greater responsibility of a crat. --Bduke (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Have had experience with him and believe he's shown good judgement.
    talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
79. Support the candidate has a firm grasp of reason and community consensus. Kbthompson (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support trust, judgement, blah blah blah… -- Avi (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support The promotion of this well respected administrator to a bureaucrat will only have positive effects on the project. Good luck.
    talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support - A experienced and competent admin who I am sure will do well with the bureaucrat tools.
    (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Strong support—Maxim_(talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support — more crats are needed, and the light opposition shows that he probably won't go rogue, at least not right off the bat. =] –
    talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
85. --Kbdank71 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support I find the Coker incident troubling, but anyone can make a mistake. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support as what I looked at in regards to edits seemed positive and constructive and the candidate does seem experienced. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
    Tally-ho! 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. Support - A well versed user whom has dedicated himself to the betterment of the project. I have had the pleasure of recently running into Rlevse around the 'pedia and have taken note of the wide variety of areas that he works in, along with his calm, civil, and competent way of handling and approaching situations. I trust this users judgment and get a strong vibe that he would use
    common sense when dealing with disputes, gathering consensus and hope (like Tanthalas39) that he will bring a refreshing new approach to RfA where its not about counting !votes, but about really reading each and everyone one of them and researching potentially disruptive users who are using RfA as their battle ground. Seeing another well trusted user nominate Rlevse made me even happier (and I wonder why MBisanz has not gone for one of these himself) and as I trust his (MBisanz} judgment along with my reasoning above I am happy to offer my full support. (For my support in a nutshell please see Avi’s support above) ;) Tiptoety ^talk 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
90. Support Nothing looks out of place. Excellent editing work and judgment.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - an extremely impressive resume, I don't think we could ask for anything more. In short, you are what a Wikipedia bureaucrat should be. Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support If there's a bandwagon, I want to be on it. No problems whatsoever with this, good luck with the tools! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - I see no reason why he shouldn't be a 'crat. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Shows experience, judgment and good intent. Skomorokh 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. User's name begins with "R". --
    harej 05:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
96. Support Everything I can find shows that he's been a trustworthy admin and editor. I see no reason why he wouldn't be a great 'crat as well. I was particularly impressed with his response to the recall question. Vickser (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Rock-solid. - Merzbow (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - I've had very positive interactions with this user in his ArbCom clerk capacity, and have full faith he will discharge his duties as bureaucrat admirably and impartially. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strong support I've found Rlevse to be a very nice man indeed, interactions with him has been very great. Giving Rlevse bureaucrat rights would just benefit the project having possibly less backlog in
    WP:CHU. --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. What fine luck I have to catch this just in time to bring it to
     chat) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     For anyone interested in the Coker issue: Put aside the alleged COI for just a moment, and look at the extreme dedication to accuracy that Rlevse has displayed on the talk page since the self-imposed article ban. Just recently there was a call on the talk page to remove mention of the medals of a veteran, and Rlevse not only proved they were real, he obtained the supporting military records, and has been transcribing these documents so there can be no mistake. He has risen to the challenge of continuing to be effective in developing the article while he is unable to edit it due to presumption of a COI, and has chosen to do so in spite of the fact he could easily use a recent arbcom ruling to bring the malcontents into line.

     chat) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

     ]

     To clarify and correct about the Coker issue: I never requested that any material be removed from the article, let alone about medals. The article provided no sources for any of Coker's decorations, and I asked that sources be provided for one particular medal that the one reliable source I had researched and identified, from The New York Times, specifically did not mention (see here for rebuttal of claim of any effort to "remove mention of the medals of a veteran"). An alternative source was identified after several days, but at the time it was added to support the claim, there was no evidence that it was a reliable source, which was only confirmed when the website was contacted after the fact and the source was able to provide copies of documentation to support almost all details of Coker's service record. The claim that I, and several other editors, who have expanded, improved and referenced the many unsourced statements in the article in question are "malcontents" who need to be put "into line" is unjustifiable. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Copied signature to non-indented statement above to correct count. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     You did did "hereby challenge the claim that Coker received a Distinguished Flying Cross. All we need is one reliable and verifiable source to address the issue" in reply to a statement that "If anyone does challenge it, I would expect them to have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate and not just be trying to make a point or be disruptive." You believe the article in general is contentious because you have made it that way, by the COI accusations, and you have been driving pretty hard at this issue. For content, the "Distinguished Flying Cross" has been mentioned in the article since the very beginning, back in January 8, 2006 (by Rlevse) and there is good reason to believe the article has been thoroughly reviewed by the subject. Whatismore, these medals are a matter of public record, so it is inconceivable that we should remove mention of it simply because nobody has found an online source for that fact. It is great to see that you are improving this article, and it was encouraging to see you going the extra mile by helping Rlevse with the transcription over on Wikisource, but you have now been blocked twice by different administrator, for different incidents and situations, under the

     chat) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

     ]

     In sourcing and improving the Coker article, I attempted to find sources for important elements that had been left unsourced. While the claim that it's been in the article for along time might offer some scant evidence of fact, the one source I found specifically excluded mention of Coker receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross, and I therefore asked for any suggestions for a source for the DFC (see here). I was alternatively told that other, similar articles don't provide sources for medals (see here and here) or that it does not require a source at all because only contentious material require any sources. Your claim that "these medals are a matter of public record" and presumably do not require sources would largely gut any and all concept of verifiability. As the one reliable source I had found omitted the DFC and as I could find no other source in any article or website, including on the "public record", I had rather genuine "reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." It could very well have been a typo, or cloned in error from another article, among a myriad of other potential errors. I stand 100% behind my request for one reliable and verifiable source to support the claim, especially in a

     this remedy, which makes absolutely no claim of some sort of "grudge" against any individual, and the repeated claim of being a "malcontent" borders on being an attack. The claim that any disagreement in the article solely comes from "trying to make a point or be disruptive", or that it only comes from "malcontents" who need to be put "into line" seems very hard to reconcile with how we are expected to interact on Wikipedia, if not a bit over the top in characterizing my actions. My opposition to this nomination, as I have explained, is based on my specific concerns on the ability to serve as a bureaucrat based on my past experience. Neither I nor anyone else has challenged any supporters. I appreciate that there are many who challenge or disagree with my claims, but they are made entirely in good faith and backed by evidence, and I stand behind them. I accept your vote and the more than one hundred others who support this nomination; I hope that my vote and issues can merit the same respect. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

     ]

101. Support - I will be away on holiday by the time this nomination is due to be closed, so thought I would offer an opinion. Whilst I would have liked to see more involvement in areas like
     WP:CHU, there is nothing magical about the process there and most bureaucrats have picked it up post-appointment rather than having had experience prior to their RfB. Rlevse participates constructively in discussions around the project and makes thoughtful comments. I have confidence in his judgment. It certainly can't do any harm to have an extra member of team, especially as I am going to be away for a while. I think Rlevse is a good choice to serve the community as a bureaucrat. WJBscribe (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
102. Support: put simply, I believe Rlevse will be a good bureaucrat. He's certainly got my trust.
     Anthøny 12:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
103. Support Seems to do very good work, there is no reason to deny him to sacrifice more of his time to the project. After all, we don't have to pay him ;-) So#Why 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. A sound user and administrator, I see no reason he shouldn't be an equally good 'crat. Leithp 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. I am very happy with Rlevse's broad variety of contributions, his policy knowledge, and his general attitude. Certainly looks to me like an ideal bureaucrat candidate. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support A reasonable, experienced administrator. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 15:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support: Of course! Just don't forget about us little people ;-) . - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support, I've had very good experience of this editor and trust him completely. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. You've handled your various duties and roles admirably, and I don't foresee that this will be an exception - but (as always), take care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Trustworthy, active user. No reason against. Cbrown1023 talk 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support I trust Rlevse. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Strong support Rlevse is an indefatigable Wikipedian whose record of excellence speaks for itself. Thoroughly knowledgeable and fair-minded in my experience. A pleasure to work with. Highly qualified by temperament, experience, and expertise to serve as a 'crat. JGHowes ^talk - 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Has (almost always) kept his cool even in the face of some pretty intense situations, and shows all around solid judgment and understanding of the project. I don't necessarily agree about the scouting image either, but goodness I don't think a disagreement about NFCC#8 means he's going to be a bad bureaucrat. In general, I'd really rather see anti-Fair Use campaigns conducted in places other than RFB, and with more recognition that those with different views aren't blatantly violating Foundation Policy, but are in fact disagreeing validly and in total good faith about how to implement the Foundation-sanctioned EDP. --JayHenry (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support - I've seen Rlevse around plenty and he always seems to use good judgment, essential for a crat. VegaDark (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - per EOTW :P nat.utoronto 05:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support - per User:VegaDark. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support Rlevse and I have been working together here for about three years. In that period he has earned my trust and proven his knowledge of Wikipedia operations, and those are the key points. If he want to put away the mop bucket and go for the steam cleaner, then go for it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. An administrator so bland she he hasn't managed to offend anybody (i.e. meets the usual bureaucrat criterion). WilyD 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - His interpretation of the NFC guideline is backed up by community consensus, which is what really matters. I'm not falling for the "he doesn't understand it" argument. --
     T/C) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
121. Support and offer Greyhound ticket to Newport, Rhode Island. Húsönd 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Rlevse has always seemed completely
     bureaucrat is modified or repaired by an unqualified individual. Darkspots (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
123. Support. Committed to Wikipedia. A broad knowledge of policy and implementation. Axl (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support. Per nom. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support: I've had to deal with Rlevse in the past, and it has always been a pleasure to work with this fine administrator, even if our opinions differed. A great nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support - inevitably any oppose votes to a candidate like this hinge on some minor detail that no reasonable person could possibly care about. Like the previous sentence - someone in the world will inevitably complain that I made a personal attack by implying some people aren't reasonable :-) ugen64 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Strong Support and I'll echo the above. As a summary exploration of the issues raised below will show, opposition to this candidate is borne of petulance and pettiness, in about equal measure. Eusebeus (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Please support without characterizing the motives of those who did not. Jonathunder (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

128. Support a trustworthy admin with who I have had only good experiences, good judgement, etc, etc. Good luck as a crat. Erik the
     Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
129. Support Trustworthy. KnightLago (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support Always struck me as thoughtful and sensible. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Abso-fricken-lutely. Ronnotel (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. A neutral, well-deserving candidate who I can trust to close RfAs in accordance to the community's decision. Khoikhoi 02:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. I could've sworn I supported when I first saw this RfB three days ago. :) Without hesitation.
     ✽ 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
134. Definitely support.
     T) 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
135. Strong support Rlevse is a trustworthy editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. Strong Support - has a super track record, an excellent knowledge of policy and has consistently shown good critical judgement as an admin. Implicitly trustworthy, I believe he'll be an excellent and hard-working 'crat - Alison ^❤ 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Good candidate, no problems for me and nothing in the answers to the questions that prevents me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support we need more admins with
     common sense. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     You do realize that this is an RfB, right? Synergy 12:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Yes, I do not see 'crats lacking common sense. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

139. Support - Will do fine as a bureaucrat. SchfiftyThree 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support I have seen this user around, and I hvae no issues. America69 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support has my trust LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support - Great answers to the questions. That Coker thing? Mwoah. Dig deep enough and you'll find something in the past of every editor/admin/crat. Too long ago to bother me. Good luck.  Channel ®   22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support I believe Rlevse would be a good bureaucrat. (Is that a bad thing to say about someone?) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support My experience with Rlevse and his answers to the questions make me believe he will be a very good bureaucrat Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Seems to fit the bill. --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Have had positive experiences with him generally, not concerned about his ability to judge consensus, which is the issue I focus most on in evaluating RfBs.
     GRBerry 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]
147. Support I've no problems with Rlevse and, too, agree that he will do a proper job. --Rodhullandemu 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2008-07-28 00:50Z
149. Support --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support. I have had consistent good experiences with this user in all areas, including his admin actions and his judgment regarding other admins. He will do well here. - Revolving Bugbear 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
151. Strong Support Having known Rlevse for quite a while, and knowing his abilities, I absolutely believe he would make an excellent addition to the Bureaucratic team. (I would happily wax rhapsodic about his excellent qualities, but as I've had to log in via 14k dial-up on an extremely old and picky computer, I will simply say that Rlevse is well respected by the community for his fair treatment, his vast knowledge, dedication to researching issues, and his willingness to listen to views that are different than his.) I have no doubt that he would perform the duties and functions of a Bureaucrat with the same integrity that he has shown as an Administrator. Ariel♥Gold 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
152. Rlevse is a contributor who has the best intentions of the project in mind. He is impartial, responsible, and sophisticated, and in a sea of great reasons to support a worthy candidate (including excellent answers to the standard 'crat "optional" questions), I see absolutely no compelling reason to oppose. Valtoras (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
153. I have a lot of respect for this contributor - can't imagine a better person for the job. Vishnava _talk 12:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
154. 'Support --Stephen 02:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose I came into contact with
   conflict of interest with the article's subject (see here). As a clerk to Arbcom, Rlevse added this article as evidence against me as part of an utterly unconnected dispute about footnoted quotes, failing to recuse himself and allow uninvolved admins to intervene, despite his clear conflict of interest in managing the matter. While I am sure that Rlevse believes he has acted appropriately and in good faith in each of these matters, the ability to separate personal views and opinions where required -- and to step aside and allow others to address an issue, where appropriate -- is a quality needed to justify a role as a bureaucrat. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I think this is a clear understanding of the arbitration process. Rlevse was not active as a clerk on the case -

   User:AGK closed it, and I posted the notices. In no way was Rlevse acting as a clerk there, and he wasn't pretending to be one. If a clerk is involved in a dispute, it's quite common for them to be involved in posting evidence - of they're not the clerk for the case, or helping with management of it, they're free to post evidence/comments/workshop proposals as they so wish. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   The subject making a request is a clear conflict of interest on Rlevse's part??? Subjects make requests all the time. Sometimes, they are asking us to fix a verifiable, factual discrepancy. Sometimes, there is something that is being misinterpreted. Sometimes a request is submitted via m:OTRS. Sometimes it is via Special:Emailuser. Sometimes it is on a talk page. Sometimes it is via other means. Sometimes the request is horribly unreasonable and sometimes it is reasonable. But communicating with the subject is most certainly NOT a conflict of interest. Really, we would be a much better encyclopedia if we were to make a concerted effort to ask ALL subjects to review their articles for factual accuracy. But that is my personal opinion and is outside the scope of this RFB. --B (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The entire matter, not just one part of it, deserves an explanation to address

   WP:COI concerns. Deleting a relevant, factual link to a film in which the article's subject appeared, and doing so on multiple occasions is a clear conflict of interest. User:Rlevse has apparently never had the subject avail himself of OTRS to address any possible factual error or misinterpretation. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   So if the subject had used OTRS and Rlevse handled the OTRS issue by removing the link, it would be ok, but because the subject (presumably) contacted Rlevse directly, it's not ok? Unless Coker is his boss (which, since Coker is retired, I would doubt), having contact doesn't make it a conflict of interest. It may (hypothetically) be an issue of BIAS, but it is NOT a conflict of interest unless he is being paid or otherwise benefits personally. I can think of at least three occasions where an article subject has emailed me using special:Emailuser concerning their article and I have responded in some fashion. Does our COI policy require me to be rude and ignore their emails? I seriously doubt it. --B (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The link was to a film with no explanation of what was in the film. The link was removed "at subject's request" on multiple occasions. After seven months and repeated requests, no evidence has been passed on to any third party as to what the subject's BLP concerns might be, which would be a first step to agreeing with the subject on the exclusion of the material or to addressing his concerns. Given the conflict of interest raised by the nominee's relationship with the article's subject, and the contentious issues regarding the article, it would be appropriate to turn over the evidence to independent parties to allow an appropriate judgment to be made, yet there has been no action to date.

   WP:COI policy does not require anyone "to be rude" (nor has that been suggested); nor does it require anyone to act. Steps to avoid the conflict of interest could have led to a resolution months ago. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   You apparently have no idea what conflict of interest means. Have you looked it up recently? Receiving requests, repeatedly taking an action, etc. - these have nothing to do with conflicting interests. A conflict of interests would be present if Rlevse had as a motivating interest something counter to the benefit of Wikipedia - responding to reasonable OTRS requests is a normal function on Wikipedia, which serves the interests of the encyclopedia as much as it does anyone else.

   ^T 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Examples numerous times, and Rlevse has the type of close personal relationship that is explicitly described as presenting problems, which creates the clearest potential of leading to actions contrary to the interests of Wikipedia in providing a full and complete biographical picture of the subject. "Responding to reasonable OTRS requests" is (by circular definition) entirely appropriate. Acceding to a subject's demands to excise any and all reference -- even bare links, with and without reliable sources -- to an Academy Award-winning documentary in which he has prominently appeared, and doing so on multiple occasions over a period of years, raises serious concerns of judgment, no less so than if the subject were editing the article himself. This is the black-letter definition of conflict of interest. The nominee needs to provide the as-yet undisclosed issues from the article's subject to neutral, unbiased third parties to allow a proper determination to be made on the propriety of his actions to date, steps that still have never been taken. We would benefit greatly if the nominee would address the conflict of issue concerns directly, rather than others who believe they understand the circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You pointed to an edit made "per subject's request." Where do you find evidence of a close personal relationship? Since you've presented no evidence of that, I (and others) presumed that you were referring to responding to a simple request (either by e-mail or OTRS, which is unclear) - which, by no reasonable definition, constitutes a conflict of interest. An actual close personal relationship would be something entirely different - can you back up that claim? I didn't realize there was a more significant connection between the subject and Rlevse (you didn't make that at all clear). Since apparently I truly am not in possession of all the facts, nevermind!

   ^T 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   A point of clarification. I do not know the exact nature of

   WP:COI, the clear possibility exists that one does. As a bureaucrat, Rlevse will be placed in positions in which he must make a decision to participate in a matter in which he has a connection that may -- or may not -- be a conflict of interest, and in which a decision must be made to recuse himself. That Rlevse has still not taken actions to address concerns about conflict of interest, combined with the fact that no one has ever seen the exact nature of the subject's concerns, leads me to continue to believe that Rlevse should not be approved as a bureaucrat without a thorough account of his actions at the article in question. While it is clear that those voting will approve the nomination, disclosure by Rlevse of the subject's concerns will be the first step to agreement with the article's subject on the exclusion of the material or to addressing his concerns. I appreciate (and I'm sure Rlevse does, as well) all of the efforts to explain his actions, but the full accounting and disclosure needs to come from the nominee himself. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   But I'm not certain we agree on the definition of conflict of interest. Rlevse is not in the employ of Coker. I don't think it's any secret that both are or were involved in Scouting, but so are millions of other people. That doesn't create a conflict of interest any more than it would for two people who buy groceries at Kroger. Asking Rlevse to disclose sufficient personal details to demonstrate a lack of conflict of interest is tantamount to asking him to out himself and give up his right to privacy on the project. He has recused himself from further edits to Coker's article so, as far as I can see, it's a non-issue. --B (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Rlevse has demonstrated that there is an extremely likely possibility that he has acted improperly in removing references to a film that an article's subject feels is non-flattering. The film itself, and most importantly Coker's statements made in the film, are relevant and supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. I do not know what Kroger shopping policies are, but Wikipedia policy on

   WP:COI forbids individuals with a close personal relationship from editing articles about each other. This conflict appears to go far beyond shopping at the same supermarket or participating in the same scouting organization. Rlevse may very well have violated COI policy and done so in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of this encyclopedia solely to advance the interests of the article's subject. While Rlevse came up with a "self-ban" months after the damage was caused by the apparent conflict of interest, he has still failed to make any effort to disclose the issues the subject has raised and failed to recuse himself when the issue mattered. This speaks rather poorly of what we can expect from Rlevse as a bureaucrat. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   This entire thread sounds like a total abuse of the RfB process to me. Alansohn, if you are trying to get at Rlevse because of some bitter vendetta, I strongly encourage you to drop it, because if it escalates, I'm fully prepared to block you for under the

   terms of your ArbCom-imposed behavioral restriction. —Animum (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   The concerns I have raised are all directly relevant to Rlevse's ability to properly serve as a bureaucrat. This is exactly what this process is intended to do. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I barely recall seeing the candidate's participation around RfA; he may vote on many RfAs (which isn't a bad thing per se) but I do not recall him regularly debating issues. His comments on WT:RFA are often short, follow the natural death of a discussion, and thus add little. I did a Ctrl+F for his name on there now and found one comment only, and it was just over a line, two days after the last comment in the discussion. Currently at BN he's made two comments outside of a discussion he started (though I do think starting that one was a good idea and thank him for doing so); one again two days after the discussion died, agreeing with the consensus already formed, and the other... well I just can't see its purpose. Based on these issues outlined I would not feel comfortable with the candidate having to explain and justify a tough call, or to get to a 'crat chat on time, since as we know those things only work if done quickly. This is a significant concern which means I can't trust him yet on RfX. —Giggy 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This is distinct from non-RfX issues, though some of my concerns are universal and he should take them on board if he runs for ArbCom.[reply]

   OpposeSTRONG OPPOSE Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be immensely helpful for you to elaborate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Changing it to strong oppose isn't helpful either. Enigma ^message 06:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering the unexplained change (which likely indicates some kind of smart alec passive aggressive response), it will be ignored. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmmmm. . . . not too compelling an argument. (Perhaps when this user has greater experience, he will have a better handle on consensus building.) Cheers Dlohcierekim 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Vote indented pending a better explanation. I can assure you all that there's not a single bureaucrat who would take that vote into account, as it stands. --Deskana (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Giggy, if you look at the user's history, yes there is a reason why more than a signature is required. I agree with Deskana. Enigma ^message 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Where did Giggy make a comment regarding this? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In his edit summary here.--KojiDude ^(C) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I defer to Deskana's judgement, obviously. —Giggy 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So are the at least 12 people who supported with no reason given going to be ignored by all b'crats, too? --Rividian (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the general "consensus" (and I use that term loosely) is that the onus rests with the opposition to come up with valid concerns as to why someone should not be elected to sysop or crat "status". It's kind of like AGF/innocent until proven guilty. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems pretty biased to me that only opposers can expect to be challenged. It makes it easy to support and an ordeal to oppose... presumably people would oppose but don't want to get jumped on, that doesn't seem fair. --Rividian (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I definitely see your point here, however, let's look at it pragmatically. Supporters tend to come in droves (unless it's an obvious SNOW case), casting their !vote with good-faith blurbs about good editing habits, no major problems, civility, helpfulness, and a significant degree of

   WP:CLUE. In other words, they default to this position unless they can be shown otherwise. The opposition, on the other hand, provides (usually) in depth or legitimate reasons that concern them. They are then expanded upon when asked. If one were to ask a supporter for their reasoning, it would be something along the lines of "nothing concerns me". The conversation would stall and that'd be it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   That's my point, though. Why should only people who oppose have to be able to explain themselves and actually have reasons beyond "I feel like it"? If supporters can support basically because they like a candidate but opposers can't oppose because they just don't like the candidate, that's deeply biased. We're basically allowing one side to vote and forcing the other side to debate. How would an election work if everyone voting for candidate A just had to punch "yes" but everyone voting for candidate B had to explain themselves in detail to the election administrators and reply to sometimes angry challenges (see the guy above who got blocked for opposing)? --Rividian (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This isn't an election, but a discussion. Ideally, everyone should have to explain his/her positions as is expected in other discussions, but the wonts of our community are fickle, and everyone is not held to that standard. At any rate, this sub-discussion is more suited to

   WT:RFA than here. —Animum (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   If every "no" vote counted for four "yes" votes in actual elections, you can bet the people voting "no" would be under more scrutiny. GlassCobra 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's more than that. I didn't indent it because it didn't provide a reason. I indented because I in fact asked the user to explain and he reverted it. Please investigate the user's history before questioning the indentation. It was well warranted. Enigma ^message 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - there are only a few people who are, in my mind editors who would make good bureaucrats. Rlevse does not stand out and make me think "He'll be a good bureaucrat". I don't think he'd be a bad one, but I don't think he'd be particularly great either. Additionally, I'd prefer he ran for ArbCom instead of taking on this role. The nomination explains how he's active in the sockpuppet area - on ArbCom he can get CheckUser which would be very helpful there. In all, a great editor, but just not a bureaucrat type. Please run for ArbCom instead.
   talk 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Reluctant Oppose Per giggy. I have the world of respect for Rlevse... there are only a handful of users to whom I respect more than Rlevse, but there are only a few areas where 'crat tools are needed and he doesn't really work in any of them. I would like to see him more active in those areas before running for crat. I would be at the front of the line if he were to run for ArbCOM... or if he had more experience in areas needing crats.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Balloonman switched votes, see support 68. Making note because this is already causing confusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose.
   gr 11:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I don't think Rlevse fails to understand non-free content policy—I think it's a difference in interpretation, and as shown by the link you provided, quite a few users are disagreeing with you. Maxim_(talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right. There are a whole lot of users at Wikipedia who don't understand the non-free content policy. Fortunately, most of them aren't running for bureaucrat. Unfortunately, at least one of them is, and is getting overwhelming support. —

   gr 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I do think the reality of NFCC is less black-and-white than you seem to believe. While I don't want to get into the whole discussion here, from my review of that deletion discussion I am more inclined to agree with Rlevse in the interpretation of whether "critical commentary" is required per the sentence. Obviously you're fully entitled to oppose his RfB based on your perception of his policy understanding (I'd call that a good reason, actually) but I'd encourage you not to assume the majority of people in that deletion discussion are wrong and you are right - I think the reality is somewhere in the middle due to a vague sentence. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I don't think anyone claims that I don't understand the non-free content policy and I happen to agree with Rlevse on this one. Heck, My RFA was opposed because I'm too deletionist on images. This is a notable example of Scouting in the movies, arguably the most notable. There are NO free examples and having a visual example of a portrayal substantially enhances the article. Were there a free example (for example, an out of copyright movie like It's a Wonderful Life or something) we could use it, but I don't know of one. It may not be of necessity to use a non-free screenshot of that particular movie, but nothing is free, so the only question is do we depict Scouting in the movies or do we not depict it at all. As long as we are going to allow fair use images, I don't see a problem with it. In any event, the duties of bureaucrat do not include any image-related duties beyond what any other admin can do and I seriously doubt Rlevse has ever closed IFDs or PUI nominations. Being a bureaucrat is about do we trust Rlevse enough to believe that he is not a vandal that is going to go randomly sysopping people and that he is going to close RFAs according to consensus, not according to his own desires. On both points, I can say that I trust Rlevse. I haven't always agreed with him, particularly on images where I am very much a deletionist (despite agreeing about this particular one) but I trust his character and judgment. --B (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Angr, unless I'm mistaken, you're claiming that all the people who sided with Rlevse and was in favor of keeping the image, has a minimal understanding of fair use policy? Keep in mind that the discussion was closed as keep. —Dark ^talk 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   More to the point, I'm not aware that a bureaucrat as such has any special role in the enforcement or the interpretation of that policy. DGG (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose: Angr is right. If Rlevse could so poorly understand the critical fair use policy, I don't want to think about how he'd poorly understand bureaucrat related policies. Also, calling Angr being on a "crusade" is hardly positive conduct. Comment on the points raised, not on the person raising the points. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Disagreeing with your intepretation of image policy != "poorly understand", for the record. While you're free to disagree with him, and (unfortunately) to oppose based solely on that disagreement (what does non-free content have to do with promoting admins and changing usernames, but I digress) your wording is more than a bit over-the-top. S. Dean Jameson 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And I have every right to oppose for what I feel are perfectly valid reasons. I am quite sorry you don't like it, but that's not my problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And I have every right to challenge an oppose that is based upon issues that have nothing to do with promoting admins and changing usernames. This is a "discussion", right? S. Dean Jameson 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you don't like my vote, that's your problem. My vote isn't going to change simply because you don't like it. Rlevse doesn't understand core policies. I fail to see how his lack of understanding of core policies in one area makes him well qualified in this area. I also do not like that he launched a personal attack against the person he was in discussion with. Entirely inappropriate behavior for a bureaucrat. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No-one has any rights in editing Wikimedia projects; the two rights that exist are the right to fork and the right to leave. Daniel (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. I agree with Majorly. While I don't see potential problems with Rlevse as a bureaucrat, I don't see him as a very good candidate. We can afford to be choosy with bureaucrats, and since renames are mostly under control (although that's not particularly due to new bureaucrats) I see no reason to support. You'll obviously pass, so I wish you the best and hope you can follow through on being active. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Reading above, I've noticed how his affinity for decorative fair use images is dismissed as an invalid reason to oppose, and his willingness to remove the most basic verifiable material from an article is dismissed as a personal vendetta. What a strange dichotomy! Were this the other way around, where the candidate is perceived as "soft on BLP" and/or "rigid on fair use", this request would probably be failing 300 to 1. Behold, the tyranny of numbers. — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]