Lee Vilenski(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) – It is my honor to present Lee Vilenski to you for consideration as a bureaucrat. I believe that if you examine his record, as I have, you will find he possesses the characteristics and experience we want from our crats. Namely a rock solid grasp of policy and guidelines, great skill in finding consensus across a variety of discussions, and the ability to write closes for controversial topics that gain acceptance. Making something contentious into something boring is something I've seen Lee do well, including in his closes for deprecating Fox News and more recently in closing this discussion which had its original close overturned on review. Lee displays his understanding of policies, guidelines, and procedures through his incredible accomplishment on the content side as well, having won the WikiCup once and twice been the runner-up. He has written more than two dozen featured articles and over a hundred good articles. Lee is, in my mind, highly qualified for the position and would also, if elected, become the crat whose account registration was newest and who has the most recent RfA (currently Primefac holds both these marks having registered in 2010 and RFA'd in 2017). Better decision are made when groups consider diverse perspectives and Lee would bring the perspective of someone who came to Wikipedia during a more recent era. I hope you join me in supporting his nomination for bureaucrat. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Co Nomination
It is a rare occasion that we are able to consider the nomination of a new bureaucrat, so I am humbled to be able to co-nominate Lee Vilenski. Lee has been with our community for a few years now, exemplifying the best that the community can produce, even though he's only been with us about 5 years. During that time, he has consistently demonstrated his understanding of policy, his ability to make good judgements and most importantly, he's demonstrated a definite lack of controversy. We've had recent discussions about our bureaucrats, a group which considers me a "newbie", despite being on the encyclopedia for 14 years. We're long in the tooth as a group, and we need people who represent the present shape of the encyclopedia. I would personally be proud to be represented by Lee. WormTT(talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the above nomination, and look forward to any questions that may occur. Thank you all for taking time to look at my nomination. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: I have read through Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship as well as previous RfAs, especially when they have led to a cratchat to become familiar with the procedure. All discussions are different, but a general rule of thumb of above 75% support confirms confidence in an RfA candidate, whilst below 65% suggest there isn't a consensus to promote. RfAs that fall in between that range need additional eyes. Of course if consensus is not clear, at any percentage or if something specifically controversial arises, then a crat chat can be called. Bureaucrats give an individual assessment of the discussion, whether they believe there is consensus or no consensus to promote the user to admin.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: In all likelihood, all RfAs are a bit contentious due to their nature. When closing a contentious or close discussion it is important that the close gives a well thought out and well written closing rationale. It is important that we give a detailed, methodical (but also distinct and to the point) response when closing an RfA either way, as it gives users who have participated answers to the close. Even if a user disagrees with the result, a well written rationale will help give respect to the result.
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 have closed and participated in many high profile discussions. I have spent some time being involved on panels for closing, such as the recent proposed changes to the RfA format and the deprecation of Fox News as a source. I have a reputation for respecting policy based arguments and attempting to keep our articles in line with our wider MOS. Even as a new member of the community I was highly involved with the removal of FANCRUFT in the form of move-lists on professional wrestling articles, and also more recently on the overhaul of non-accesible tables across reality television articles, and improving the quality of our cue sports articls (where I've significantly contributed to over 25 featured items). As a mostly content creation user, I am aware there are places on the site where I am not familiar. If I am commenting on something, I will use my own knowledge, but also supplement with relevant policies and guidelines. A high-level discussion, such as ones with a closing committee, require much more careful understanding of the policies involved. I don't know all of the policies on the site (I doubt many do), but I always read them if I'm ever linked to a new one that I'm not familiar with.
A First, thank you for bringing this up! I had debated making a mention of this in my nomination statement, but eventually decided against it as it didn't fit any of the questions neatly. It's worth noting that this was a panel close, so I wouldn't want to talk on the behalf of others involved.
I agree with the final DRV result now, that a no consensus result would have been the most suitable close. The RfC close wording did state that a future RfC would be suitable to get the proposal to pass, however, the "unsuccessful" result would halt that. If the original close had a no consensus result that would have been suitable close. I do think we got a lot of the wording right, in terms of discussions not being a vote, but the actual bolded result was a bit of a miscue. I think that the three-person panel discussing the result off-wiki both exaserbated issues after the initial close was done, and are elements I might avoid in future. The RfA process is a lot more transparent in that respect.
I'm more than happy to talk about the result/overturn or even the policy in general as soon as the DRV had concluded. I, however, didn't want to sway the DRV or grandstand over the result as it was in progress. It makes sense that the community would rather have an open discussion about the close at hand, so that is something I have looked to do more since this item.
A: I'm not sure if "proud" is the right word, as closes are simply a summary of the conversation. However, I was pleased to be involved in such a high profile close when dealing with the Fox News deprecation discussion. It was great to also work with two other highly experienced editors. I also recently did an assessment of this discussion that had previously been overturned. This was a great experience in closing a contentious discussion, but, also for the involved users to get closure on something that had been active for many months.
A: This might need a bit of a preface. This was a very contentious RfA, due to having a !vote percentage of less than the zone for a 'cratchat, but still passed. It's difficult to talk about a discussion that has been closed without being swayed by it. It was also done in 2019, which was even before I became an admin. Luckily, I didn't comment on the nom at the time, so I'm not swayed by a !vote on the RfA.
If I were involved with the cratchat, I would likely have a much longer response and wouldn't take the responsibility lightly. The first thing to look at with this nomination is that there are were some confusion over the April Fools elements and some poor rationales that should be given less weight. That for me is the reason why a cratchat is somerimes suitable even if the actual vote falls slightly outside of the discrerionary zone. The discussion as a whole had a crux on civility. Our job isn't to tell whether or not the user is civil or not, but instead comment on if the community (or at least the people in the discussion) think as a whole that they are civil (along with being given the toolset).
It's not an easy decision, but I didn't find a consensus to promote in this case. The supporting parties did not do enough (in my eyes) to overcome the strength and volume of opposers. That's not to say that I agree or disagree with RexxS as an admin, nor the final result of the discussion, this is just my interpretation of the discussion.
7. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?
A:Just to confirm - you are asking if a crat can use IAR when closing an RfA, or in general? IAR is a policy; but in practice it is for obviously beneficial things to not be weighed down by potentially ill-fitting policies. Closing discussions, such as promoting someone at RfA, a bot request or cratchat isn't really a policy based thing - it is a summary of the preceding discussion. As such, ignoring the previous discussion is a supervote. That doesn't mean that there is no policies being used in the discussion (far from it), so we should do everything to not let personal biases impact this. IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", but something being "improved" after a discussion is debatable.
Outside of discussions, I am sure there are good times that IAR is used, but it's not something I use much, if ever (if I have actually successfully used IAR, I'd like to know)! I tend to think that if a policy is too restricting, then changing the policy is the better way forward. I do tend to keep my editing to follow our manual of style and previous consensus wherever possible. I do hope this answers your question, as I feel I may have misread it slightly.
8. Which elements — or the lack thereof — would you consider most important in determining the strength of individual !votes relative to other !votes and the discussion as a whole; in other words, what kind of commentary and circumstances — again, or the lack thereof — would lead you to depreciate or augment the value and importance of any given !vote or a set of !votes?
A: Policy. If your argument has a good solid foundation in existing policy, then these are the best types of arguments. We often find arguments falling foul of WP:ILIKEIT, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which shouldn't be discounted, but certainly given less WP:WEIGHT than those grounded in established consensus. There are, however, some cases where !votes should be depreciated, such as duplicate votes, votes in violation of a ban, or egregious things such as personal attacks, or obviously bad faith actions. RfA is a different type of discussion (in comparison to say AfD), as every !vote is based (at least to an extent) on personal opinion. However, even in an RfA there are policies, such as WP:ADMINCONDUCT and WP:ADMINACCT, so !votes based on conduct and similar issues should be given a little more weight. It's a little more nuanced than what I've said, as outside of struck comments, all !votes have value.
9 What in particular (if anything) do you think that you as a bureaucrat, or bureaucrats in general, can do to facilitate an increase in the number of administrators and/or to reduce the toxicity of RFA?
A: Great question. In terms of increasing administrators, I actively look out for candidates for RfA that I think will pass and reach out and provide nomination statements (including nominating Hog Farm and Eddie891 who both passed), although most of my candidates get snapped up by Barkeep! In the current state of our RfA then convincing suitable editors to run is the best way to get more successful RfAs. If I were to be given the role of crat, this wouldn't stop me from continuing to investigate potential candidates.
Since I joined the project in 2017, RfA has been a surprising thing to see pop up on my watchlist (if I haven't been involved in it). Last year we had 7 successful promotions. In 2018 we had 10 and we are half way through 2022 and have only had five. This wouldn't be too bad if we were simply too rigorous in finding a suitable candidate, but we've only had 8 total RfAs. I think most users are in agreement that the RfA process has some major flaws in it. The issue is coming to a consensus of finding a better way to do it. I think we are all responsible in reducing the toxicity at RfX. The process is a week-long ball of stress for the candidate (or at least for me), which in the case of a close call is extended by a cratchat. I feel it's the duty of the 'crats to provide an accurate, but also speedy close. As a bureaucrat, I'd want to limit the length of insecurity as much as possible, but also give a suitable reading of the discussion as a whole.
That being said, we do look to our most experienced editors, which includes bureaucrats, to provide ideas and create discussions on how to make the process easier. I have lots of ideas but as we've seen the process isn't the easiest to reform. It isn't tied to the 'crat position, but as someone who will have been through two recent RfXs, be in a unique position from a candidate point of view. I can use this information and add to our efforts to make RfX less toxic, which in turn should provide more nominations.
Lee Vilenski has been one of our best administrators since his RfA in 2020 and has shown great aptitude for managing challenging situations. It's a delight to be able to support his RfB. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 16:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
per nominations and KevinL above. firefly ( t · c ) 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support of course. A very solid record of content creation and closing discussions wisely. Why not? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support will be a great addition to the bureaucrat team. We certainly need the perspective of editors who joined more recently, and I support and know that Lee Vilenski will do a good job. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - the crat position is an odd one, because most of the time it doesn't involve anything other than the occasional flipping of a bit. When contentious or close RFAs do come along however, such as the one we saw recently, the crats come into their own, and to be honest I think they do a very good job of it. As such, adding new members to the team from time to time seems a good idea, and I can't imagine a finer candidate than Mr Vilenski. I mostly know him through his excellent work on snooker articles, and he's clearly a very experienced and well-respected editor, so happy to support. — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Smart capable editor and admin. I feel Lee would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as clearly capable of and having the mindset for the role. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Wikipedia does need more crats. As exemplified in the Tamzin RFA crat chat, Wikipedia is desperately in need of crats that reflect the current makeup, mindset and culture of the Wikipedia editorial and admin corps. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Obviously Lee is capable, as well set out by BK49. I then focus on @Pppery:'s point on whether we needs more 'Crats. The issue isn't that we really need more 'crats in total - no doubt they're correct on that. But I would encourage them to consider the other aspects - cratship is an extremely static pool. The vast majority of 'crats have held the admin right for at least half a decade. Most for appreciably longer. In the same way that arbcom could function with fewer arbs (maybe even function smoother) but having more helps ensure a range of viewpoints is provided, thus too, the crat corps would benefit from Lee's presence. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think it is healthy to have new 'crats and new candidates step forward on a regular basis (to reflect changes in the makeup, mindset and culture of the community). Strong candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Absolutely no concerns about Lee in this role. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support more the merrier. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support: the pool of crats we have, in aggregate, have far too old join dates to properly represent the community. Lee Vilenski has the temperament, experience and skills needed to be a crat, and would be the only one to have joined Wikipedia post-2010, I believe. Lee Vilenski has a five-year history of showing incredible dedication to the project, in both content work and behind-the-scenes pages, and I have seen no issues with their use of admin rights. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, yes, a million times yes. Incredibly cordial and level-headed, has a great grasp of Wikipedia's policies. Dedicated to the project. Checks every box and more. — GhostRiver 17:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per noms, in the rare occurrence of a crat' chat, the more the merrier, as well as people who represent the Wikipedia of today. Sea Cow (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Lee Vilenski seems very competent and experienced. I think he will be a fantastic steward and leader. You have my full support, and I wish you only continued success. PaulPachad (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support New blood is needed on the 'crat team, and I'm confident Lee is a good choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No concerns with Lee for this role, I think they'll do well in it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly know this editor from their work in guiding numerous articles through FAC and their even more numerous thorough, sympathetic and informed reviews there; purely on this basis I am more than happy to support their nomination for 'cratship. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. While I haven't really interacted with the candidate, the nomination by Barkeep helped to put me in this camp. Good to have another person available for mediation in contentious RFAs. Rollidan (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I respect and trust Lee. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No concerns from me. I respect and look up to Lee and I'm sure he would make a great bureaucrat. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Solid candidate; has what it takes to make a good crat. Schwede66 19:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I have had many positive interactions with this user and have no concerns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Concerning the issue of "need," perhaps we do not "need" one or more new bureaucrats to ensure that RfAs are timely closed, given the sadly limited number of RfAs we have had in recent years. But no Wikipedia task or process benefits from being run by a closed-ended group of more senior editors, without any periodic intake of new blood. The bureaucrats find themselves in the spotlight only when there is a debatable RfA closing resulting in a 'crat chat; and at those times, it would be good to have at least one relatively fresh-faced person participating in the discussion, even if he is not going to spend the bulk of the rest of his wiki-time 'cratting. I find the "need," or at least desirability, of having at least one new bureaucrat compelling from that standpoint, and I have no concerns about the candidate himself, so I find this an easy support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Maybe we aren't in dire need of 'crats now, but let's not get complacent – we will need more at some point. When trusted, qualified, capable editors like Lee Vilenski step up, we shouldn't miss our chance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Of course. Lee is a wonderfully level-headed and reasonable editor and I see no reason that he shouldn't be a crat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - he is certainly qualified, and has the proper demeanor. I don't see a downside to having him as a crat. Atsme💬📧 20:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I’ve seen Lee around various areas, particularly the Good Article nomination backlog drives. He has incredible temperament for complex and relatively simple cases alike and exemplifies the ideals of a collaborative wiki editor. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not super familiar with this editor, but we need more crats and most of the people above offering their support are people known to have a clue, so. The examples of their admin closes show they also have both patience and a clue. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support no brainer. I've worked with Lee variously over the last few years and have seen nothing other than level-headedness throughout, even when dealing with me. Therefore this candidate is endorsed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for volunteering. Levivich 01:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the new blood. I agree there isn't a need in terms of backlogs, and I think we should get rid of crats and hand over their function to stewards since RfA is functionally an election already, but thats not happening and so long as the community insists on having having a discretionary zone, we should have new additions that reflect the currently active community. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support for the reasons stated in the nomination. Mz7 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Lots of pleasant experiences with Lee in the FAC space. I fully trust their judgement and as per everyone else here.--NØ 06:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Every interaction I have had with Lee has been positive. Good candidate; I trust him. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I highly trust Vilenski and am very confident in his abilities. He's proved more than capable in both administrative contexts and in content creation (beating me in the WikiCup twice). I see no reason he shouldn't be a bureaucrat as well - we may not "need more crats", but we would certainly benefit from them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I believe that we do in fact need more bureaucrats, especially those who are active editors and can bring a new perspective. I have absolute confidence in Lee's ability to judge consensus.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully support. No issues with Lee. Tamzin's RfA demonstrated our crat corps is a little light on newer members. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – We may not need more 'crats to deal with the current workload, but what would happen if half our current 'crat corps were to decide to give up their bits? Suddenly we'd be in a situation where we didn't have enough 'crats. Lee has responsibly held the mop for quite some time and has demonstrated the willingness to collaborate with others and learn from mistakes. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, 8B close was wrong (and maybe a supervote), but it was a panel and also I'm impressed by Lee's response above. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Trustworthy editor. I don't know what world Pppery is living in when the literal last RfA was extremely contentious and political and was decided by a mere 11 users in a crat chat. It is obviously still a very relevant and important role whose legitimacy comes from the continued support of the community, in spite of the low workload. Until that changes, we absolutely do need, or should at least want, more good candidates getting cratship. ~Swarm~{sting} 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with your rationale here, Swarm, particularly the phrase "mere 11 users". When was the last time you saw a discussion closed by more than 11 people? The only comparable body is Arbcom, but RfAs already place way too intense a focus on just one person for a full week plus crat chat time. Arbcom is too intense as well, and indeed many people choose to retire or lose all motivation to volunteer when they become a main subject of an arbitration process. But crat chats with 11 participants are much worse than Arbcom panels of 11, because Arbcom comes up with new rules and ideas, whereas crats are there only to evaluate the community's existing view. — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not 11 users to close a discussion (as opposed to one), it's 11 users who are allowed to offer a reading of consensus in an RfA, in the extraordinary situation when we have to call upon all such users to form a meta-consensus. The fact that we can call all possible users to address the situation, and the most we can come up with is 11 users is not particularly reassuring to me. We need fresh blood and more participation, not a stagnant and ever-diminishing pool of ancient users, some of whom are long detached from the current community. ~Swarm~{sting} 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - not only is new blood is certainly needed among the corps of 'crats, but it would it be impossible to dispute nominations from Barkeep49 and Worm That Turned, two of Wikipedia's most respected and experienced users. Lee's excellent admin work, a WikiCup winner and twice runner up, and his superb unwavering content building (not only for our shared passion), are some of the few reasons why (Bilorv's comments noted) I still occasionally contribute to Wikipedia. He's a fully qualified candidate and as per Newyorkbrad's reasoning, an easy support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, I do not see why we need more crats at this point, but beyond this I do not see any other reason not to support--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support—Wikipedia may not need more crats, but we certainly need Vilenski to be a… crat. Or, something. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Candidate have the guts to wade in contentious territory, such as the Fox News case. We can always need another bureaucrat. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - seems to reach the bar. Voting because of Pppery's oppose: in my opinion, the purpose of RfB is to say whether individual candidates reach the bar; if we have too many crats, we should stop looking for new candidates rather than derailing individual applications. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not too familiar with their work, but they seems qualified and nothing concerning comes to mind. So why not? El_C 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - unreservedly. Lee Vilenski is knowledgeable, civil, and encouraging. I trust him to make decisions impartially based on policy and evidence. He has also contributed a huge volume of quality content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great close history, a willingness to admit gaps in knowledge, and a good answer to question 6. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support we should welcome well qualified bureaucrat. DIVINE📪 19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. 8B was not an ideal close, but it is more important that he has obviously learned from that incident. No other concerns. HouseBlastertalk 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sound judgment, stellar track record, has clue. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 21:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support because I do believe we need more bureaucrats, first because we need a broader demographic selection, and second because there have been occasions where it has been dicey finding enough truly active, uninvolved bureaucrats to close a discussion. We really shouldn't be at a place where we have to wait around for them to show up. Lee Vilenski is not perfect in every imaginable way, but through his very consistent good judgement and temperament has gained my trust that he will improve this project by becoming a bureaucrat. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 22:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Came across Lee as a very competent admin, and the Oppose votes aren't convincing enough for me to change this view. — kashmīrīTALK 23:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The candidate is immensely competent and will be a net benefit to the 'crat corps. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, we need more admins and bureaucrats that care about Wikipedia's content, not Wikipedia's drama. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great content creator and great administrator. NoahTalk 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — Lee Vilenski is diligent in their content work as well as administrative tasks. They are not infallible — no one is — but they have learnt and improved from their past experiences, and their judgment skills are trustworthy. An editor who is so engaging with the community and unfailingly kind in their conduct is easily qualified for bureaucratship. — The Most ComfortableChair 12:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The candidate has relevant background and trust from the community, and I agree with Barkeep that we ought to have some newer 'crats. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, seems qualified, credible and deserving...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support In my opinion, there is no harm in having another crat if we can trust them. I see no reason why Lee Vilenski can't be trusted. --Ferien (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh Geez! Am I in the right place??? Really Really concerned about those opposes by some esteemed editors who almost always know WTF they're talkin' about! Naahhhht! ;>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not meant as an insult even though it sounds like one, but this is exactly the sort of boringly competent person who's best suited for RFB. That he's a relatively recent joiner, rather than a member of the class of 2006–08, is a definite plus; it's through no fault of their own but the existing crats inevitably reflect the concerns of expansion-phase Wikipedia rather than maintenance-phase Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also used the b word in my nomination statement and so I will say that we're both complementing him rather than insulting him given the circumstances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Lee has shown himself to be a reliable admin to date and I agree with comments that it's good to have a new crat who has been an admin for less than a decade. Deryck C. 14:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Good content and good admin contributions. Concerns about "too many crats" are just as meaningless as the "too many admins" argument last decade, since there's no requirement to keep the number of admins/bureaucrats to a minimum. The one misjudgement of consensus doesn't bother me either. If a pattern were to be shown, then I would likely oppose, but a singular instance is not a cause for concern in my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree that Lee has been a good administrator. I am glad I supported him. I think he has the experience and attitude to be a crat. With the withdrawal or inactivity of a few crats over the past few years, I think Wikipedia does not have enough crats to make a well considered consensus judgment if even a few don't participate. I am glad I saw this in time to support. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I'm not on the "we really need more/younger bureaucrats" bandwagon (we're doing fine!), but I don't object to adding qualified ones. I was going to sit this one out, since while I trust others' judgment that Lee is well qualified, I didn't have enough direct exposure to know firsthand. However, I'm pushed from the fence to support as a !vote of disagreement with the opposes over the "8B" close. I've re-read the relevant material, and feel our collective head needs a shake if we would feel the need to disqualify someone on the basis of overturning their team close of "This proposal unsuccessful; but further discussion might lead to something that would pass" into "No consensus on the proposal". On something that seems to then have died anyway through insufficient interest for anyone to turn it into a workable, implementable proposal that would gain consensus. Martinp (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Great to see a well qualified candidate from a younger wiki-generation than the current (and indeed former!) bureaucrats... WJBscribe(talk) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - have worked with him for a number of years, trust his advice and judgment. GiantSnowman 12:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I think that the position of Bureaucrat is poorly defined and requires a rework, but that isn't the question. The candidate is qualified for a position of trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - It's just commendable that someone who also seems suitable to me wants to become a bureaucrat. Drummingman (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Appears to be qualified to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't believe we need more bureaucrats as the position is somewhat obsolete at this point. But if there has to be an addition to the ranks Lee is one of the few I'd fully trust. Wizardman 02:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support reasonable and civil, no more needed; we all (hopefully) learn and grow here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I'm of the same mind as Wizardman here. bibliomaniac15 05:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support One of the Wikipedians I trust the most. I've seen many great closes from them including the fox news one which is arguably the most important close to get right in the past few years. I've also had many great interactions with Lee. --Trialpears (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Yikes, almost missed this one before it got archived. We've bumped into each other many times during article review processes, and I can't recall any problems. I guess it's not to early to say: gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support worked with him on a number of occasions. Seems a decent lad. Willbb234 13:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - An experienced admin who will make a good bureaucrat. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we disagree. Please explain the downside of having lots of qualified admins? — Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I may have supported this nomination, but at this time I cannot vote for one of the admins who closed this discussion about proposed admin elections. The initial close was wrong and it was ultimately decided that it "did not accurately reflect community consensus" [1]. Given that the role of a 'crat is to judge community consensus, I think that is pretty damning, particularly when you consider the importance of the matter at stake in that RFC. -- Vaulter 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I find the read of the Fox News sourcing problematic. If there is no consensus that Fox News is reliable and a lot of good reason to doubt, why should it be reliable for any topic? Andrevan@ 02:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's entirely inline with current consensus. There is disagreement over its reliability on the topics of US politics and science. There is a consensus for it being reliable on other topics. See WP:Perennial sources: [t]here is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science and [t]here is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. It is not unusual for a source to be reliable for x but not y. There is a different, much stricter sourcing standard for medical topics: [t]he popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. It's also worth noting that the Fox News RfC was closed by a panel of three editors (a current bureaucrat and two admins). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan I'd more ask if it felt like a correct interpretation of community consensus in that RfC. Your point has potential merit for reasonableness, but that is more up to the community to decide. Had the closer (one of three) decided to go for what they felt was reasonable even against what the bulk of editors were saying, that would be more of a concern. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Well, for what it's worth, there have been two lengthy additional discussions since then, and they have not resulted in a different consensus. —Compassionate727(T·C) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could folks link the other discussions here and I'll read. I am returning to Wiki after a number of years of inactivity. Andrevan@ 18:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: The discussion that Vilenski was involved in closing is here; the three discussions that have taken place since then are here, here, and here. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The close mentioned in #2, above this discussion is an automatic disqualifier for a role which requires, critically, the ability to assess consensus. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per RFA review close that was overturned and as Vaulter explains above --DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the day, 'unsuccessful' and 'no consensus' amount to the same thing: no action will be implemented, but for different reasons, but of course, ideally, the closure should accurately reflect which one it is. What the opposers here are not mentioning however, is that the closure was a joint effort by three experienced and respected administrators. Lee's role in this was not a unilateral decision. Joint closures are not rare, as and as admins are human, even three of them together can sometimes not get things quite right. The decision went to review, which was summarised and closed by Tony who is also no jerk and has plenty of clue. Things happen, but IHMO this RfC closure in which Lee played a minor part, is not sufficient grounds to oppose this RfB. It's also interesting to note that although well researched and launched by an experienced admin, the complete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review RfC, of which the contested close was only a part - but the most difficult to assess - was not heralded as a resounding success. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you bothered to click the ANI diff I linked to, you would realize this was not a semantic debate over no consensus vs unsuccessful. -- Vaulter 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In all likelihood, all RfAs are a bit contentious due to their nature strikes me as a statement by someone not too familiar with how RfA works, or at least, hasn't been paying much attention to it lately. Not a debilitating issue on its own, but since the kind of thought that goes into closing an RfA is a bit different than that of other types of discussions, I would like to see a bit more evidence of consistently solid thinking from the candidate before supporting. May move this vote later depending on what other examples come to light. —Compassionate727(T·C) 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't interacted with Lee Vilenski much as well, but the one experience I remember left me a bit unsatisfied. In February I wanted to review Russia at the DYK, an article Lee Vilenski reviewed at GAR. The article then was trimmed away here, here and here and several times more by thousands of bytes and Russia had to go through a reassessment. Lee's approach towards this left me a bit unsatisfied. I'd have expected a follow up or an assurance that it is fixed. At least there exist different concepts in what is good and in Russia's case the other one seemed better to me and also to others. So I am not going to Rush(ia) another time into almost approve, mention my reservations and leave it on neutral for now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pppery On what do you base that assessment? Do you at least concede that they are qualified for the role? 331dot (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I base that assessment on the fact that there is no backlog of undone crat work piling up. I need not evaluate whether they are qualified, since the above is a near-absolute principle that supersedes the need for an individual evaluation. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about Ppperry but I found that from May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 crats have:
Given the bot flag to 11 bots and removed it from 17
Re-granted intadmin to 3 and removed it from 1
(Re-)Granted sysop to 14, removed it from 64, and closed an additional 3 RfAs as unsuccessful
Granted 1 simultaneous resysop and recrat
That is a total of 114 actions over a year. By way of comparison, there were 115 user right actions from admins between April 27 and April 30. So I think there's an argument to be made. However, the community in discussions about this seemed reluctant/opposed to give up the role of crat and so while we have the role I think it appropriate we add good people and obviously I think Lee is that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this. If people want a change to how the crat system works, or maybe to limit their numbers or something, then propose that through an RFC in the right venue and gain consensus. But until then, the system is the one the community has chosen and I don't think it's fair on a particular individual to oppose their RFB because you disagree with an aspect of the way crats operate. — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pppery Since an individual is being discussed here I think comments about said individual are a necessity. If you feel we don't need more bureaucrats you should start an RFC to foreclose future nominations until some set criteria is met. Just my 2 cents. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By opposing this RfB I indicate that I do not think Lee Vilenski should become a bureaucrat. Because I hold that belief it would be improper to not formally indicate it. The existing crats are free to give my opinion whatever weight they feel it deserves when they close this RfB, but I will not yield to the pressure to back down and declare that my generalized grievances are not worthy of consideration by them. (In other words, this line of argument can possibly convince me to withdraw by oppose !vote) * Pppery *it has begun... 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you have indicated that you don't want more bureaucrats, which is fine, but that's not the issue under discussion here. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...whether to add another crat is not the issue under discussion here? Levivich 18:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is not about the general principle of adding more crats, but about whether a particular user is qualified to be one. If they meet the criteria, they should be given the tools. If anyone wants to put a cap on the number of crats, or foreclose new nominations, those are different issues. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem to me that if someone believes there is no need for any more crats, then an oppose vote is a fair and obvious logical consequence of that. I don't really see why people voting oppose in these discussions always seem to get immediately jumped on, when they generally give more cogent reasons for their votes than most of the support voters do. (Just an observation from someone who never normally participates and has no opinion in the present matter.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
W. P. Uzer I'm not "jumping" on anyone, I simply asked the basis for their claim. I'm happy to elaborate on my argument if requested, though most of what I would say would simply repeat what is in the nomination. I think that's why there is less criticism of supports; there is no requirement of a nominator to solicit an opposing view to post with the nomination. This discussion is not about the general principle of adding crats, but whether a particular user is qualified(as I stated above). 331dot (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's about whether to make that particular user a crat, so roughly speaking, whether (a) that user is qualified AND (b) it's desirable to have another crat at this time. Someone who disagrees with (b) logically disagrees with the conjunction, and thus perfectly reasonably "votes" oppose. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion on hypotheticals moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shouldn't have to, but I'm going to preface this by saying I like and respect Lee Vilenski, having seen him around FAC for quite a while. He's always been collegial and polite, and makes a fine admin. That said, cratship is fundamentally about assessing consensus, and I'm struggling to find solo closes by him which deal substantively with weighting opinions in a discussion. The most difficult closes listed above have all been shared; and while that's obviously not a mark against him, it doesn't necessarily give me the opportunity to study Lee's reasoning directly. The one question that addresses this is Q6, and the answer is rather bland. Perhaps I'm just being grouchy; it's been a long day here, my internet is slow, and I haven't the time to research this in the depth I'd like. If someone could point me to solo closes by the candidate that explain his weighting of !votes, I'd greatly appreciate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia—why is it such a big deal that Lee made a bad close (regarding 8B) as unsuccessful when it should've been no consensus? Aren't they the same most for intents and purposes? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not, Snowmanonahoe, and at the end of the day, 'unsuccessful' and 'no consensus' amount to the same thing: no action will be implemented, but for different reasons. However, the closure should accurately reflect which one it is. What the opposers here are not mentioning however, is that the closure was a joint effort by three of Wikipedia's most experienced and respected administrators which also included Primefac. and Ymblanter (the actual closer). Lee's role in this was not solely conducive. Joint closures are not rare, as Vanamonde93 explains above, and as admins are human, even they can sometimes not get things quite right. The decision went to review, which was sumarised and closed by TonyBallioni who is also a much respected admin. Things happen, but IHMO this RfC closure in which Lee played a minor part, is not sufficient grounds to oppose this RfB. Other opinions may differ, particularly those of users who are not particularly keen on Wikipedia's governance system of admins and/or Bureaucrats, but they are of course entitled to their votes. It's also interesting to note that although well researched and launched by another highly experienced admin the complete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review RfC, of which the contested close was only a part - but the most difficult to assess - was not heralded as a resounding success. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above bureaucratship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.