Would have supported this if I had seen it in time. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller you write that SFR has a final percenatge in the lowish part of the discrary range. I am confused by this as 72% strikes me at the high end of a 65-75 percent range. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same question. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an owner of convoluted clauses, missing commas, and three edits for the price of one still failing to yield clarity, I might be able to help :) "a lowish raw % in the discretionary range" ... think in terms of a missing comma, after the % ... a lowish raw %, in the discretionary range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they also could have not seen Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC#C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%, where it was previously 70-75%. 0xDeadbeef 10:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not saying it would be obviously wrong in this case as I thought the oppose arguments were strong. But it would be unprecedented to fail a candidate this high in the discretionary range. There's only ever been about 3 RfAs in all Wikipedia's history that failed when the candidate landed in the top half of the discretionary zone. (Excluding cases when the candidate was pressurised into making an early withdraw, and possibly exclusing pre 2008 examples.) In all 3 cases the failing candidate was in the top half to the zone by < 1%. (See this post by Arbritator Opabinia for a summary of data for 2008 - 2015, and it doesnt take too long to manully check the close RfAs from 2015 to now. Calling this low in the discretionary range feels like a slap in the face to the historic achievement of Admin Biblioworm. In his 2015 RfA reform which you just linked to, he was able to get the the De Jour discretionary range lowered from 70-80% > 65 - 75%. No one else has ever managed anything approaching that sort of concrete reform, despite a great many attempts by talented editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that, given that Dweller has participated in all but one 'crat chat since that 2015 RFC concluded. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this, I pointed same out on the crat chat page. Worm^TT(talk) 11:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Sandy, that there is likely to be a missing comma or phrase, so the intention is likely to have been to say: "This is in the lowish raw % - thus is in the discretionary range". SilkTork (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I parsed it as well, since the other way didn't make sense. ansh.666 15:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, and thanks for the masses of good faith in the comments above. It was just a mistake - I presume I recast the sentence and forgot to delete one of the words. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to John Cline’s oppose, which referenced Wehwalt’s, it is hard to tell exactly what either of them are referencing due to the vagueness of their comments, but at the time that Wehwalt opposed, temperament was not really an issue, so it could have been a reference to the concerns of sock puppetry/not a new user that were expressed by SandyGeorgia, whom Wehwalt cited.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silk Tork:, might I suggest changing your wording, "a significant body of people who do not currently trust SFR" to something like "a significant body of people who do not currently have enough trust in SFR". I don't think it was your intent, or that of the RFA commenters you are summarizing, to say SFR is untrustworthy; merely that they are unable to extend sufficient trust to be comfortable with them gaining the sysop bit at this time. Personally, I supported, but don't have anything productive to say about level of consensus in the discussion. However, words about trust can sting, their impact can reverberate, and I don't think you quite intended what you wrote here. I say this with all respect for trying to get your thoughts out quickly and succinctly, which is appreciated. Martinp (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing bad ping, @SilkTork: Martinp (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I will amend as you suggest. SilkTork (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork wrote "This is a fairly borderline RfA, and to err on the side of caution, allowing SFR to come back again in, say, 12 months, seems more prudent than to err on the side of risk with a difficult journey to amend that err."

The problem is, this doesn't happen. There have only been a handful of successful second RfAs in the past five years, and they didn't have as much feedback as this; rather they were withdrawn by the candidate and closed early. I have approached a few people who had difficult RfAs but who might pass now, and all have declined, with a general view that the process was so stressful, they never want to go anywhere near it again. So, I'm not going to get you to change your view on whether this RfA has consensus, but just advise that this may be the last chance we ever get this user to run here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said in TLC's RFA also applies to this RFA. Two editors who failed in 2016 ran a second RFA; neither passed. Since 2017, no one who has failed has run a second RFA. We can hope that if a candidate fails, they'll come back next year, but that hope has little basis in history, and no basis at all in recent history. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, you two are saying that someone wouldn't want to do this again? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't (see the last paragraph). Also, I agree with Ritchie here...anyone hear a seal breaking, seven trumpets blowing, things like that? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mines similar, easier, and less wordy. 3 editors I respect ask and I resign the tools. I also can't imagine running again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on my pale high horse for a week, and hell followed with me. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Almost, but not quite: there was Lourdes (2017) / Lourdes 2 (2018), and Primefac 2 was started in 2017 as well. That is assuming "failed" means "was not successful", which I count withdrawals as well. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could have phrased that better. No one who was unsuccessful after Lourdes (2017) has run again -- hasn't happened in 5 years. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's Cwmhiraeth (May 2017) who had a successful one in 2020, who was the most recent. Still, 5 years. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think TLC will run again and pass. Wouldn't be surprised to see it yet this year. I can't nom again, as I don't see that as helpful to her, but if someone else approaches her I think it could be productive. Got a thick skin, that one. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working with someone who has failed since 2018 on a 2 but I agree with the point Ritchie and others are making. "Come back in a year" feels slightly disingenuous at this point of wiki history. But I don't think that changes the substance of what SilkTork found in terms of consensus at this RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked, and every year going back to 2004 at least one person (and often several) has been made an admin who had previously not been successful. I promoted BusterD earlier this year, on their second attempt. My reading of this RfA is that there isn't quite enough consensus to promote, and I would likely make that decision even if this was SFR's only chance at being an admin, however, it helped me to arrive at that decision knowing that they could if they wished try again (and judging by the comments made by opposers, SFR would likely be successful). I can't truly say if I would make the same decision if this was SFR's only chance, because that's an alternative universe, but I would like to think I would because I'm seeing a significant amount of participants who have concerns that I don't feel it appropriate to discount. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

every year going back to 2004 at least one person (and often several) has been made an admin who had previously not been successful Sure but not after 12 months. The gap is more like 8-10 years between unsuccessful and successful. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Levivich, and that example proves my point. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD was in December 2011, nine and a half years before the second successful RfA, and withdrawn by the candidate after 56 votes. It doesn't appear to have been at all contentious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And everyone should read those numbers together with this chart which shows just how rare it is for someone to be here for >5 years. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that chart is of any account that edited. Retention is much better when you look at people who became regular members of the community as opposed to having tried us once. Given that we've only appointed 220 admins in the last ten years, and we currently have over a thousand of them including several hundred who are active, I think we can reassure ourselves that it is far from rare for an active editor such as an admin to be here for over five years. ϢereSpielChequers 19:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I defended you above when I wrote I don't think that changes the substance of what SilkTork found in terms of consensus at this RfA. I thought you were just trying to soften your no consensus. But it sounds like I was wrong and this was a factor in your thinking. In this case I ask that you reconsider for the reasons Levivich, Ritchie, and L235 have expressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion point for the commenters at a request for administrative privileges, in weighing their viewpoints of a candidate's pros and cons. But it's not up to the bureaucrats to reinterpret their evaluation of consensus based on the probability of a candidate making a future request. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Ritchie's point here. In my experience, it's far more common for a user to start losing interest in Wikipedia as a result of a failed RfA than it is for a user to re-RfA. Failing an RfA can be taken very personally, as a sign the community doesn't value a candidate's contributions. Unfortunately, it's not only that this may be the last chance we ever get this user to run here; it's that there's a decent chance this is the last chance we have of keeping this user as an active editor. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, consider Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ifnord#Oppose. Although I thought somebody who had close paraphrasing issues should not be an admin because it's essential to spot copyvio problems and deal with them quickly, as they can happen with new articles, AfC drafts, sock puppet investigations, ANI, existing CCIs, anywhere really. But I didn't want them to quit as an editor, give up, and leave. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's something the community needs to work on. Within the confines of the existing system, can it word its dissent in ways that emphasizes how it values positive contributions? Should the community engage in some way during and after an RfA to help maximize the probability of keeping a candidate productive, no matter what the outcome? isaacl (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ritchie The problem is, this doesn't happen; there's a much more consequential problem that also doesn't happen. Those who pass with marginal numbers are often counseled to "heed the concerns raised" and people often say that after a 'crat chat pass, the candidate is more likely to behave as they know they are watched. History doesn't bear that out. Less than two years after this 'crat chat, and while under the watchful eyes of an arbcase, this was a talk page post by a 'crat chat admin. So, we lost an editor much needed in the medical realm because a joke RFA an RFA that some thought was a joke was passed in a 'crat chat. I'd rather we still had the editor, than have gained an admin for a few years who later was headed for a desysop. Re "err on the side of caution", it seems that once the tools are conferred, the "heed the concerns" are quickly forgotten. And in this case, the temperament concerns surfaced in the last 12 hours in a brazen fashion -- much too late for most opposers to notice or weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in a brazen fashion" mean? Levivich (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx clarified less than hour after the launch of the RfA that it was not a joke. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barkeep; I didn't participate in that RFA, but as I recall, the fact that some thought it a joke was a factor? Levivich, brazen fashion means that the candidate themself doubled down on the RFA page itself-- that is, it was current, before our eyes,[1] similar to the talk page attack I linked above that occurred while the admin was being scrutinized in an arbase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some people opposed because they felt launching the RfA in a humorous fashion wasn't what they wanted out of an admin. But that doesn't make it a joke RfA. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, corrected above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor says another editor is endorsing war crimes and enjoys watching terrorists bomb innocent people. I don't think telling them to cut that shit out is wildly incivil or out of line. I was weighing going directly to AE or an AE participating admin to seek a block, and decided that maybe a strongly worded condemnation from an editor uninvolved in the topic area might get the point across without the risk of losing a contributor. Are we really arguing that being told to cut the shit when literally saying that someone enjoys watching terrorists bomb innocents is out of line? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're arguing that adding fuel to a fire rarely ends well, and effective admins can calm situations rather than inflame them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's an upsetting thing to respond to. And all of us lose our cool sometimes; I certainly have. But being able to almost always respond calmly and not rise to the bait is a crucial piece of the puzzle for admins, and especially anyone who works in contentious areas. People are bringing it up because it's concerning when people bring diffs showing an RfA candidate didn't keep their cool. If the crat chat ends with a consensus to promote, it's something to take into account going forward. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you don't. This was not a case of SFR losing patience, rather, it was a calculated move to stop the bickering. I've made the point before that many, like you, prefer candidates who seemingly never get upset. That is one way to respond to provocations, not the only way. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I do. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Never getting upset isn't a realistic ideal. Never responding intemperately isn't a realistic ideal. But being able to respond calmly almost always when upset (and usually knowing when to walk away for a bit until you can respond calmly) is a realistic ideal. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, I'm referring to fighting fire with fire, which I guess is not your chosen strategy. Not all editors respond to calm and SFR shows the value of sufficiently chastening those of juvenile behavior. Again, you don't have to agree but you seem to deliberately misunderstand, portraying SFR wrongly. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we're talking about fighting out of control wildfires with a controlled burn because that's literally our only choice in a time-urgent situation? Fighting fire with fire would seldom be something I'd recommend to admins, no, not unless it's an out-of-control time-urgent situation. Water. I'd recommend water. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that generally everything should be met with calm stoicism, or humor. Humor works good too. I think if you reviewed my contributions you'd find almost always an apt description of my calm, civil demeanor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK then ... except then when it mattered-- right here at your RFA-- you chose a different approach. That you did that in plain sight caused me to re-evaluate even more negatively, but I'd left myself nowhere to go (hence the problem with "strong" oppose-- I was already there, won't make that mistake again, and while I have your attention, I apologize for my first harsh and ill-composed post). Doing that on your own RFA raises a judgment question. I hope you can understand the concern, since 'crat chats always succeed, and it would not be fun to see you before ArbCom in a few years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I've had no serious issues with you; the most contentious are those of the answering of edit requests within minutes with a template at articles with hundreds of watchers and multiple current conversations. And they've always been totally civil, and both of us have congratulated the other on their ability to interact civilly when disagreeing.

But it was about edit requests. :)

For me the concern is always that an admin must be almost unfailingly civil, even when the situation is extremely contentious or emotional or something they care deeply about. One of the most important things an admin can do is recognize when this particular situation is going to make them too upset to handle well -- and that's hard, because those situations are the very ones an admin may think "I know more about this than anyone else currently contributing here, I need to keep working." It's not that I don't think you can do this or know that you don't do it almost always (which is all I personally expect). It's that someone has brought up an instance when you didn't, and I feel like I have to pay attention. Valereee (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reminded (after lo these many years since I probably learned it in high school) that carbon dioxide is a better choice. :D Valereee (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, perhaps if we back the example off to a more obvious one, you'll see the problem with your approach. At delusional parasitosis and Morgellons, we are (according to the diagnosis) dealing quite literally most often with editors who are deluded. Fortunately they usually go on to recover in three or four years; meanwhile they are delusionally convinced that bugs are crawling out of their skin. And they are furious at what they read on Wikipedia, because, well, they are convinced in their delusion; that's how the condition works. In the past, we had a group of Very Nasty medical editors who belittled, attacked, and made fun of the new editors' posts on those talk pages (most of those editors have now been dealt with by the arbs, and I've taken on the rest of them,[2] so this behavior seems to have subsided for now). The demeaning responses resulted in escalating discussions that went on and on and on, so that then multiple editors had to deal with the disruption ... meanwhile, none of the "nasty" responding editors undertook to simply rewrite the articles to the strongest and most recent sources to help minimize opposition (and the articles were pretty bad) ... and a kind but firm word has turned out to be almost always effective since I did rewrite the articles ... disruption no longer a huge ongoing problem. It's part of the understanding I asked you to have re the Mally situation; there's a real person there. Making them angrier is going to result in spillover that more of us will have to deal with. You escalate to ANI or wherever only after all other efforts have failed. Try firm calm until it definitely doesn't work; then escalate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you review some of the discussions I've been involved in, even recently on my talk page where someone challenging an RFC closure did so because of the nationality of the opposers. I am almost always civil, and aside from my first report to ANI, every time I've brought someone to a Noticeboard it's been for big standard disruption. In the lead up to the scepticism arb case I never brought anyone to a noticeboard. I dealt calmly with everyone. On my edit request responses on pages with significant amounts of new editors disagreeing with our article I refer them to the prior discussions and ask them to discuss. Myles Moylan ended well for everyone involved due to calm discussion.

In the situation with that personal attack, I felt that strong words from an uninvolved editor had the best chance of leading to a good outcome. I could have just reported it, and as they were already aware of DS in the area, it likely would have been a topic ban, block, or both. I rolled the dice hoping that it would have the desired effect, and they would be able to continue contributing to the discussion on Talk:Jerusalem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an entrenched situation like is behind those disputes, I again remind you that those affected by either side of the situation in the Middle East are unlikely to respond best to what others might. It's in these situations where admin behaviors matter (akin to the response I linked at psychosis-- probably someone deeply affected by same-- or delusional parasitosis). Skepticism is more of a hypothetical, where editors may have less personal investment or pain. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not therapy, and we're not here to fix "them"; but we don't need to act in ways that will make for more cleanup for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At delusional parasitosis and Morgellons, we are (according to the diagnosis) dealing quite literally most often with editors who are deluded. What? Are you suggesting that most often, the editors of those articles suffer from those conditions? Levivich (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she means the editors that show up on the talk page to say that the article is false and the disease is real. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see, thanks. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct ... my muddled prose never ceases to amaze :( :( :( The posts from editors (to many conditions like this) often state so explicitly ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49. I made my decision based on the strength of the concerns opposers raised regarding a number of aspects, such as experience and temperament. It was, however, a borderline decision. That a number of opposers were saying "Not now" (in other words, try again later because with a bit more experience and/or evidence that you can cope with stressful situations we are likely to support you), along with that final comment of "choose caution, even if in err", tipped me over into oppose. I was not, as far as I am able to judge my own emotions and thinking, adding a super vote or imposing my own thoughts or emotions. I was, I hope, interpreting what people had said. However, I can see that I have worded my explanation above rather poorly, and can understand why you are drawing my attention to it. My decision was not based on my own feelings that SFR could try again, but that others were saying it. If such an option were not available to SNR, and so opposers were not saying "Not now - try again later", would I still make the decision to oppose? I don't know. Possibly. But I do know that because several people were saying that in this RfA, that their comments/!votes helped tip the balance for me.

The "12 months" is something I again picked up from a couple of comments in the RfA, but I take on board what people are saying here that a successful 2nd RfA after 12 months is, it seems, something that doesn't happen much these days. Out of curiosuity, I just checked, and my 2nd RfA was successful 12 months after the first. But that was 14 years ago! SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things have changed substantially since then. I found my RfA mildly unpleasant 11 years ago and that was with two opposes. There is no way that I would re-expose myself to the process had I experienced what SFR has over the last week. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Cecropia's question - I used to instinctively like the idea that adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and part of me still does. A couple of trends in Wikipedia culture over the past decade have made it more of a big deal, IMHO. One is the increase in use of revision deletion, which makes it harder for non-admins to quality-check admin actions. We literally can't see what's been deleted, and we also can't understand why someone was blocked if their edits have been deleted.

Another change is that admins have more leeway to block than they used to; I see a lot of users being blocked on their first or second edit as being promotional or not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not saying these cultural shifts are bad, but they explain why someone like me has shifted from a "no big deal" to "yes big deal" way of thinking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me at least, NOBIGDEAL applies mostly to the abilities that come with adminship – the big deal lies in the responsibility/accountability that comes with using them. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a painful revdel story as evidence, along with my one-of-every-other-kind of abusive admins stories I've witnessed over the years. To make a long story short that is no one's business, a pharmacy error resulted in me taking four times my prescribed dose of levothyroxine-- an error that was not uncovered until I realized I had not slept for three days and looked up the pill on the PDR and found the dosage was not what the bottle said. I didn't bring this up at the time, because no matter my personal medical circumstances, the admin was wrong, and I didn't think I should have to discuss my hypothyroid on a public website. While "high" on excess levothyroxine and sleep-deprived, I removed some uncited text from a DYK article per WP:BLP, not noticing the subject of the article was long dead. (D'oh.) The edit summary was NOT inappropriate. An admin revdel'd the edit. No less than seven other admins took him to task, and he refused to backtrack, correct, or apologize. It stays on my record (along with other things that stay on my record that don't belong there). That person is no longer an admin, but time does not heal all wounds. Adminship is a big deal. And his "cabal" of admin friends surrounded and supported him. I grow rather weary of hearing that cabalism isn't. I've taken many long breaks from Wikipedia, but it remains a place where I have survived rather than thrived, since the "we admins" threat of 2007 was aimed at me, reinforced by an admin who died without having ever lost the tools in spite of multiple ArbCom appearances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better; in looking up the diffs of an admin unblocking a now-community-banned editor with a standing attack on me in plain sight on their user talk page, I found that I can't even see the posts or produce the evidence, as her talk page is gone per RTV, I guess (above my pay scale). And yet, the post that labels me an "erotomanic stalker who attached myself to her" stands, enshrined for eternity. Lovely; all of which happened because my presence at FAC and FAR was inconvenient to a group of "we admins". So yes, the ability that revdel confers for others to see or not see evidence is "a big deal". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I lost what this was a reply to in an edit conflict. But for the record: I don't know about other Crats, but I only give a low weighting to "weak" !votes - which I think are rare in this one. I would also give a low weighting to "moral supports" but not spotted one yet - will read the whole thing again when I've had some sleep. I'm trying to just ignore the word "strong". If someone really does come up with an effective argument it sways the discussion and gets others agreeing with them. The only potential exception is if someone at the end of an RFA spots something completely disqualifying such as doxing - not that I'm seeing that in this case. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is here: I do see varying degrees of commitment in !votes as well. It's not a (Oppose.)<(Strong Oppose.)<(Uber Oppose.); more like (Oppose.<nul>)<(Oppose, Not sure why but something seems fishy)<(Oppose, because of these relevant reasons). The later tends to contribute more to the consensus building discussion. Not all 'crats may treat things this way, but I doubt any hold it against. For example: if a support entry has commentary that is relevant to the discussion, I'll likely consider it a "stronger" support then if it only said "#Support, meh." or "#Super Support, froody dude". I will take "weak" a little more at face value, as it is specific from the editor that they are explicitly less committed to their contribution. Nutshell: For me, it's not about the superlatives - but the content. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

God help me: I had to look up "froody". I guess it isn't a reference to Howdy Doody! --Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So being a frood is good because a book only read by nerds says so. Ok. ;D Valereee (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) For context, WSC and X are responding to a post I left here (and then thought better of and removed): Wait; do I understand SilkTork's comment about "strength of the opposes" on the crat chat page correctly that all I have to do to make my opinion count more than others is to say it's "Strong"? I was under the impression - can't recall from where, maybe I just assumed? - that crats didn't encourage this game; I guess I'll have to start using this strategy myself to keep up with the grade inflation. Just to save me typing, in the future, would crats please insert a "double infinity plus one !!!1!" in front of all my opposes and supports?. As I said to Xaosflux elsewhere, I'm sure his interpretation of ST's comment is correct, and I'm just grumpily misunderstanding. Either the yuckiness of WP is making me grumpy today, or I'm bringing my own grumpiness to WP and making the place even worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WSC, when I'm weighting consensus I do likewise. I find the essay WP:STRONG to be quite compelling for why to consider weak but not strong !votes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "strong" should be ignored, either support or oppose. Some people just use it as a way to indicate their votes are more important. "Weak" OTOH has some nuance, IMO. Valereee (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern about up-weighting "strong" !votes is that it gives more weight to people with certain personality types, or more precisely persona types. These persona types can correlate with various demographics. I know that since I transitioned I've felt both less personally inclined to make bold statements like "strong support/oppose", and, when I do want to, more societally pressured not to. While I'm sure neither of those is universal, I have heard similar experiences (not specifically about this, but outspokenness in general) from many women/fems. Likewise there are some cultures where people are raised to be more reserved, and some where being boisterous is rewarded. A "strong support/oppose" can be a good way to signal to one's fellow participants in a discussion "I am very serious about this and would appreciate if you read my full comment", or in something like an RfA (particularly with "strong support") can just be a way to show enthusiasm—but to give it more weight in a close risks, in addition to the concerns above, creating a bias in favor of certain genders, nationalities, and ethnic groups. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had very similar feelings about this, and putting more weight to those that like writing 4000 word replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise this section was about my comment "the range and the strength of the opposes". By that I meant the range and strength of the arguments. I wasn't counting the number of times "strong" was used in either the support or oppose columns - I was simply reading the comments. For example, I would consider "Strong Oppose because I hate the nominators" to be a weaker oppose than "Oppose because of the number of arguments they get into in which they lose their temper, examples: link, link, link". It is the strength of the comment, and the evidence brought forward which counts more for me. My wording has been a little clumsy, or unclear, in a few places in this Crat Chat, and for that I apologise, and will endeavour to be sharper in future. SilkTork (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: In retrospect, my original post - which accidentally started this - wasn't in response to a problem with your wording, it was a problem with my reading. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add a dissenting view, leading deliberative democracy theorists & practitioners like James Fisking see value in the 'strong' qualifier. It can help consensus making as an expression of preference intensity. Probably most would agree that absent any strong balance of rational argument either way, then if 2 people in a group of 5 have a very strong preference for option A, while the other 3 have a weak preference for option B, then option A should prevail. It's the nature of this project that we're going to give more weight to explicit rational argument than some others might. But people sometimes know more than they can say. To echo Tamzin but from a different perspective, favouring the rational to the point where one totally excludes the emotional migth be to privilege certain demographics. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we embrace a variety of demographics in the way we assess consensus on Wikipedia by considering raw votes as well as detailed rationales. And while we can dismiss a majority vote by considering the strength of a policy based argument, on the whole, simple !vote counting often carries the way. If this RfA had 95% support, even if most of that simply said "Support", it would have carried. Most participants in an RfA will adjust their !vote according to how narrow it is. A candidate with near 100% support does not need a participant to write a lengthy and detailed rationale, unless the vote turns. If a vote turns then supporters will often return to add a rationale. SilkTorkAway (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should ever have the expectation that someone who supports (or opposes) a candidacy should come back and provide additional rationale about their !vote. Requests for Adminship (and Articles for Deletion) are set for a one-week period in recognition that some editors may only be available once during that period, or don't follow or track the discussion after participating. - Enos733 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't, some people do. Some people never change their !vote, other people do - based on new evidence and arguments emerging. We don't expect people to keep an eye on a shifting discussion (same as we don't expect people to get involved in a RfA, it's an individual choice, and this is a volunteer activity), however it is generally helpful if they do. SilkTork (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the bureaucrats have a split vote, how will the outcome be determined? WWGB (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at that point it's traditional to decide it via a game of chess against death. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This gave me a really good laugh. Thank you, @ScottishFinnishRadish:! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little humor can go a long way in contentious situations. I'm glad I could give you a chuckle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

"decide it via a game of chess against death" ... Yes and since at least the 15th C.... oh and in Swedish, too, please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What split vote? Seven haven't even entered their declaration yet. Theoretically, the way all outcomes are decided; by working together and discussing to hopefully come to consensus, which often takes multiple iterations in any scenario. Not a vote is a page somewhere, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still have 6 'crats, beyond myself that still have to comment, so I'd say lets see where the cards land. That will likely create a consensus. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, I'm practicing my openings. Do you think death knows fool's mate? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the typical trope death either has chess skills equivalent to a grandmaster or cheats. Or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well crap. Maybe I can challenge death to an animal husbandry contest. Certainly I have the advantage there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Death likes to play chess is that it knows what I just wrote and wants to fight on its terms to give a only faux chance to the challenger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a documentary once where he played battleship. I'm pretty sure it's an rs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the only winning move is to Melvin Death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has only one piece, it looks like a knight but is Death riding Binky. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but even with only one piece it could still put up quite a fight. And, to transpose the analogy back to Wikipedia, a game requiring near-perfection to win is unideal because we would never have been here if the candidate were near-perfect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm banking on "barely acceptable." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, if the vote was split, the outcome would be no consensus to promote, unless the closing crat found that some crat rationales had more weight in policy than the others.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escalate up the chain, and get a founder involved. Word up. In related news, it always amazes me how much energy is spent on these crat chat talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's INVOLVED, we talked about wordle once. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aww you cool like that. Probably have him saved in your favorites on your phone too. You da MVP. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that fancy, it was on his talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using "JIMBO" on Wordle once, but the bugger claimed it was an invalid word. NYTime's loss. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long has it been since Jimbo was involved in the RfA process? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jimbo ever been involved in the RfA process? The last time he had anything to do with promoting an admin was probably when he used to just do it himself.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally yes, as he closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation). Other than that, sort of; the initial version of RFA, when it was created in 2003, said If there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so. Jimbo Wales was what was then known as a developer at the time (the modern terminology for the role is "system administrator"), but there were several others and it appears Eloquence was the most active at the time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Straight walk off, old school rules. 'crat walks, SFR duplicates then elaborates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's no good, I'm not an ambiturner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS THIS???? A SCHOOL FOR ANTS!?!?!? Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then your only other choice is a dance off. But I warn you, your opponent will be Kevin Bacon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cecropia mentioned that they may not be used to the new discretionary range, I thought I should make an informational post about the results of crat chats since the 2015 reform. Since the reform, there have been 8 crat chats; 6 where the support % was between 65-70, and 2 where the support % was between 70 and 75. Out of the six between 65 and 70, half were no consensus and half were closed as successful, while both of the two with a % between 70 and 75 were closed as successes. In that same time period, one RFA within the discretionary range was closed as unsuccessful without a crat chat, but all other RFAs within the discretionary range were either withdrawn or closed as successful. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time for a culture shift in Wikipedia. I've been active/semi-active on WP since 2007. I've always paid attention to RfAs. (I'm sure there have been others), but this is the most active RfA that I have witnessed. In the almost 15 years I've worked on the project, I've seen a lot of changes in the community. We ALWAYS need administrators. Only a small percentage of admins stay active for any length of time. Perhaps we should make easier for (qualified) people who want to WORK FOR FREE to become an admin. How do we do that, you ask? For the candidates who are not objectively well-qualified (e.g., positive votes of 90% or higher perhaps, or whatever is reasonable), have the new admin on a probationary period so bureaucrats or senior admins (or whoever the community deems responsible) can guide them for a period of time. After the probationary period they are "cut loose" to be a senior admin (or whatever term) to continue admin-ing. We need admins, but we also need quality admins.

In reference to this RfA, I've researched his/her history, read all the negative votes, and have come to the following conclusion: the benefits outweigh the risks. His/her "short time" is irrelevant. The fact that he/she appeared to be "working toward" RfA is irrelevant. So what. If a doctor wanted to be a doctor his/her whole life, who cares. This person is working toward a leadership position that pays NOTHING. The only hang-up I would have are the allegations of moments of incivility. This could be overcome with the aforementioned "mentorship" of new admins (and having the candidate always open to recall). It would be more of a checks-and-balances to the "god-like" powers that our unpaid admins wield. In short, pass the candidate in this RfA. I've seen active admins act worse in the civility department (I've actually had to remind them of massive ass-kissing they did during their RfA). Sorry for the babbling... my two cents. Cheers to all! It's me...Sallicio! 01:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everyone agrees the criteria for adminship are too high, but nobody knows what to do about it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By RFA consensus standards, that's only barely a large enough consensus to avoid the discretionary range, so not really nearly everybody, but still a substantial consensus. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure RFA is a broken process that will never be fixed. Unless the wider community miraculously gains the audacity to make some change, there's really no reason to get worked up around reform. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share this opinion. Many opposes over arbitrary criteria such as "not enough content" and "too short of a tenure". None of that has anything to do with SFR's ability to be a good administrator. It is beyond obvious that he would do good work. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is the opposes about sockpuppetry which are completely out of place in an RFA, and better suited for an email to Arbcom or SPI.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. People are saying things like "we can't have another Eostrix", when what happened there wasn't far from the best case scenario. The user was never granted the tools, and let's be real: SFR isn't a sock. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sock meme continues. I can find one reference to Eostrix among all the opposes

• "He has given an explanation for this, yes, but less than a year after we almost gave an LTA the mop, are we really going to mock people for being cautious?"

from Joe Roe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking more broadly than just the main RfA/SFR page —VersaceSpace 🌃 11:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A probationary period—where they are being watched by other admins in good standing so that the community can feel that even if they're uncertain about an admin, an unsuitable editor for admin will not be given the tools unsupervised, or simply something—might be a good idea. Several opposes in this RfA seem to have an idea that more time will give them enough trust in the candidate, but I don't feel that most editors would do an RfA within a few years after failing because it's an ordeal. Either an easier desysop process (to make recall easier so there's less penalty if a bad admin gets the tools) or some sort of process to watch the new admin on some variety of probation would fix this problem. If the process of RfA and/or its voters are bad enough to be a (generally) one-and-done process, if ever, then something should be done about competent editors that are sane enough to only attempt RfA once, fail the first time because they don't have enough community trust, and need more time to gain that trust. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a related discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Closed: 6E Initial probationary term (optional). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a probationary period is one that the RFARFC closers felt might pass if reformulated. So there is an opportunity there for someone willing to build consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might pass, but I doubt it would help. Aside from the not inconsiderable issue that any meaningful probationary process would create a lot of work that only admins can do, we tend not to desysop new admins. Last I looked it typically took years before an admin and the policy they are empowered to follow drifted so far apart that they had to lose the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unlikely to pass due to the large possibility probationary admins just keep chill for their period to secure adminship. At least that's the feedback I got last time I brought this up at VPIL to see if it was worth reformulating. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 262#State of RFA probationary term proposal?. I am actually confused by the implication of probationary admins keeping their chill here. What is the difference between:

• User A is not chill, but passes their RfA for a probationary period, pretends to be chill, becomes an indefinite admin, and then suddenly becomes not chill after that
• User B is chill, passes their RfA for a probationary period, is chill during the period, becomes an indefinite admin, and then suddenly becomes not chill after that

If someone knows how to keep their chill, can't they just do it forever to secure their adminship even more? The real question here is, why are we bad at dealing with problematic admins? Because if the opposite was true, this wouldn't be a true concern, right? So in reality, this argument is saying, "we can't have probationary admins, because we do a bad job at dealing problematic ones after their probationary periods". 0xDeadbeef 13:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[W]e can't have probationary admins, because we do a bad job at dealing problematic ones after their probationary periods is about half-way to the issue. The community has no recourse to directly redress 'problematic admins'. We can only invite ArbCom to investigate a community raised concern. It usually takes a sustained period of poor judgement with the tools for ArbCom to consider the matter. Only on egregious failures - notably wheelwarring has resulted in two desysops, one by a bureaucrat invoking emergency measures - does this happen expeditiously. Thus, the barrier to passing RfA has risen to match the barrier to getting desysopped. For RfA to be 'no big deal', desysopping needs to be 'no big deal'. Since you need ArbCom, it's a big deal, because ArbCom only investigates big deals. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A probationary period sounds like trying to fix RFA by putting candidates under more scrutiny for longer in order to appease RFA voters who have too-high standards. Sounds backwards to me. Instead of restrictions on candidates, how about restrictions on voters? Levivich (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP could do with some culture shifts that go way beyond the RfA process. But for RfA specifically, it's a product of what the community is. If the community wanted to be nicer or stricter, the community would do that. Editors can feel disappointed with how other editors !vote, but those other editors !vote that way because that's what they believe, and that cannot be legislated away so long as the purpose of RfA is to determine the consensus of the entire participating community, and not just a subset of it. The Crats are, obviously, charged with weighing that critically, and that's where the quality control needs to be, along with RfA discussion where poorly reasoned rationales get challenged. In real life, democracy sucks but the alternatives are even worse, and it's equivalent here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true but in real life, democracy doesn't work the way Wikiocracy does. In real life, not everyone gets to vote. In real life, you have to be an adult. Not on Wikipedia. In real life, you have to be a citizen--generally, a member of the community for years before you can vote--not on Wikipedia. In real life, if you commit a crime, you can lose your right to vote (temporarily or permanently)--not so much on Wikipedia. "Democracy" doesn't mean a completely unrestricted, universal enfranchisement. To date, RFA reform efforts have been focused on every aspect of RFA except voters. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with you that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. But my point is that these are both cases of being the worst – except for everything else. Would I like to see RfA voters change for the better? Yes, although I'm uncomfortable with how one would enforce it. Would I like to see the en-wiki community as a whole change for the better? Yes, and I think that's a far more important issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that culture problems at RFA are just an example of broader culture problems at Wikipedia, which in turn are just an example of broader culture problems on Earth. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the most painful comments at RfAs for the candidate, they're usually made by people who would meet any reasonable enfranchisement criterion you could think of. I can't see any reform in that direction, even if I've come to the point I would try almost anything.

And yes, there are broader cultural problems, but most organisations are acutely aware of them and would never hold a discussion and !vote about a person in such a public fashion. We use a system that only works for a utopian type of community. Femke (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Oh, no :-) Let me share with you my idea of (dis)enfranchisement criteria: (1) experienced (2) active and (3) in good standing. Specifically, I would quantify those three criteria as follows: minimum 1yr, minimum 10k edits lifetime, minimum 100 (maybe higher) edits in the past 12 months, no active sanctions (and maybe no sanctions in past 12 months). Apply that criteria to SFR's RFA and watch the numbers drastically change. I just checked and something like half the oppose !voters don't meet that criteria, and by my anecdotal review, most of the poorest rationales (e.g., lack of tenure) are coming from the group that I would disenfranchise. Some supports would drop, too, and I haven't done the full analysis to see what the resulting percentage would have been, but I'd be willing to bet it'd be above discretionary range. I don't expect the community would agree with this, since this would disenfranchise a majority of editors. But I think we'd end up with better RFAs, more candidates, more and better admins. Levivich (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion: RfRfA-voter discussions to enfranchise people by community edict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can just see how requiring people to have been active for at least a year would lead to complaints that Wikipedia is controlled by entrenched users (cabal?), and that new editors are treated as second-hand !citizens. (Although I think that a request for permission to participate in RfA that gets opposes based on come back later would be !hilarious.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that would be the refrain. I see a tenure requirement to be analogous to a citizenship requirement IRL. It just bothers me on a fundamental level to see someone with less experience than the candidate telling the candidate they need more experience to be an admin. Like how would a voter who has been here for only a few months, or has made ~500 edits or less, even know what makes a good admin or not? I mean, we restrict voter eligibility for arbcom (much more loosely than what I'm proposing). We should do the same for RFA (and just make it a secret vote, as well, and drop the pass threshold also). Levivich (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just bothers me on a fundamental level to see someone with less experience than the candidate telling the candidate they need more experience to be an admin - I sympathize with you Levivich. Every time I see this happen I think and how the fuck would you know? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's often observed that admins who were promoted long-ago, under easier standards, are the ones from which the subset of bad admins arise. To whatever degree that is or isn't factual, here we have the possibility that RfA participants must not be too new, whereas admins must not be too old. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were too new when they were promoted. Almost all of that set had less experience when they passed RFA than SFR does, for example. Some of them noted that in this RFA. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Before your time, but I was promoted in April 2012 (between Scottywong and Dennis Brown, IIRC) with the talk page recording that at the start of the RfA I had 8,795 total edits. I registered in July 2008 but I have never had very high edit numbers; they peaked when I was an admin, as I tried to step up to the responsibility. (After a couple of years, I was desysopped for cause after an emergency Arbcom confabulation, so I check another very rare box.) This discussion really belongs at WT:RfA, but your suggestion is both contrary to the reality that the project attracts a huge variety of people and is a big enough tent that we are able to demonstrate our differences by participating in a huge variety of ways, is an invitation to gaming by racking up edits of dubious utility, including more peanut-throwing at the noticeboards and more machine-gun reverting at Recent Clanges, and a punishment for editors who have off-wiki commitments and time constraints (I will gently mention that one obvious subclass of such editors is women with the double burden of childcare and paying work, and another is many people in time-consuming professional jobs—in both cases, we already discriminate unfairly against RfA candidates who aren't poised over their laptops for the entire 7 days), and like the perennial calls for unregistered editors not to be able to participate at all at RfA, closes off an important avenue to raising issues with a candidacy that long-term editors working in their own corners of a sprawling wiki may not have perceived. I don't think I'm misremembering when I add that it also flies in the face of another reform in the last group of reforms—all based on multiple RfCs—which added RfAs to watchlist notices precisely to bring them to the attention of a wider cross-section of editors. Compare the advertising of the annual ArbCom elections via user talk messages to all eligible voters. Your suggestion about a restricted RfA franchise goes very much against the tide. (I also think school board elections, where residents of whatever citizenship are allowed and encouraged to vote in many US communities, because it is recognized that the schools educate their kids too and affect the future of all residents, are a better analogy for what I would wish to see in RfA participation, because admins potentially affect the experience of all editors. But I should have saved that for WT:RfA.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a proposal at last year's big RfC-palooza for instituting an optional temporary / probationary adminship: candidates could optionally run for a 2-year term (which for the community is lower stakes, hence should be a gentler process) before running for a permanent position (at which point they would be able to run on their actual experience as an admin, rather than hypotheticals). It received reasonably strong support but was judged not to have achieved consensus. I continue to believe that it's an extremely good idea, and that people who either are frustrated with how RfA works or who think RfA is too imposing should organize a second RfC to support something along these lines. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acalamari: It's a minor point but for clarity did someone provide evidence that the candidate is "working on bringing other articles to [Good Article] status"? I hand analysed their non-minor mainspace contributions back to 21 June and found nothing that would fall under that umbrella. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That work doesn't necessarily need to take place on-wiki, though (e.g. researching sources). ansh.666 04:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – and my search didn't cover work in draft or userspace, either – but Acalamari presents this as fact, not speculation; I haven't been following all the twists and turns of the RfA but if someone brought this up I missed it. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Q2 includes "plan to expand Frelinghuysen University to GA". Perhaps Acalamari meant that? ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't appear to have been significantly edited? Anyway, I guess the point is now moot. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, my apologies for this late reply. WereSpielChequers is correct, although the actual GAs by ScottishFinnishRadish as discussed by other participants are far more important than any hypothetical future GAs from them. That fragment of my analysis was not a major part of my determination and not something that swung my judgment either way, and nothing would have changed if I'd left it out. Acalamari 02:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[...] given that each oppose !vote is worth a couple of supports, if anything that would mean more than 2% of the Opposition is "weak" and only 1% of the supports [...] is something I didn't understand upon first reading. I'm not pinging WSC because they have an appointment and I imagine another editor watching this page can explain it to me but the phrase confused me. How is each oppose worth a couple of supports? Or is it in reference to each oppose having a larger effect on the strength of the oppose camp's strength of argument as a whole compared to any support vote (similar to how a vote in a political district with a low voter-to-seats ratio has more political influence than a vote in a district with a high ratio)? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 06:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal: I read it simply as noting that the "promote to admin" line is ~65-75%, not 50%; consequently an individual oppose has the weight of 2-3 supports. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea being conveyed is that it takes a couple supports to cancel out each oppose. Hypothetically, if the line is at 70%, then it takes 70/30 = 2.33 supports to cancel out an oppose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks both for the explanation :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Novem Linguae and Ryk72 explain my thinking well. ϢereSpielChequers 10:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I wasn't planning to raise this when I read your assessment yesterday, but then a different discussion led me to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. There you said "I am seeing a weak consensus to promote. Many years ago, I may have considered this a no-consensus situation, but [this] candidate falls in the middle of [the discretionary range], even after my !vote weighting.". Here, you wrote "Even with my own secret-sauce weighting criteria in play I don't see this strayed from the discretionary zone." To me, the "even" implies your weighting criteria moved the percentage up, and it started out at ~72%, so it should have ended somewhat above the middle of the discretionary zone. Has your perception of the role of the discretionary zone changed? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 no. I didn't see a need for very significant weight adjusting in this specific case; less than +/- 2%, not straying from the traditional discretionary zone of 65% to 75%. Had I found that alone there were many !votes that required heavy weighting which would have pushed that value further, I would have given extra consideration to mathematical count. As far as evaluating the consensus of the discussion in general, it is more than a number counting exercise - that was just one data point I was able to identify. I hope that answers your inquiry sufficiently. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers:, regarding The requested edits controversy seems to be more at the standard templates that we encourage people to use than anything SFR related, there were a couple of mistakes made and acknowledged, but nobody seems to be arguing that there is a problematic pattern., I count at least four separate mistakes that were cited by opposers, only one of which was acknowledged.

1. One was from Talk:Climate change, which SFR acknowledged as a mistake.
2. Brought up by me in my second Oppose: Multiple good-faith, valid requests at Talk:KSI about the subject's height that should have been at least partially accepted but that SFR assumed to be bad-faith. These were brought up by SFR in Q29 as examples of edit requests that he believed had handled well. SFR did not acknowledge having made a mistake.
3. Brought up by me in my second Oppose: A good-faith request at Talk:KSI about the subject's nicknames that SFR assumed to be bad-faith. This was brought up SFR in Q29 as an example of an edit request that he believed had handled well. SFR did not acknowledge having made a mistake. In fact, he followed up on my Talk page digging in deeper.
4. Brought up by Mr rnddude: "SFR rejected the edit request because, and this boggles my mind, the requestor had not provided a reliable source to support the change. You do not need to provide a reliable source to fix a spelling error." SFR did not acknowledge having made a mistake.

Perhaps I should have more explicitly argued that I was seeing a problematic pattern in my second oppose. Perhaps I should have said, "In Q29 I asked him how he would identify harassment and he gave 5 diffs, zero of which are harassment. I think this is a problematic pattern." I tend to have a let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves style, which isn't always a great strategy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there's not general acknowledgement that all of these were errors. The first, sure, and SFR acknowledged it. The second and third, I disagree with your assessment of. Edits changing the numbers and names on biographies are very, very, common, and the overwhelming majority of these are indeed made in bad faith. SFR didn't even treat them as requests made in bad faith; he gave them the standard template response. You can't expect editors answering requests to do the research to support them. Perhaps more importantly, there wasn't general agreement that these were errors, and even if they were, that they represented a general pattern. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict - the following was written to respond to te first version of Clayoquot's comment and clashed with both his response and Vanamonde) Thanks Clayoquot. Re the neologisms database the page there currently says "We've made efforts to check the entries for validity and factual correctness; however, if we've missed anything, please bring it to our attention!" I can see a difference between whether something is checked or whether efforts have been made to check it (that was the first I looked at, I haven't gone through the other three). However I did say "seems to be more at" and that's my judgement of the RFA discussion, I believe the community would have opposed if a clear case was made that the candidate was doing subpar work at requested edits. In the past I've tanked or helped to tank RFAs where I could show a recent pattern of CSD tagging errors, or someone else showed a pattern and I reinforced that. A key ingredient to an effective oppose is your sample size, and when I moved to checking a decent sample I often found myself in the support column, but sometimes with a "but watch out for x" included. As a crat I'm not necessarily looking at the evidence, I'm looking at the discussion (at least this time I managed to read and refrain from !voting) and there I didn't see people being convinced that a worrying proportion of SFR's decisions at requested edits were wrong. Perhaps my sentence "seems to be more at the standard templates that we encourage people to use than anything SFR related, there were a couple of mistakes made and acknowledged," would have been better phrased as "seems to be at least in part at the standard templates that we encourage people to use rather than SFR mistakes, though there were some mistakes pointed out and at least one acknowledged". However, I didn't downweight opposes based on requested edits, so my substantive position is unchanged. ϢereSpielChequers 17:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it. Just one quibble - I'm a she not a he :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, and you may not even pronounce your username Cley Oquot. I think my mind just lumped you in with the Cleys I've known, silly of me to make such an assumption. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the KSI page, This was a long term issue that resulted in talk page protection twice, if I recall correctly once for the fatneek thing, and once for the height thing. Familiarity with the history makes it clear that this was disruptive editing, disruptive enough to require the rare usage of talk page protection as well as a FAQ. A list of neologisms used by students at Rice University, kept by a professor likely as a teaching aid discussing the changes in language, does not change that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Let's take a look at the edit requests:

1. Edit request 1: SFR reverted instead of responding, with an edit summary that included the words "height shit".
2. Edit request 2: SFR reverted instead of responding.
3. Edit request 3: SFR reverted instead of responding with an edit summary of "rm disruption".
4. Edit request 4: SFR reverted instead of responding.
5. Edit request 5: SFR reverted instead of responding.

You think that SFR "didn't even treat them as requests made in bad faith." My God, what does treating things as requests made in bad faith look like if it doesn't look like this? You think that he gave them the standard template response. Not true in any of the cases. You think I'm expecting editors who answer edit requests to do the research to support them. No, I'm expecting editors to do research before assuming bad faith because that is required by policy. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unsure, cry-laughing is an option. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My statement about bad faith was made after I looked at the talk page in question, and saw a number of declined edit-requests. I hadn't realized others had been reverted, apologies. Having looked into it, I do understand why the edits were treated suspiciously, though, and I can't see a reason to hold them against SFR. You did see there was an LTA involved with a history of making similar requests? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look at those five and I think reverting and not responding was the right move per the principles of WP:DENY. In my view, responding would be a mistake, for the same reason. Here are two examples of me recently doing something similar: 1, 2. I think you might be underestimating how many editors do not think those were mistakes. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY doesn't say to say "shit" in edit summaries, IIRC. But more to the point, WP:DENY is for vandalism, and the edit requests were not vandalism. I recently posted on Talk:KSI saying basically the same thing as some of these five edit requests, and referencing exactly the same source that one of the edit requests cited, and a normal, civilized discussion is unfolding. Why am I not being treated like a vandal? Because I know how to speak our language and it because I have the social capital that comes with experience.

Re I think you might be underestimating..., um, I don't think recall ever sharing an estimate of how many other people agree with my views on these five edits. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY, the essay, talks about vandals and trolls, but as longstanding practice, has been applied to our small but noisy collection of LTAs. Importantly, it has been applied even when individual posts are ostensibly okay. I'm not familiar with this LTA, and I don't want to get into the weeds of specific requests, but you do need to recognize that what SFR was doing had a lot of precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was well aware that WP:DENY is our strategy for LTAs. I was also aware that vandals often change numbers such as heights. I would be surprised if all five of the diffs that SFR labelled "harassment" came from an LTA. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the diffs you posted above are very obvious trolling. If you don't see that, you're not looking close enough at the evidence. That's why WP:DENY, and not respond, was the right move. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reverting the height without adding a response for this isn't a problem in my eyes. I made the FAQ page because so many people request "change 6' to 5'11" and its just annoying. What is the point of responding to the request when there is a banner at the top of the page telling them that the edit request will not happen without RS (Which there aren't for him being 5'11). It would just fill up the talk page with nonsense. It is better just to remove the requests in this case. Terasail^[✉️] 19:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a policy/guideline gap about how to respond in situations like this one, and I think SFR's response was one of a few possible good responses. I've seen some people give a templated response and speedily archive the repeat sections, which also works. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, can you contemplate for one second that perhaps the linguistics professor's website is right, and you are the one who doesn't understand the subculture? I think you'll do fine closing AfDs, dealing with copyright stuff, and many other admin tasks. I am concerned that you sometimes have a high level of confidence in your ability to identify edits as malicious when that level of confidence is not warranted. I hope you will consider seeking friendly feedback from other admins on whether you're making the right calls in this particular area of admin work, e.g. asking someone to review your blocks if you've blocked someone for harassment. Harassment that you think is clear-cut might not be. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that website, which lists tard as less offensive and is sourced to "heard from a friend," or Slimyboogeroldcatvomitketchupness sourced to someone's brother's high school essay is right and in any way an acceptable source for anything other than words people taking ENGL215/LING215 at Rice University have heard or made up. If you think so, WP:RSN is the place to make that argument.

I've already reached out to several admins for input and advice, and will continue to do so. I would also revert any use of a user generated source that states fag isn't a slur referencing sexual orientation sourced to a "friend on NOD." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cecropia: About this: [3]. Is finding that there was no consensus, but the result is promote, even a thing? I thought that promotion is defined as requiring consensus to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in their edit summary, they are in the process of explaining. Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm happy to wait for that. But I can't think of any amount of explaining that could reconcile that with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its always fun to answer a yes/no with an "it depends" why not have more response options as long as it doesn't disrupt anything. Terasail^[✉️] 19:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and understood the explanation, and it clearly doesn't change the result here anyway. I don't want to prolong this, because it's clear that the Crats are ready to wrap it up. But I want to say for the record that, although one can certainly find the conventional meaning of "no consensus" in a discussion, it is against policy to promote an RfA candidate in the absence of a consensus in the RfA discussion to do so. Put another way, consensus does not mean unanimous, or even near-unanimous, agreement, but there is no such thing as promoting against consensus. And there should not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but look at the political cowardice. You have 'crats who stood on one side or the other, a few who recused, and one who had to have their cake and eat it, too. There should be no discretionary zone and no 'crat chat. The community's wrangling is only going to corrupt our 'crats in the long term. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those who know me that back in the day, I tried to run a fair but tight ship. I could sing "Look What They've Done to My Consensus, Ma." But when you have a discretionary range as low as 65% to 75%, you turn it from a "Consensus of the Community" to a "Consensus of the 'Crats." This reality. I'm open to a discussion of making consensus more than a memory. Cecropia (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either I misunderstood you, or I read that another way. They found no consensus in the RFA, but they did find consensus in the crat chat (which was to promote). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding no consensus in the RfA means finding, as an individual Crat, that there was no consensus to promote. Determining the consensus of the Crat Chat is a separate step, done collectively. One could conclude that there was no consensus to promote, while accepting that the Crat Chat consensus is to promote. It's not OK to confound the two. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way the discussion in its relation to this RFA is now inconsequential. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia was very active in the early years of Wikipedia but has made less than 300 edits in the last 15 years. In my opinion, this editor is out of touch with the community's expectations for administrators and bureaucrats, and should give serious consideration to retiring from these roles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thank them for participating here at least - I think it was their first bureaucrat activity since saying they wanted to remain a bureaucrat in April 2020 but what they actually wrote has left me scratching my head. Either find consensus to promote, or don't, that's the job is it not? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their contributions put them on track to loss of both hats at the end of the year with the crat and admin activity requirements. Izno (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting this out there... there were 26 !votes (by my count) in this RFA that substantially relied on the notion that SFR is a sock. Remove these from the equation (and I think they should be) and there is 77.4% support. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not. Arrogating authority to crats to determine outcome results in supervotes like this. I had wanted RfA to stay a straight vote but some editors decided they needed to rig the vote for political reasons. The crats who are against SFR will not discount those aspersions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to treat such comments at least partly as simply meaning "I don't trust this editor", which is a personal opinion that does not necessarily depend on rational consideration of evidence. When it comes down to it, RfA is about whether the community trusts the candidate with a bundle of extra tools, many of which have little or no community oversight, and some of which (eg viewing deleted content) I believe don't even leave permanent logs. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That a 9/14 "vote" here (i.e. <65%) is a consensus that there was a consensus to promote, whereas the identical percentage at the RFA itself would be outside the range for discretion to hand out the mop. Banks Irk (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get why this is amusing. But I have a brand new essay fresh off the keyboard which explains why this is not quite the contradiction it might seem at first glance - WP:CROWD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say we have a Steward Chat now, to determine the consensus of the Crat Chat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And if the steward chat lands in the discretionary range, we can have a Jimbo chat. No chance of a discretionary result there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice essay. I remain amused, and will try to contain my mirth. Banks Irk (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, you've had a question at this RfA oversighted, some of your views have been strongly criticised, and now this. I highly advise you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, my good friend, this is one where we should just let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all on board with Tryptofish's proposal. Where's the popcorn popper? Banks Irk (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion in 2019 about moving the cratchats to a consensus model. That discussion was prompted by some narrow majorities. People interested in pursuing such a change may wish to revisit Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_discussion#Improving bureaucrat discussions. ϢereSpielChequers 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: You closed it as Tamzin's RfA!! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom think I got it all, was copy-pasting the boilerplates from the last crat chat - if I missed any other spots please let me know! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good now. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh-uh. No takebacks. I will delegate my second adminship to 'zin is short for Tamzin, thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may collect double the pay for the period where they overlapped. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there can be only one! I'm taking your RFA as spoils from our chess game. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Aww, but I'm rather fond of this adminship. I've got some spare hats if you want, though. Got any use for translation admin on testwikidata? I don't think I've used that one since 2013. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can let it slide, you let me win anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I opposed this candidacy and personally evaluate the discussion as no consensus to grant administrator rights, I congratulate the beuracrats, collectively, for the dispassionate manner in which you discharged your duty to assess the discussion and I accept, without reservation, the conclusion reached and the outcome effected. I also congratulate the candidate where my opposition to the candidacy is set aside and my support of them as Wikipedia's newest administrator is hereby pledged. Mostly I congratulate everyone who participated in this contentious RfA for the overall manner in which disagreement never devolved into outright belligerence and collegiality remained a virtue. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I applaud your words, but to say it "never devolved into outright belligerence" is a stretch. I was openly attacked during this RfA, enough so that it has given me pause to ever contribute to RfA again. I probably will, but may be more inclined to just say "Support" or "Oppose" without explaining myself. Though, some people are openly attacked anyway for opposing without stating a reason. I'm not looking to revisit all of that and try to figure out who-said-what-to-whom-why-when, but neither should the outcome of this contentious RfA ever be viewed as a way to do it right. It wasn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry that you were attacked Hammersoft, I didn't see it and frankly am glad that I didn't. I know that your contributions are given in good faith and could defend them unseen; having seen your contributions in this RfA, I can double down in defense and without equivocation, say: there was nothing in your contributions that could reasonably have been seen as engendering hostility. In fact, had I wanted my own opposition to convey more substance and weight, per Hammersoft would have been in my prose (as it was in several other's). It would be a shame and the worst collateral thing if you were to act on the RfA's discussion by changing a thing of yourself; I earnestly hope that you won't. Meanwhile, I won't give this RfA as a "right way" example in any form and I'll refactor my congratulatory kudos; extending them to the overwhelming majority of participants who actually did behave well. Given with my best regards; cheers.--John Cline (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this post, John Cline (factoring in Hammersoft's additions--but opposers are often attacked at RFA, so ... ). This is where I land. Regardless of the outcome, I thought the way the 'crats approached the discussion admirable, and the amount of info most of them gave as to their thought processes revealing. At the very least, their posts showed considerable deliberative individual consideration rather than back-channel coordination, as there were so many different approaches, and that is reassuring as to how they went about doing their work. That makes it easier to accept their conclusion even if one disagrees.

I encourage SFR to contemplate the number of 'crats who did not enter into either the Consensus or No Consensus category, and recognize the possibility exists that the outcome could have been different; that is, please heed the considerable concerns raised, and don't let us see you back at ANI or before the arbs.

Many mistakes were made in this RFA, and I own and apologize for mine (an oppose composed too hurriedly from my phone while busy with a fundraiser), and that set the discussion off in the wrong direction from the beginning. I stand by my oppose based on trust, but there's a wrong way to do the right thing, and mine was the wrong way. I'm sorry for what that caused SFR.

There's also a wrong way to do the wrong thing, and that is for the three (candidate plus two noms) to have (according to them) discussed the early editing history and decided not to bring that up in the nomination statement, and not to consult Spartaz before moving forward. As I own my part in the raucous RFA, I suggest the three of you might also contemplate how differently the RFA might have evolved had the early editing history been discussed, rather than adding to the trust issue by not bringing it forward forthrightly. The possibility remains that my careless oppose handed the tools to SFR in spite of how the RFA was approached, so at least I'd like a beer and pretzel for my effort :)

Summarizing, congratulations on the tools as gaining them shows the community trusts you, and for maintaining your cool in spite of the intensity and harshness of the debate. I'm sorry for using such a strident and harsh tone in my initial oppose (not to mention the lack of clarity), and I hope the bad memories of a tumultuous RFA (partly my fault) subside with time and you enjoy a long and fruitful adminship. If you want an independent set of eyes to look over any future GA noms, I'll be happy to look, although I don't do GAN. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking credit for the RFA passing because your oppose "set the discussion off in the wrong direction" is nearly as bad as calling the supports "mindless". Why cannot you not simply accept that the supporters had their own reasons for supporting besides contradicting your !vote? As to the rest; I can't persuade you at this point, but I need to set the record straight. SFR's "early history" was not mentioned in the nom statement, because it's perfectly normal "early history" as far as Wikipedia was concerned, and there was nothing to discuss. A nomination statement traditionally addresses why the candidate will be a positive with the mop. Our nomination statements did so. There was no purpose to explaining the absence of evidence of misconduct on SFR's part, doubly so because some of that absence of evidence came from private conversations, some of which I'm explicitly prohibited from discussing on-wiki. I framed my statement knowing that no matter what I said SFR would face opposition and questions over his early edit history, and it would therefore serve him better if I gave a concise summary of his strengths, rather than vague allusions that would of necessity lack detail, and would simply raise suspicion. I stand by this decision: for me to change my mind would require opposers telling me they would have supported instead if the response to Q6 had been incorporated earlier. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess there will be no beer and pretzel then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Had I opposed a successful RFA, I would consider it rude for someone to thank me for it passing: that would be a back-handed compliment if there ever was one. You have my thanks however for participating, and for giving sincere feedback, even though I may disagree strongly with its substance. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, we all want RFA to be a better place, and I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of the mistakes in this RFA. I landed in this section, rather than elsewhere, to congratulate SFR because I also wanted to commend the crats for how they dealt with the dreadful situation they were handed, and what they were handed was partly my fault.

  I'm not "taking credit for the RFA passing"; I'm saying we don't know how the RFA would have evolved if so many mistakes had not been made, and I'm tipping my hat to VersaceSpace who was the person who brought this to my attention. That is, I'm repeating what a supporter said while acknowledging my mistake and apologizing for it. How might I have voted (or not-- I usually pass by RFAs unless I see red flags), if Spartaz had been consulted and that had been raised? Can't answer a what if now, but it's likely I would have merely entered an oppose on lack of significant content engagement, and unwatched.

  If you would approach a subsequent nomination the same way, that's your choice. My recommendation is that !voters appreciate disclosure, and leaving out well-known issues contributes to mistrust, which is what RFA is about. I believe that all (four) of us contributed to how the RFA evolved, and hope none of us make the same mistakes in the future. But I agree it's your perogative as to how you choose to present a nomination. As it's my perogative to believe that mistakes were made by all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, if you're still mad at me, you missed your chance to repay me. I'm lethally allergic to beer (angioedema/anaphylaxis); I offered the chance to be done with me as a form of self-deprecation. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, do you think your level of participation in the various places related to the RFA (RFA, the RFA talk page, WT:RFA, and now this crat chat talk page) has been proportional to the importance of it? Or do you think it possible that you have gotten a little too worked up in this to see that how over the top some of the comments have been? You made your point, somebody responded, you responded to that. Why did it need to go any further? Why does it still need to go any further? Enough people disagreed with you that consensus was against your position. And by the way, among the people who disagreed with you are at least 8 checkusers. Just give it up already, sheesh. nableezy - 17:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pie chart here on text added would prompt some self reflection, if it was me. Parabolist (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you're asking another question of me that I can ignore (rude) or answer ... the pattern throughout. Accusations and insinuations are made, I usually answer rather than ignore. And so you're continuing it now ... cheers, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the first half being a useful reminder: "Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues". However, "If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute" is something that'd typically work on a discussion page, but not really here? Clovermoss (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: I've added a no_dr parameter to the template that will remove the last sentence. 0xDeadbeef 17:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]