Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Opposition based on personal animus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wish to bring to the crats' attention a point Uanfala raised during the RFA. JBHunley participated in a request for arbitration enforcement in May 2018 which resulted in ten t-bans being imposed. He also participated in the appeal of said decision at ARCA. No less than four of the t-banned editors (of the eight currently able to edit) have !votes "oppose" at JBHunley's RFA (Oppose Nos. 9, 30, 59, and 66) (as well as one other who opposed the t-bans at ARCA: Oppose No. 80). Between them, these four editors had only 7 RFA !votes before this: in two cases, the editors were making their first contributions to RFA.

Furthermore, I have no issues with an editor bringing up a previous interaction with the candidate, and explaining why it makes them unsuitable for adminship; but such was not the strategy here. Instead, each of the four editors have merely repeated comments made before them; the only !vote to cite a personal interaction focused on this ANI thread, in which JBH's comments were completely on point. One other editor (Oppose No. 3), also an RFA first timer, is also basing their opposition of said ANI thread. In sum, I would recommend that these !votes be given significantly less weight, as they seem to be taking forward a personal disagreement rather than objectively assessing JBH's suitability for adminship. Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The long term established editors who are editing regularly and watching JBHunley for months of months makes a very good case that why they should cast vote here based on their experiences. This makes more sense than those votes that have no idea about the candidate nor they have ever interacted. Had JBHunley been sensible while interacting any of them, they would be possibly supporting. This is a requirement if you really want to become an admin. When we are talking about who should be given less weight, I think votes like yours that have convinced no one needs to be given no weight contrary to my vote that had many convinced others. Rzvas (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's rather obvious that you have a grudge to pursue. I think that alone colours your !vote negatively. I agree with established voters !votes being afforded more weight though, but that is just a further strike against yours. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonder what Mr rnddude has to say on accounts registered this year and voted in favor. Rzvas (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall adding a qualifier that this only applies to the opposition, do you? For the record, though, my metric for "established" is based on contributions and activity within the project, not account registry date. A person who registered this year and has been an active participant since that registration is, likely, a better established editor than a decade old account with limited sporadic edits. Though a half-year activity is well short of established, even with a few thousand edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Please stop with that nonsense. I was accused of the same biases during NA1K's case. I didn't have a grudge - I had the most experience with him and I could document problems that most people weren't aware of. That didn't mean I held onto a grudge. And I see the same stuff here. I often watch people's red-linked RFA pages if I know they are ambitous and a bad candidate. I'm not saying Jbh is a bad candidate, but I am saying that regular people without grudges do keep an eye out for RfAs they know should fail.--v/r - TP 15:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

TParis - I stand firmly, very firmly, behind my accusation. It's based on comments by Rzvas at ORCP and the RfA. It is not based on their difference in opinion, or their own experiences of which I have no opinion on. Is that clear? I don't care how you !voted, or how anyone else !voted. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what most of your comment is about; most of the editors I listed above are not particularly experienced, and I've interacted with JBH as much or more than they have; but this isn't about a specific !vote. It's about at least three editors (including yourself), who have never before expressed any opinions at RFA, opposing JBH after he tried to settle a rather acrimonious debate. The vehemence of your opposition (both at RFA [1], [2], and at ORCP [3], [4]) only strengthens my point. Vanamonde (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

They are established, with some being older than you and easily more credible than those who registered their accounts this year and voted in favor with no prior interaction. I have voted on RfA[5] before though it was a parody one. Point is that you just don't like what happened in the RFA and your vote didn't convinced anyone. Surely that weakens your point. You had to make these arguments on RfA than here. Completely beyond me. Rzvas (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Nothing I said indicates any "animus" towards Jbhunley. My "oppose" !vote was based on the candidate's lack of content creation and temperament issues, and I was not the only one to have these concerns. In fact, the vast majority of editors who have !voted in the oppose column did so on these grounds. To me this seems nothing but a continuation of combative attitude of the OP towards the users in question. We don't discount !votes just because someone is !voting for the first time or for the other nonsensical reasons you gave. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, MBlaze Lightning, but I find that very unconvincing. Your rationale was "administrators with lack of experience therewith (sp) tends to make bad decisions"; may I ask which bad decision was this based on? It will be very difficult to not make the connection to this decision from an administrator that famously wrote this. Alex Shih (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To remind you, this is not RFA round 2. Rzvas (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. But you cannot suppress my opinion simply because it is different from yours. My opinion is based on my general observation, and I absolutely stand by it. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC) last edited at 08:01, 7 August 2018.

I have asked you a reasonable question, and if you don't want to answer it, that is entirely up to you and perfectly fine. Alex Shih (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother Alex. Anybody who thinks criticism/rebuttals/responses is suppression, isn't worth the effort it takes to respond to. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am extremely disappointed with Vanamonde's allegation regarding my vote. Dissecting every vote that you do not agree with and connecting it with self made patterns is not a healthy sign of consensus building. My main area of concern was the temperament Jbhunley showed in the recent past(Mainly the arbcom issue) and during this rfa ( On and off wiki). Many other editors have explained the issue in-depth in their vote and the issue itself has been discussed in detail in various talk avenues. I would like to state on record that I fully stand by my vote and vehemently oppose Vanamonde's suggestion of giving my vote any less weightage than others. Razer(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: " Neither JBH nor I were a party to the dispute brought to AE; we both recommended a course of action which was supported by every admin there, and eventually upheld by ARBCOM." . Well I wasn't a party of the dispute and my participation was limited to a comment opposing the sanction. Can you elaborate how your or say Jbhunley's involvement was different from mine. I can also present a simple argument that because Jbhunley's supported you in that AE , You voted in their favor. But that would be ridiculous, like your original argument. Razer(talk)

• Just noting the irony that the same could just as easily be said about your assessment here, Vanamode. You're an involved party, who is in a disagreement with the opposers, so who's to say you are "objectively assessing" those users' motivations, rather than acting on a "personal disagreement"? There's no problem providing the crats with relevant information, but do you really think it's appropriate for an involved user on either side to be making "recommendations" on how the crats should judge consensus? Swarm ♠ 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: With respect, your comparison is a false equivalence. Neither JBH nor I were a party to the dispute brought to AE; we both recommended a course of action which was supported by every admin there, and eventually upheld by ARBCOM. I am also not a first-time RFA participant (FWIW I've been more active at RFA in the last five years than you have). Furthermore, you've misunderstood my "recommendation". It was specifically about these few !votes; not with respect to the RFA as a whole, where I wouldn't even know what to recommend. As someone else said at WP:BN recently, that's why the crats get the big bucks. It is likely that many users were unaware of the history of interaction I have linked above. What they do with the information is, beyond a point, not my concern. Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  You don't seem to be getting the point. To be honest, you are misrepresenting the result because my reading shows that you and Jbhunley wanted topic ban from entire IPA, not just a small category of IP(with no A). What really matters is that you and Jbhunley were involved in the same disputes and editors hence you are an involved party. That leaves no difference. To say that people should not hear assessment from specific editors because you have personal disagreements with them is clearly lacking any sense. Rzvas (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, I completely understand your comment, your "recommendation", and where you're coming from. I'm not saying you were wrong to present the info, nor am I even saying your assessment is wrong. Like I said, I'm just pointing out the irony of an involved party recommending that the 'crats discount !votes due to an alleged personal bias. You, as an involved party, are yourself incapable of making a truly neutral assessment, and yet you've not only definitively made one, but you went so far as to make a direct recommendation to the 'crats based on it. Not exactly the behavior of someone who 'isn't concerned' about what the 'crats do with the info. If that irony is lost on you (which I don't believe for a second), so be it, but I assure you I am not confused by your comment. Being aware of when it's not appropriate to make administrative assessments due to involvement is a pretty fundamental part of our job and it doesn't exactly take a genius to understand the "involved" vs "uninvolved" concept. Swarm ♠ 10:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of WP:INVOLVED, Swarm; I simply don't see how it enters the picture. INVOLVED relates to admin actions; I've made it abundantly clear elsewhere that I wouldn't take admin actions against any of the four users I highlighted above (I hadn't interacted with Rzvas before this incident, but given the way this discussion has gone, I'm not likely to use my tools in connection with them either). No admin actions were involved in my assessment here; any editor could have posted what I did. With respect to "You, as an involved party, are yourself incapable of making a truly neutral assessment" Sure, insofar as anyone who ever comments at the talk page of a crat-chat is likely to have some opinions about what they would like the outcome to be. I would like JBH to be given the tools. But you're wrong about what I mean when I say the eventual decision is "not my concern"; I mean that a) I'm obviously not responsible for making it and b) Even discounting the !votes I'm concerned about, were I neutral in this case, I'm not sure which way it would fall. I could justify either outcome, and am not likely to throw a temper tantrum if this is closed as unsuccessful. Hence "not my concern". Now that I've laid out some background I believe to be relevant, I'd like to follow Ritchie's advice below, and disengage to let the crats sort this out. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Christ, you’re way too defensive. I’m not accusing you of violating INVOLVED, I’m just pointing out that you should be aware of the underlying concept and thus aware of the inherent irony of you making recommendations about biased users to the crats as a biased party. Sorry you’re taking it personally, but if you’re going to try to endlessly argue about it we can just mutually say “you don’t get it” and call it a day. Swarm ♠ 11:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Touché. Not my intention. Yes, I see the irony too: I jumped to the (likely unwarranted) conclusion that you were using said irony to challenge my actions. Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well sorry if I came across as hostile or anything, my intent was genuinely not to give you a hard time or argue with you but I understand why you would feel that way. The real punchline in my mind was the additional layer of irony that I’m in the oppose camp and thus am only calling you out because I’m influenced by my own bias. I figured you’d reply with something along those lines and we’d have a laugh. That’s all there was to it. Certainly not trying to discredit you just because you commented in the RfA. That would be ridiculous. You’re a great asset to the project and I have nothing but respect for you. Sorry this ended up being a needless distraction. Swarm ♠ 11:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it makes a nice change to have an argument end in pleasantry rather than acrimony, so cheers :) Likewise about your role here; your name was among those I was thinking of when I said I had a lot of respect for some of the opposers. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment-I'm very inclined to take MBl, for another trip to to AE given their behavior over ARBIPA has now lead to vindictive behaviour, spread to other arenas, as I've noted previously)......Echo Alex and Vanamonde word by word.∯WBG^converse 16:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from this and this, I briefly thought MBl might make suitable admin material. Then I saw the AE threads and revised my opinion to "not a chance". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Ritchie333: How the hell is casting aspersions and flinging mud on an individual appropriate here? If you have an issue with them, take it to their talk page, but both of your comments here are simply appalling. Nihlus 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Aww jeez, Nihlus, what on earth's the point of you saying all this. I've had enough of your pontificating now, I'm off to improve Led Zeppelin III to GA status and do some work on The Unthanks if I can find some sources. You need to stop getting angry at people who disagree with you before you get blocked. I'm outta here, have a nice life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So now you threaten to block someone who calls you out for incivility? That's ridiculous. Nihlus 17:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are into role-playing a civility-cop, indulge as much as possible.I don't give a flying fuck...I've spared much time at ARBIPA, unlike you and won't refrain from pointing out vindictive behavior from a topic-banned user, which has clearly reflected on his !vote, shall the need arise.∯WBG^converse 17:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Your comments are continually wildly inappropriate. I suggest you stop while you are way ahead of yourself. Nihlus 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Your remarks would be wildly appropriate in another forum and I look forwarding to seconding them there. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, use a better forum for carrying your irrelevant WP:BATTLE in place of badgering this discussion where you have failed to make even one meaningful comment. Rzvas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, as is obvious I have an issue with one editor in this section and have had to deal with biting comments as well. This thread is boiling over and a lot of heat with no light. Please close. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edge to a swing?

I note that even before 14:26 on 6 August, 7% of oppose voters had struck their votes and swung to support. What weight of significant should be placed on that percentage is the rub. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many support voters also struck their !votes and/or shifted to oppose camp while the RfA was going on. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 08:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

They did not. Only 2% of support votes swung to oppose—and the last one to do so was on 2 August. Four days earlier... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

True, although if you check the S/O graph, support % dropped to 65% on 5 August and then went back up to the current ~70%, so there is a trend reversal. Also, if I count correctly, there have been 4 people striking their support, all on 2 and 3 August but 7 people striking their oppose. Of the 7 people striking their neutrals, 2 moved to oppose and 5 to support, so that's also a sign of the tides turning. Additionally, 14 people reaffirmed their earlier support but only 2 people their opposes. While I'm a bit biased since I !voted, I think this is an example where consensus has fluctuated from promoting to not promoting and back to promoting. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's actually the only example I can remember of that happening, which makes it rather noteworthy. Trend reversals from trending toward oppose to trending toward support do not usually happen at RfA. Even in the most successful RfAs, the trend is usually a monotonically decreasing support percentage. The crats will obviously do their job determining how to weigh the !votes, and I think either outcome is justifiable here, but I think this specific trend would push me to see consensus to promote if I were unsure. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't !voted in this RFA and do not intend to give any opinion here either, except that I am profoundly uncomfortable with the above reasoning. Should I delay !voting at future RFA's too just before closing time so that my !vote can perhaps be seen as a "trend" and therefore count for more than those !votes that were cast earlier? Why would crats give more weight to last minute !votes over other well-reasoned ones that were cast earlier? One editor, one vote! --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

My original point was precisely intended to address those who had already voted and then changed, which I suggest are indeed of greater significance than late arrivals generally. Peace, bread and administration! :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so next time there's an RFA i oppose, I should !vote support early on and then just before closing switch? --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That rather depends on how keen one is to make a point... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The movement toward an end of an RfA speaks to how persuasive the arguments are on both the support and oppose sides, which is ultimately what determines consensus, not the numbers. One person gaming the system isn't going to change anything, so I'm very unconcerned about that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Rob₁₃, you underestimate the cabal..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:52, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there can be quite a bit of bouncing over time... File:SarekOfVulcan_RFA_4_Trends.png --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Another version where you can hover over the line, for comparison, and the famous Oshwah 2, which was the best example of this phenomenon before the current RfA. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sweet, I hadn't seen before that you'd done that! Good work. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I started the tool with the intention of applying it to XfDs - graphs tell stories, and a big bump in "Keep" votes might indicate some canvassing or something - but quickly realized it would also be useful in RfA analysis. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea and a sit down

I'm thinking of Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values right now. Can you all accept you aren't going to agree on this, the issue is polarised, nobody's going to change their mind, and further discussion probably isn't productive from either side? I've just discovered this project - what you can you discover amongst our 5 million articles? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone, give it a rest and let the crats do their thing. ansh666 08:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is bang in the middle of the discretionary range, so it could go either way, but if it does pass we can count it as a success for the RFA reforms of a couple of years ago. ϢereSpielChequers 09:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, because English Wikipedia doesn't have any formal or even any universally accepted adminship qualifications, bureaucrats are really only left to their personal judgment to decide these kinds of edge-case RfAs based on what they think is best for the project. Policy gives us no objectively right answer to which votes should be given more or less weight; our process makes these edge cases completely discretionary. The 'crats will make their decision, and we're all going to have to live with it. (For the record, I sat this RfA out, and I don't have an opinion on which way it should go.) Mz7 (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone for a refill?

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's Comment

@Maxim: Regarding [6]. How in the world does a majority of opposes finding a particular issue to be extremely troubling not equate to a consensus against promotion? In fact, that is a strong indicator of no consensus. Very strong. If opposes were diverse and mundane and no one in the oppose section really agreed with each other, then you'd have a point. 87 people in agreement is strong evidence that there is no consensus.--v/r - TP 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, a unified opposition is now something that can be brushed aside because you happen to think it's a nonissue or a "single incident" (which it's not)? How is that not a supervote? Nihlus 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd guess it's the same reason that more than double that number expressed an opinion that is was not an issue. If the Brexit Referendum had closed at 69% "Leave" I'd have a hell of a harder job arguing against it. I can only reiterate what I said above - people are not going to agree on this and anything the crats do is going to be shouted at by somebody for being wrong. Sucks to be a crat, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing that we aren't the United Kingdom, now isn't it? I don't believe I need to point you to WP:CONSENSUS (specifically WP:NOCON). Also, the community has the right to point out their disagreements with what anyone says, bureaucrats and ArbCom included. I don't understand the need to essentially tell people to shut up or the need to stifle/side track discussions about someone's concerns as you are doing right now. Nihlus 16:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: Pinging you as well as I politely ask you to reread the opposition. While unified in our oppose, we provide multiple examples of issues that show an established pattern. The opposes include references to behavior during the RfA itself, which is very very recent. Boiling it down to just the ArbCom case is not fair to those who brought up other issues. Nihlus 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Although to some extent I think that the Crats should evaluate the strength of such arguments, another very significant aspect for them to examine is the extent to which one or another argument led other editors to alter their opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed. I couldn't agree more, and just to cite an example, Cyberpower678's RfA was closed as "no consensus" on similar grounds despite it receiving 74% support; to quote WJBscribe's words: "The opposition spans a number of concerns - lack experience (both content creation and deletion discussions etc); issue with bot operation; BLP concerns; temperament issues. Those are legitimate issues, although it is somewhat unusual to see so many opposing for some many different reasons."

I'd also note that while the misconduct in the arbitration case and the lack of content creation were the underlying reasons behind the majority of oppose !votes, his conduct on Wikipediocracy, where he called a certain opposer "an overwrought bitter asshole" in the middile of the RfA, deletionist approach, etc also attracted many oppose !votes. Like TParis said, a hordes of voters found these issues to be extremely troubling and this is a clear indicia of the the absence of clear consensus required to pass this RfA.

MBlaze Lightning ^talk 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect; Cyberpower678 withdrew from the RfA during the crat chat, and subsequently passed with a landslide support some time later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It was considered as withdrawn but soon it was changed to "no consensus".[7] MBlaze Lightning ^talk 16:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons of Maxim's comments

@Maxim: Can you explain your inconsistent approach to determining whether or not there is consensus to promote someone with only 69% of the vote? (any emphasis below is mine)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion

My overall assessment is that so far I see both sides of the coin, but I'm still debating what to call it, although I would be closer to calling it no consensus because we can't show an exceptional enough case to promote below 70%.

Can you show an exceptional case here?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3/Bureaucrat discussion

Having thought about this RfA for another day, I feel that most of the opposition is well-founded, being based on previous misconduct and how it was addressed by SarekOfVulcan. As such, we don't have the circumstances where promotion below the discretionary zone is appropriate.

The opposition is based on misconduct (more than one instance for some) and how it was handled by Jbh.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2/Bureaucrat discussion

To me, the opposition is based on three major reasons: 1. controversial AE decision; 2. response to criticism of said decision; 3. inactivity. The combination of all three reasons, which are interrelated, is more than enough to push the RfA firmly into no-consensus territory.

More similarities to this RfA when you consider the Arbcom issue that many people took issue with, which you essentially summarily dismissed as a singular issue, despite there being a demonstrable pattern of said temperament issues.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion

There were a lot of votes in both support and opposition that didn't provide much reasoning behind them.

Why was this overlooked this time around? A lot of the supports were basically just "meh why not" votes.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

There is a very large amount of opposition centered on lack of content contributions combined with spending time on drama boards. The crux of this argument is that as an admin, Liz would continue working on the boards but now be empowered to, for example, protect pages and block editors, without having the hands-on experience in dealing with content, disputes over which often drive the drama. Without having the relevant experience, it may be possible that Liz would inadvertently make errors of judgment in handling such disputes, and while her intentions would still be the best, any dispute or drama would be exacerbated by questionable admin actions. Given the borderline percentage, and the overall large number of oppose votes, I do not believe consensus exists to grant Liz adminship at this time.

The parallels here are surprisingly similar, yet the conclusions you reached differs. Replace Liz with Jbh and your argument would work the same.

Please expand on this when you get the chance (preferably before the chat is closed). Thanks. Nihlus 15:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I'm not assuming anything on Maxim's part. In regards to your "69%" question above: please note the community approved widening the discretionary consensus range (see link in my opening statement) at the end of 2015, which was after all of the examples you listed above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware, but that doesn't mean his arguments are invalidated or no longer his own established precedent. I'll edit my question above regarding the percentage to sound better since it does come off a bit weird right now (that is, once I figure out how to word it). Nihlus 15:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It does absolutely change the precedent. Previously, bureaucrats would have needed to make a truly extraordinary argument to promote at 69%, as it was below the discretionary range. Now, bureaucrats would not need such an extraordinary argument to promate at 69%, as it is almost exactly in the middle of the discretionary range. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The simplest answer here is that Maxim considers the circumstances of each crat chat individually as each RfA is distinct. Also, he's allowed to have his views evolve over 7 years. I know my views are different than they were 7 years ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wot Tony sez. Succinct and nice:-) ∯WBG^converse 16:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The percentage was one of five points I brought up. So no, you don't get to toss the rest just because the discretionary range changed. That is what I meant. @TonyBallioni: The logic in determining consensus is not fully distinct. While some of the issues brought up are unique to each individual, there are clear parallels that cannot be ignored. Arguing for one point on one RfA and then arguing for the opposite on another is problematic and not the level of decision making and consensus interpretation I would expect from a bureaucrat. Nihlus 16:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The comments in both Rich Farmbrough 2 and SarekOfVulcan 3 were in the context of below-70% support ratios when the discretionary zone was 70%+. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The comment for SarekOfVulcan 3 is referencing the conduct issues, not the range in which the votes fell. The comment for Rich Farmbrough 2 has already been addressed multiple times above. Nihlus 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

[I]n the context of paired with I feel that most of the opposition is well-founded, being based on previous misconduct and how it was addressed by SarekOfVulcan. As such, we don't have the circumstances where promotion below the discretionary zone is appropriate. Yeah, that seems to fit what Kevin's said quite well. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sarek and Rich were also both after actual ArbCom cases. Rich's resulted in a desysop for cause and Sarek's just fell short of it, but he resigned anyway. Those are very different circumstances than a non-admin being rude to a sitting arb because he didn't think she was taking ADMINACCT seriously enough. It's certainly a valid reason to oppose, but one does need to take into account context. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I understand context is important, which is why I wanted a response from Maxim. I focused on specific arguments that seemed to conflict with the arguments that he just made because those are the areas that I took issue with. As expected though, everyone felt the need to weigh in when I wanted an explanation from Maxim himself. While appreciated, everyone else's comments aren't really giving me more information; they are merely trying to discredit my argument before I can even get a response from him. Nihlus 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded this section to the more neutral "re Maxim's rationale", it would also help clarify things if Nihlus considered striking out resolved parts of his query such as the shift in the discretionary zone. Of the other parts I'm interested in Maxim's comment "The combination of all three reasons, which are interrelated" in one of those examples as I think it contrasts with this example. Here I see two unrelated oppose reasons, relatively low content contributions and the undiplomatic incident in April. Some people opposed for one reason, some for another and true some opposed for both, but unless I've missed something, I'm not seeing many if any opposes which link the two issues, and I see the two as having similar numbers in the oppose section. Do people take the view that it makes a difference whether the opposes are interrelated? It seems clear that if we were looking at the two oppose rationales separately there would be consensus that the candidates contributions were sufficient, and also that the April incident is insufficient to stop an adminship. However if we combine both groups of opposers the RFA is in the middle of the discretionary zone. I think I'm leaning towards treating the oppose groups as cumulative, not least because of the low bar for consensus at RFA, but I'd be interested in Maxim's and others views as to what weight one should give a single reason or an interrelated reasons Opposes section as opposed to one like this where there seems little connection between the two main reasons. (disclosure - I supported) ϢereSpielChequers 21:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

And I have changed it back. Please do not make needless edits. Nihlus 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's give it a rest, colleagues

Isn't all this back-and-forth rehashing rather unseemly at this point? I mean, the "prosecution" and "defense" presented their arguments and the case has now gone to the "jury", as it were. Although I !voted‎ oppose based on the  reasons and examples cited, I for one will accept the 'crats decision with equanimity, either way. Bottom line, is the project going forward better off with or without Jbh having the tools? As many sysops age out, retire, or move on, we do need more mop-wielders in the areas he's shown proficiency in working. Hopefully, if approved, he will be less bitey and stay away from discussing Wikipedia off-site in the future, for heaven's sake!  JGHowes  ^talk 17:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I was a supporter of this candidate, but just the same, I agree with your comments. Except for: "Hopefully, if approved, he will be less bitey and stay away from discussing Wikipedia off-site in the future, for heaven's sake!". If you're going to "give it a rest", then give it a rest. We DO need more admins, especially admins who will take on some of the maintenance work and back-logs here. It seems JBH will help do that, we have no reason to believe he won't. There is nothing in his "on-Wiki" behaviour that is of concern to me, nothing that we don't see other established admins doing on an almost regular basis with seeming impunity. Off-wiki is just that; off. Wiki., so who gives a shit? It should have no bearing here. - wolf 20:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please give it a rest!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

This is not as difficult a decision as some of you are making it out to be. I never heard of JBHunley before this RfA, but it doesn't take much research to see he will make a effective admin. Not a "perfect" one (none of them are), but an effective one just the same. "Netpositive" as they call it. Like other admins, he may make mistakes from time to time, whether it be procedural or behavioural, but unlike many other admins, he is more likely to step up and say "I was wrong". He has already shown that kind of accountability. I hadn't !voted until I saw Courcelles !vote, with the diff showing JBH's "withdrawal" from the FPaS ArbCom. He demonstrated that he knows limits, that he knows there is a time to let go. And yet, so many "opposes" are based on that diff, or "per Courcelles" or on "wp:stick", all from that one report. And even more oppose !votes state they would "support" "later, when that report isn't so fresh". If he'll make a good admin "later", he'll make a good admin now. So I ask, how much weight can seriously be given to these !votes, based on a single action that does not clearly demonstrate an inability to administer this project? And that "issue" is cited the most, by far, in the "oppose" section.

The second most cited "concern" among opposers was "content creation". We all know that is not a pre-requisite for adminship. But further to that, it's simply not that important. It may have been once, years ago when we were still trying to build this project, but now it's built, and what is presently of more importance is maintaining it. I counted over a dozen !votes that cited just that issue alone. Again, how much weight can seriously be given to these !votes? Take away the FPaS ArbCom and content creation and what's left? Almost 200 votes "for", backed by solid reasoning and very little, if any, sufficient reason to oppose. Many say this process is broken, (it could certainly use some improvements), but a failure to pass this candidate, especially with a lot of the nonsense that took place during this RfA, would mean this process is broken, and desperately in need of change. - wolf 21:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't have Almost 200 votes "for", backed by solid reasoning, because a substantial proportion of the Support votes are not solid reasoning, they are things like this:

• I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate!
• This is a good candidate for the mop, and I see no reason to oppose the candidacy.
• Should be a useful mop wielder!
• Per noms, has clue, massive net positive.
• Meets all reasonable criteria, nothing negative raised.
• Excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :)
• very good candidate
• of course.
• Clearly qualified.
• Net positive.
• [no rationale given] (several of these!)
• Yes Sir! It is about time. Very keen you have you with the mop, I hope this goes well.
• Good luck.

Right, I gave up about a quarter of the way through, but that gives you a flavor of it. These are not Supports backed by "solid reasoning", these are people providing parroted cliches -- or less.

What's noticeable is that people who habitually support by saying "Why not?", also have the ability and the diligence to look carefully at issues raised, and withdraw that support when reasons "Why not" have been demonstrated. As happened in this case. MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to weighing in on and following the RfA process, but isn't what's being discussed here exactly the purpose of this Bureaucrat chat? The votes that are being referred to here are plainly visible to the bureaucrats, whose job it is now is to read them and make their own conclusions. The community had one week (+ 11hrs) to voice their opinions, which was done. There's no point in continuing discussion here. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be relatively new, but you nailed it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but some people want to turn it into an annex of WT:RFA -- specifically by saying above that if the crats don't do what they demand, then this proves something about the RfA process -- so it's worth pointing out the flaws in that. Not that anyone is forced to read it, of course :) MPS1992 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet, you're all here as well, reading and posting comments. Not that any of you are forced to of course... - wolf 23:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: there have always been support votes of that nature, with no comment or "per nom", since the beginning of RFAs, but it is generally accepted that such supports are valid because a support vote is the "default" option in an RFA. Very often someone has already gone to the trouble of nominating the candidate, and the top of the RFA is devoted to details from the candidate and others as to why they would make a good admin. And it should be the case that all Wikipedians of a certain experience are fit for adminship... most of us here are volunteers who want to make the Wiki a better place, and want to do so in collaboration with each other. It is the oppose vote that needs to be fleshed out more substantially, because that is the one that tells us there's something wrong with this user, and that there's some reason why this Wikipedian can't be trusted. That is ideally the exception rather than the rule.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, but dismissing all the Opposes by saying "take [these reasons] away and what's left?", and claiming that what's left is Support !votes "backed by solid reasoning", is just not accurate, and needs calling out. These Support votes are not backed by solid reasoning, and the Oppose votes have indeed been fleshed out and -- in many cases -- relentlessly badgered. MPS1992 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I said the support !votes were "backed by solid reasoning", not that each vote stated solid reasoning. So you listed all those quotes for nothing (other than to insult all those !voters). The solid reasoning is, again as I stated, seen in the history of the candidate, and also spelled out in the nominations, and further seen in the Q&A. It is based on that information that all those editors have given their support to this candidate. That's how I see it, based on AGF, and conversely, your comments demonstrate an appalling degree of bad faith, especially in those you quoted, and labelled as "parroted cliches". You should strike those comments and apologize to those editors. As for your further comments, I didn't "dismiss" any "oppose" !votes, I pointed out that, based on the rationale provided, that limited weight should be given to them. Obviously, as an "opposer" yourself, you disagree, but that doesn't mean you need to mischaracterize my comments, and insult several others in the process. I said what I wanted to say to the bureaucrats, and they can take as much or as little as they want to from that. When I want your opinion... I'll let you know. - wolf 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Presumably when the crats want your opinion, they'll let you know, too ;) I don't think I've mischaracterised anything. MPS1992 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Presumably when the crats want your opinion, they'll let you know, too" - But it doesn't work that way does it? And while my comment may be unsolicited, it also doesn't insult a whole group of editors. "I don't think I've mischaracterised anything." - And I am truly shocked at that. Truly. - wolf 23:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Shocked! Shocked I tell you! MPS1992 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• "If wishes were horses..." - wolf 23:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wisdom from Wally. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you trying to imply that Beeblebrox is bald? ;-) - wolf 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Percentage

@Xaosflux: I don't normally comment in places like this, but just wanted to point out that the percentage is currently at 70 (and was prior to the hold), not 69.5. I realize that it is still within the range. and doesn't change much, but am looking simply at the accuracy of the information in the statement. --All the best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

196 + 86 is 282. 196 / 282 is about 0.69503, which the tool rounds up to 0.7, being larger than 0.695 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Struck the above. Thanks Ritchie333 for clarification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Elsewhere on the internet, you could have had the smooth and silky voice of Hannah Fry tell you that; here you'll have to put up with my monotonous whine. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this supposed to work?

I’m afraid I don’t understand how the consensus here is supposed to be judged. 70% of the voters seem to think JBH would be a net positive. 7 out of 10 supported - a clear majority. I would think anything below 66% would require a deeper look.

Additionally, how is the ‘crat consensus judged? Is that a simple majority? Why is it so complicated? If 70% of the voters think JBH would be a net positive why don’t we just roll with that? Desysops are easy - what’s the worst that could happen? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

>75% is almost consensus to promote. <65% is almost always no consensus to promote. In between is the community-designated discretionary range where bureaucrats judge consensus. How the bureaucrats determine consensus of their crat chat is less than clear to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The bureaucrats express our individual viewpoints, then normally, through detailed discussion, we can reach an agreement on how to proceed; this is easier (though not easy) to do with a smaller group like the bureaucrats than it is with the hundreds of people that vote on an RfA. --Deskana (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s not 100% clear to me either, but I have a theory on it. In other kinds of discussions on Wikipedia, like AfDs, RMs, RfCs, we evaluate consensus by weighing the arguments in the discussion against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AfD has notability guidelines, for example, and RM has naming conventions. In contrast, there are no formal qualifications for adminship on the English Wikipedia. In fact, we don’t have very many commonly accepted qualifications either. Policy provides us with no objective right answer for giving more or less weights to certain arguments. What does this mean for evaluating consensus? Basically, in edge cases like this one, we trust the bureaucrats to use their judgment and decide the outcome based on their own opinion of what is best for the project. If that sounds a lot like a supervote, I’m afraid that’s the way “evaluating consensus” works in edge cases like this when the community has a majority in support, but with a non-negligible opposition, and there are no codified guidelines to guide the decisionmaking. In short: when we say that the outcome is in the “discretionary zone”, we literally mean that it is completely up to the bureaucrats’ discretion whether to close as pass or fail. Mz7 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current consensus is that usually, an RfA with a support/oppose vote percentage of over 75% should pass and ones with a percentage below 65% shouldn't pass. If it is between 65 to 75 percent, it's up to the closing bureaucrat to see whether they think there's a consensus to promote or not. If they think the consensus isn't clear, they may open a "crat chat", for multiple bureaucrats to discuss whether they think there's consensus to promote the RfA candidate or not. Hope this clarifies things, and anybody else feel free to comment if I got something wrong or missed something.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a (semi-facetious, but not entirely so) feeling that the 'Crats are going to have a tie, and then will have to figure out what their own consensus is. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, that would be fun. xD--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just the dull-but-seemingly "No consensus to promote". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat/Bureaucrat chat?

I assume in that case though that it'll be considered "no consensus to promote".. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Typically yes, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_discussion#Process. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm more having fun with this than really making a serious argument, but I do note that the process describes that approach as "common", and you just called it "typical", which is obviously not the same thing as "automatic" or "mandatory". After all, WP:NOTAVOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, Jimbo still has the ability to give the bit? Why not invent part III of the RfA process: If the bureaucrats fail to reach a consensus on the consensus, kick it to Jimmy. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:UserRights/Jimbo Wales. It doesn't look like he's a bureaucrat. Or does the special founder role allow him to give users admin rights?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Founder: The [Founder] group gives Wales full access to user rights. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I doubt now that it will be a tie. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• What a weird process. When did 'crat chats start? What value do they actually bring to RfA? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Ah, I followed the link Xaosflux gave above, so I know when they started. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to promote

To all those bureaucrats who say there is "No consensus to promote": How can you say that, when there is more than 2:1 margin in favor of support !votes? Ignorance at its best! Regards.--Mona.N (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the section directly above this ~ GB fan 11:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mona.N: RFA is not an election. As multiple people pointed out above, the community has agreed (in 2015), that everything <65% is almost always a no consensus to promote result and >75% is almost always consensus to promote but everything in between falls into the discretion of the bureaucrats. Deciding that there is no consensus to promote is not "ignorance", it's a valid reading of consensus in these cases. You might want to reconsider your choice of words. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"No consensus" does not mean "failed". In my view, it simply means "we can't agree". And as you can see, this page is full of people not agreeing! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

But in RFA land, "no consensus" and "consensus to promote" are the only two options. There is no third option of "consensus not to promote", as we find in RM and AFD discussions. Even an RFA with 0 supports and 200 opposes would still be classed as "no consensus", albeit without any crat chat and an almost certain early closure.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

In the olden times such RfAs were closed as "failed". These days they rarely run the full course. —Kusma (t·c) 11:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2017 specifically lists Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4 as "Unsuccessful". So it does exist, it's just that a obviously unsuccessful RfA, well outside the lower bounds of the discretionary zone, tends to get withdrawn early most of the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is a slightly different one: Looking through Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2006, there are "unsuccessful" and "consensus not reached", but I am not 100% certain on the criteria used to distinguish them. —Kusma (t·c) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The difference between unsuccessful and no consensus is that no consensus is a result from a crat chat, while unsuccessful means the votes were at a total of under 65% (no crat chat needed). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We did not have crat chats in 2006. —Kusma (t·c) 14:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mona.N: Making accusations of ignorance is not very nice. --Deskana (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's comment

I hate to nitpick on this, but with all due respect I have a minor complaint about Nihonjoe's comment. Since bureaucrats these days are not exactly overwhelmed with tasks, and this is particularly a contentious RfA where both sides have expressed exceptionally strong feelings, it would be helpful if bureaucrats can provide more institutional insight so that this RfA may serve better as a citable precedent for future discussions. If you would excuse my rudeness, may I request that you spend slightly more effort on your comment please? Reviewing what "things", and what do you mean by you don't know which way the discussion went? Isn't that what the chat is for? Alternatively, if you simply agree with Wizardman and Warofdreams (both excellent analysis I think), its probably better to just say so. Sorry to be blunt about this. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

tiny problem

Someopne refuses to drop the stick -- and has accused me on the unnamed site of posting there before my !vote here. I would point out that where I live, 3:51 PM is before 4:04 PM. And that to "maliciously" (his word) use a time warp to post there before I posted here is a tiny bit unlikely. My Quark drive from Tesla is in the shop. Meanwhile, I fear that an admin who not only will not "drop the stick" but cannot even read a clock may be a problem. Collect (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to report that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Es gibt kein Andere. Collect (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Query about closing

Hi Xeno, isn't WJBscribe planning to expand on his comment also? I think closing in six hours would be premature if that is the case. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging them. Hopefully they are able to return as well to expand. Generally we don't like to leave bureaucrat chats open for an extended period of time as it can be considered unfair to the candidate - we're already at ~40 hours, which is above the average length of bureaucrat chats for RfAs excluding outliers (~32 hours). However, I am certainly willing to hold off if other bureaucrats so request. –xeno^talk 18:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you can probably close it as "no consensus". I think Useight has actually hit the nail on the head - all the discussions show a deep disagreement that is not going to resolve itself, which is pretty much what "no consensus" is, and given it's going against his personal opinion, sounds perfectly sincere. All that said, it's a shame that an RfA came this close, and I wonder what message it sends out to any other candidates thinking of standing. On the main RfA somebody said (or at least implied) I was nominating too frequently, which I'm amazed at. The only reason I've nominated candidates is I saw nobody else doing it, and 2018 is well on track to being the year with the fewest new admins by some significant margin. Is this a problem? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't stop nominating. I would love it if more people nominated candidates, but the people who do it currently stopping isn't going to achieve that. You do great work bringing candidates to RfA - which I acknowledge isn't easy given the increasing reluctance of good people to go through the process. I for one am grateful. WJBscribe (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

+1 to what WJBscribe said. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, either we've run out of "the right people", or they are no longer willing to stand up to the plate. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that you should blame yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, "Is this a problem?" refers to the monthly net decrease of admins, not my nominating candidates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The answer to that question is an emphatic "yes"... WJBscribe (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't stop nominating people you think would be fit for adminship because someone thought you were nominating too frequently. We can always use people who are willing to do their best at helping out - this is a volunteer site, after all. Whether or not those people willing to do their best get the mop or not, well, that's up to the community. Useight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I really think that users should be less afraid to nominate people for adminship. Not everyone's going to succeed for adminship, but we need admins, and if you think that there's somebody who would make a great admin, then as long as they agree with being nominated, I see no problem with nominating them and seeing what the community decides.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who's a good candidate and who isn't already an administrator doesn't want to be one, because RfA is too stressful and difficult. I've heard that response loads of times. If you can convince Crow, who could be one of our best admins dealing with copyright violations, to run, then go for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a good argument for not nominating anyone and for nobody to stand - RFA is a broken process and it won't be fixed until there's a crisis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Just stop nominating people through this broken process, go six months or so without any candidates, and then we can start some real conversations about what a better process would look like. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a good point. I have seen many great admin candidates who don't want to be an admin simply because of the stress of going through RfA. Personally, I don't like the RfA process at all, but I'm not really sure the best way to make it better.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Going back in time and viewing very old RfAs, it looks like the earliest RfAs seemed relaxed, unstressful, and informal, and it really wasn't nearly as big of a deal if one succeeded or passed - and there weren't all these humongous discussions of thousands and thousands of bytes of disputes. Also, the community was a lot more open to supporting people who haven't made 10,000 edits and had an account for at least 5 years.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 236#7 years ago, this was a very different place (now 10). –xeno^talk 20:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Useight/RFA Standards is a blast from the past, as I haven't changed it in a decade. Useight (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Yup. Watching dumpster fires like this RfA makes me really not want to put myself through one. I mean, I don't imagine I'd be more than a 50/50 to pass even in a less sadistic system. But I'd be OK with taking a chance anyway. Reyk _YO! 20:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're a good case in point, Reyk. If you had the tools and saw somebody open an AfD about some random hedge fund company, only to find six administrators make well-informed and convincing arguments to keep it, you'd close it as "keep", wouldn't you? The fact you !vote "delete" a lot and you've had some rough and tumble over the years with people on the other side of the debate to you doesn't really have anything to do with your ability to use the delete button responsibly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd close it as keep on the basis that they were convincing and well-informed arguments, not necessarily because they came from admins, but yeah. I have definitely been vocal in supporting quality over quality at XfD, and just as vocal in calling out shifty behaviour from the other side of the aisle, and I would expect that to count against me in an RfA. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As much as I see the appeal of letting a crisis arise in order to force reform, I'm not sure that it would really be good for the project to do that. For one thing, it could put a lot of pressure on the most active current admins, and for another, I don't think we really want tons of vandalism all over the place. I think a lot of the opposition arises from the perceived difficulty of removing the permissions once given, even though I think the reality is that ArbCom has gotten reasonably good at doing it. If there were a way to convince more community members that RfA passage can be reversed, there would be fewer opposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's no longer optional. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean by that, that it is already a crisis? Because the community does not see it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean that a crisis is inevitable, and that RfA will not be fixed before it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that as of today's close of Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions the infrastructure exists for the concept outlined in Jbhunley/Essays/Binding community recall. Just need some admins to sign up and people to accept it. Jbh ^Talk 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• "No, I mean that a crisis is inevitable, and that RfA will not be fixed before it happens." - Well, if this clusterf*ck doesn't create an impetus for substatinve change in what is clearly broken RfA process, I don't know what will. Don't get me wrong, it's been broken for awhile, but this takes the cake. Near 300 people spoke up, less than a third of whose only complaints were of A) actions at a single ArbCom (another clusterf*ck) which themselves were not a clear indication of an inability to administer effectively, and B) "content creation" (ugh. seriously?). Meanwhile, 7 out of 10 supported this candidate, due to years of solid contributing, all of which means nothing to a handful of bureaucrats, specifically the seven who clearly dropped the ball today. If this doesn't get people to reconsider the way we select admins for this project, I can't imagine the unholy trainwreck that finally will... - wolf 23:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Truer words have never been spoken. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The bureaucrats decided that there was no consensus based on years of precedent on this site. It takes a lot to go against that, and 70% is not always enough when it comes to RfAs (the discretionary range was actually lowered recently, so it was harder before the end of 2015). There is no reason to completely dismiss the opinions of 90 editors simply because you disagree. Additionally, the bureaucrats (outside of some) didn't supervote to get their way based on how they felt about the candidate. It was about determining the consensus of the discussion, which they did correctly. Nihlus 23:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Gee, another post from Nihlus on this page, you can almost set your watch to them now. Thanks for history lesson, but it was not needed. And I didn't "dismiss 90 editors opinions", I pointed out how weak the opinions were of those 86 editors who opposed, compared to the reasoning behind the other 196 editors that supported, and that as such, very little weight should have been given to those oppose !votes. Certainly not enough weight to come back with "no consensus" by the some of the bureaucrats here. The fact is, there was too much off-wiki bullshit and baseless on-wiki mudslinging (once the word "anti-semite" was tossed around, this RfA started to go off the rails. That shit should've been reigned in asap). The RfA became too controversial and it didn't matter if 80 of the 86 opposers said "I don't like the colour of his sig" or "just 'cuz!"... the bureaucrats that chose "no consensus" did so because it was the safe choice. That did not make it the right choice. They got it wrong, and if they keep getting wrong, we won't have any admins left. (except the bad ones). That is just a few of the reasons why this process is broken. wolf 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think something is broken, then try to fix it properly. With that being said, I will direct you to Wikipedia:How to lose and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and be on my way. Thanks. Nihlus 00:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Thanks for the suggestions, allow me to return the favour and direct you to WP:DICK and WP:HOW TO STOP ACTING LIKE ONE. Have a nice day. - wolf 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please just close it

Yes. Please just put a pin in it. I'm over it and will go back to doing the things I enjoyed here, after taking some time to digest all of this. I appreciate all of the support I have had from supporters and many opposes alike. Regrettably I take away more from the negative commentary though - somehow knowing one's own limits and when to withdraw is not enough, it must be done with grace (<sarc>that is definitely a characteristic I often hear remarked on when people complain about admins</sarc>); that it is OK to other a person and, for instance, refer to their behavior as "a vicious attack" or wonder if they are capable of accepting an apology while at the same time telling them, directly, they indeed must "take it"; and finally that people really should read Contempt so they know what the emotion is both when they condemn it and when their actions become controlled by it;

Since you specifically 'wondered' at RfA and it would have been 'bad' of me to respond: No Swarm I do not, and would not have any issue with you but you would have been one of the admins I would have turned to for advice; Yes MelanieN, I can and do accept apologies but I never expect them.

Finally, I waited until after voting closed to talk to OR. This is what I had to say.

So, thank you all for your efforts and all of the consideration you put into this. I have much more sympathy for what administrators go through and I understand that the individual 'transgressions' people see and start drama over are just a small percentage of what they do right. No one is perfect and I for one will not make the error of expecting our Arbitrators or administrators to be so.

All the best. (Oh. BTW. No this is not a withdrawal.) Jbh ^Talk 20:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley: Thank you for your offer to serve as administrator. I've closed the discussion and request. –xeno^talk 21:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I do hope those in the oppose camp read Jbhunley's message to OR. If that is not the epitome of what it takes to be an administrator, I do not know what is. The fact he waited until after voting was closed to post it to avoid even the appearance that it came from a place of selfishness only reinforces that. The result of the crat chat was an appropriate reading of the community's position, but the community got it wrong here. I hope those who opposed in vicious terms have even half of the grace of Jbhunley in owning up to that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is why people often refrain from opposing because they are seen as "less than" or "vicious" simply because they feel differently about a candidate. I think there is a lot both sides can learn from this RfA, but I am not sure many are willing. Nihlus 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that Nihlus thinks I nominate too many candidates for RfA, viz "There needs to be less on-the-job training and more preparation by candidates, which can be blamed on the frequent RfA nominators". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating the point I just made, but I don't appreciate your continued harassment. Nihlus 23:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can't cope with people disagreeing with you and throwing a wobbly every time they do, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. In the meantime, if your response to the long-perceived problems at RfA is "If you think something is broken, then try to fix it properly.", please go to Kudpung's talk page and explain how you can solve something that at least three RfCs involving some of the most committed editors to the project have not managed to do in at least seven years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if you disagree with me. I care about you making a random comment that has nothing to do with the one I just made to somehow disparage me or distract from the point I made. I also care about you being essentially rude to me and MelanieN almost every step of the way throughout this entire process. That being said, RfA won't be fixed by people whinging on some random bureaucrat chat talk page. Nihlus 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"If you can't cope with people disagreeing with you and throwing a wobbly every time they do, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you." - Seconded. - wolf 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough

This chit-chat is over. The 'crats have done their job. It's time to move on. Arguing with one another here does nothing and is not fair to Jbh. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.