Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion

Positives and negatives

I'll give Wizardman this: He was willing to do something when almost 24 hours had gone by past the scheduled ending of Lugia2453's Rfa. This is possibly a precedent-setting decision, and with the support percentage at 69%, Wizardman's call for a 'crat chat brings in more eyes on a situation that calls for it. I just hope this situation doesn't drag on for days or weeks. An Rfa is gruelling enough for the candidate without prolonging it. I request the 'crats to make a reasonably prompt decision on this matter. Jusdafax 07:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Late vote

I missed the allotted discussion period, but I thought I would let everyone here know that my !vote would have been "support". The candidate has good vandal-fighting skills, they seem trustworthy, and I can't see them breaking things should they be given the bit. That's enough for me to give them my backing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well now wait a minute, this vote was reverted because the discussion had been archived. I know this is just a talk page but..., just sayin'. Rgrds. --64.85.215.216 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's another late vote here. Including the 3 late votes takes it from 69% to 71%. James^x12345 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

To work in article space or not to work in article space, that is the question

Wikipedia has an astonishing history of decent editors also making decent administrators, but that does not mean that is the only way to choose a decent administrator.

When I worked in sales organisations it was a truism that promoting the best salesman to be a sales manager often made a poor sales manager, and sales goals were underachieved. In the end people were selected not for their prowess in sales, but for their prowess in understanding the management role. They need never have been a great salesman, just a competent one. One must understand the role one manages even if one does not do it that much.

This holds true here, too. One needs to understand the task of building the encyclopaedia, but one need not even be good at it. To use the mop and bucket, something akin to management, one needs to understand the whims and fancies of editors, to know how to use the tools and to have a willingness to use them, and to know when not to.

It seems to me that this candidate has displayed all the attributes I desire in an administrator. Lugia displays an ability to learn from mistakes, something I prize highly. They do not edit articles much, but they know what makes a worthwhile edit and what does not. An, key for me, is that they have been invited to apply for a mop and bucket, they have not put themselves forward. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I'm not much of a content creator myself (here - my creative work is elsewhere...) but I can tell whether something's any good or not, and when to leave something alone because I don't know. I started off by removing something from an article, and now I remove articles. And advise people on how to get things sorted. There is room for the demolition man, the surveyor, the security guard, and the sweeper up afterwards as much as for the brickie, the electrician and the architect. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Commendation to bureaucrats

Though this RfA was not technically in the normal discretionary range of 70-80% purely on vote count, I commend Wizardman for initiating this discussion among bureaucrats, as it shows a commitment to adequately judging consensus, and when one bureaucrat did not feel comfortable doing so unilaterally, he enlisted assistance from others, which shows dedication to the job. No matter how the RfA is ultimately closed, I appreciate bureaucrats taking the time to get the call right. Go Phightins! 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

After further review, the ruling on the RFA is... With all seriousness thought, either way you go it's going to be a controversial call and the crats are to be commended either way. I will be watching with interest.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Maxims proposal

I personally am against Maxim's proposal to restart the RFA from scratch, RFA is stressful enough to go through once, having to go through it twice would seem to me to be unreasonable. If there is no consensus, then there is no consensus to promote. This would just be the equivalent of him re-listing himself at RFA immediately after another one closed.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 01:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I too don't support Maxim's good faith proposal. I don't like setting a precedent of starting from scratch just because there's no consensus, or there weren't "enough" votes, or the votes were supposedly not well-supported. Are we going to set a threshold of how many votes is enough? I don't perceive the support for the votes in this RfA to be that different from other RfAs. I opposed the nomination, and if it ran again, I'd oppose it for the same reasons. I imagine the same holds true for many voters. The possibility of a "better" outcome is outweighed by the negatives of rerunning it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• My take is also that a do-over Rfa is a bad idea and more importantly, one that sets a bad precedent, as to my knowledge it has never been done previously. I believe Rfa candidates in the 69% range have been promoted in the past without a lot of drama. Question: ...has anyone troubled to ask Lugia2453's wishes on this matter? It seems only common courtesy to ask a candidate if they are willing to run the gauntlet not once but twice. I prefer to see the 'crats make a speedy ruling on the Rfa in this "'crat chat" though my hopes for a fast consensus appear to be going down in flames, at the current rate. Only a few have weighed as of this post, which gives the distressing appearance that a large majority of 'crats are either inactive, or just don't care. Jusdafax 02:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer not to go through a second RfA. As SKATER said, going through RfA once is hard enough on its own; going through it twice would just be too difficult on me. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maxim directed a question to Lugia in their proposal. It seems reasonable to assume that Lugia is watching these pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't call it "a bad idea"; it's a good idea with good reasons not to do. I once proffered a similar idea but instead of a complete do-over, I felt it would work better by closing the jury to the users who !voted while the Rfa was open, giving them an extra day or two to reach a consensus; or to ping the neutral !voters asking them to choose either support or oppose, and see if a consensus emerges. Of course there is nothing wrong with a crat making a policy based decision either.—John Cline (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Although I do not think the numbers would dramatically increase in either direction, the voting period could also be extended for a few more days. Otherwise I tend to agree with Andrevan here. Widr (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

More input

• The RfA is still showing up in the list of active RfAs and so I added a !vote just now. This was then reverted on the grounds that the discussion is being discussed here. In a difficult case like this, I fail to see why further evidence should be reverted. The more input you have, the better the chance of reaching consensus. Warden (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  I guess it's because that's the adopted process. It must be more difficult for crats to evalute participants' opinions if they're being augmented by further comments, resulting in a moving target. It sounds as if the RfA is unlikely to be reopened... but if it is, then that's the time to add comments. -- Trevj (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  What I see at AFD is the {{closing}} template which warns people that the discussion is being wound up but doesn't close the door to contributions. Warden (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It does say 'Please do not modify this text' at the top of the coloured page. I suppose they should add 'or add to or subtract from it' to that as 'modify' can be taken to imply change of something existing rather than addition of something new or removal of something. I personally would take it as meaning 'do nothing here' in the way that 'Keep off the grass' doesn't really allow jumping from daisy to dandelion, but there is a certain ambiguity. Peridon (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, {{Closing}} advises As a courtesy, please do not edit this page/section while this message is displayed, so it's best for editors not to add to AfDs either while they're being evaluated. -- Trevj (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion

This might well be the single toughest call in the history of RfA. There really isn't a clear-cut decision to make here. If a bureaucrat were to simply close it as unsuccessful, it would be in spite of the fact that the opposers have failed to substantiate an overall pattern of suboptimal judgment, rather than the occasional mistake here and there; the supporters, on the other hand, do make the case that Lugia can be trusted to use the tools responsibly, and that granting him adminship would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Conversely, if this were to be passed without discussion, it would be at the lowest support ratio in several years at 69% — and as with the aforementioned "no consensus" closure, this would be overlooking a very substantial portion of the community holding the belief that content contributions are important to truly developing an understanding of how Wikipedia works. There were also a couple other minor concerns with his communication skills and overall fluency in deletion policy. Bear in mind that I supported this RfA, so there may be perceived bias in my post here.

That said, I'll have to stand by my original point: there isn't a clear-cut decision here. You have a solid majority in support, and they make a compelling case for Lugia's suitability. And then you have a sizable opposition with a number of legitimate (if minor) concerns pertaining to his overall experience and demonstrated understanding of policy. Starting the RfA fresh would not bring about a different result, as everyone who had initially supported would do so again, and those who opposed would do likewise. The tally as it exists currently is an adequate reflection of the overall mindset of the community as to whether or not the tools should be granted. In other words, the participants are polarized, and starting the discussion from scratch isn't going to change that.

So although I supported Lugia and would like to see him try again at a future date, I'm not confident that the consensus for promotion is sufficient to justify granting him the tools for the moment being. If the bureaucrats ultimately close this as unsuccessful, then my hope is that he continues on as he has been, with this RfA serving as a starting point in preparation for next time around. With a few more months of experience and a greater breadth of activity, I have no doubt he'll pass. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I voted oppose, but I agree with the above. I don't think this should be closed as "failed" (that would ignore then many well-reasoned support votes), but as "no consensus". I also am rather confident that with, say, 6 months of more and broader experience, this candidate would have a very good chance of passing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Irrespective of how I voted, this close call shows the opposition to be fairly unanimous with their reasons. It would not be an outright 'fail' and as none of the opposers brought up any issues that may demonstrate a pattern of behaviour incompatible with adminship, the issues mentioned can be easily addressed in a few months. There would be no shame in a 'no consensus' of this kind and many of our best admins have passed with flying colours a second time round. If the 'crats decide to close as 'no consensus' rather than 'unsuccessful' it could certainly be done with a word of encouragement to try again in the not too distant future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  I think that John Cline's idea of pinging the other neutral !voters wouldn't do any harm. However, they may of course not be able to reply within what could be considered a reasonable timescale for the RfA to be closed. However, if/when it's to be re-run, there's no guarantee that participants would necessarily feel exactly the same about things. Here we have a candidate who seems competent to use the tools, but the opposers (I was one of them) were looking for just a little more. I count a couple of participants who indicated likely support next time. I also think that the discrpency regarding AfD closes in answers to questions #1 and #10 is unfortunate. This issue could be addressed with little difficulty, as is the case for many of the other reasons put forward in opposition. -- Trevj (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lugia2453 deserves to be an admin

I find it very unfair to Lugia2453 that the decision to close this RfA is taking so long. From my understanding of Wikipedia culture, adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL; I also do not recall anything in the Wikipedia policy that requires admin candidates to have X-percentage of certain edits in certain parts of the website before they achieve the admin duties. Unless the closing bureaucrat can find any reason to believe that Lugia2453 will create damage as an admin, I think the only possible closure would be to support the positive consensus from the RfA discussion and to provide this person with the "mop." And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There are absolutely no official requirements whatsoever for adminship apart for being a registered user. (See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process). The 'criteria' are set by individual participants, and the outcome depends therefore very much on who turns out to vote. All known published users' voting criteria are listed at WP:Advice for RfA candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No consensus

It appears to me that this is headed to "no consensus". Here's why I think that would be fine - it is easily curable.

Consider an alternative situation—an editor with substantial content work, with contributions in admin relevant areas such as AfD, but occasional decisions that just don't seem well-founded. Not many, but enough that some are concerned about decision making skills. The challenge is two-fold, one doesn't acquire decision making skills in a short period of time, it literally a lifetime experience. Yes, it is a skill that can be acquired, but can one realistically change materially in a few months? If that were the concern , I would urge the 'crats to decide that the issues are small enough that the user deserved the bits, or serious enough that they do not., but if the decision is no, I anticipate that it would take quite some time for the editor to overcome the initial view, so it might be years rather than months before a subsequent successful submission.

In contrast, an editor without a lot of content work could concentrate on it, and do enough in six months, maybe even three, to demonstrate their ability to create content. Because creating content is so core to the project, it doesn't sound unreasonable that we ought to have enough evidence to view to form a view. I wouldn't literally suggest three months, but I think six month of contribution with some emphasis on content might literally produce an RfA in the 90's. It would send a message that the community believes, content creation is important. That's not a bad message.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For Lugia

Dear Lugia,

I know I was one of those who opposed, and was the second person to do so. There were other editors too who opposed. These are the editors because of whom this RfA might be termed 'no consensus' by the bureaucrats in some time from now. I wanted to leave this note for you to tell you the silver lining in all this. I don't want this to sound sarcastic - it is not meant to be - and neither do I wish to slight you. On the contrary, I have extreme admiration for the effort you have taken to improve our project. 65,000 plus edits, unpaid, voluntary, sincere, diligent. And all of it nothing but pure social work. I don't even know if I would be ever able to contribute as many edits as you've contributed till now. The fact is, none of the opposing editors opposed you, but simply the 'request' for administration. And many of them supported the contention (directly or indirectly) that if you were to expand your scope of work and reapply in a few months (months, not years), they will support you (and a huge 70%~ already do). This is nothing but a commitment of respect from our community for your contributions. The belief is widespread that you are a really productive editor that our project is privileged to have. You've patiently gone through the RfA, answered all the queries, reviewed all the criticism, taken it in your stride - and are continuing to be as dedicated to our project in your contributions. I have nothing but the deepest of respect for that. The way forward from here, as I see it, is quite easy. Summarize the views mentioned by the opposing editors, and prioritize the areas which apparently need your attention. Work out a time schedule of say three to six months where you address these areas. Ask experienced editors whenever you need assistance, or are unsure. You're one editor who, I feel, will receive as much assistance as you might desire. Once you feel you've addressed these specific areas, apply again. I've mentioned this on your talk page, and I'll say it again. It'll be a pleasure to nominate you when you again run for the RfA. Be sure, there will be many others who would do the same. You're not an editor I or anyone else will let the project lose. Don't let this be anything else but a learning blip of your editing tenure. Hope to see you zipping around the project, with as much energy as you always have.

Take care and best,

Wifione ^Message

+1 Andrevan@ 16:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I most emphatically second (or third :-) that! --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

fourth! --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Joining in. Widr (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incredibly well said. –xeno^talk 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So 5 Bureaucrats out of 34 is a "chat" eh?

We are broken from top to bottom, if this miserable percentage of participation is what we get. I don't know which is more remarkable, the Rfa rejection or the process that led to it. Jusdafax 19:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It only takes one bureaucrat to close. The bureacrats were never intended to be a panel. Andrevan@ 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wizardman called a 'crat chat to achieve a broader participation. According to your view, that process can be terminated at any time by one bureaucrat. Quite fascinating. My point stands. Jusdafax 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Only about 8-10 bureaucrats are really active though, so five is as good as we were probably going to get (I consider "active" in this case to have made an edit in November; i checked the crats on this front). Wizardman 20:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's right, individual bureaucrats are granted broad discretion in reading consensus and closing RFA nominations. That's why the promotion threshold has historically been quite high - these users are trusted to have a clue and not screw things up, as individuals. The bureaucrats aren't a body like ArbCom where everyone needs to weigh in on any given decision. If someone unilaterally closed the discussion and promoted, that might be iffy, but if someone is going rogue to find for "no consensus," I think the system is working as intended. So please stop stirring the pot and let this rest. Andrevan@ 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrevanl, you seem on shaky ground on a couple of points in my view. Since you have made it clear further discussion here is unwelcome, where would you suggest that my procedural concerns be addressed, assuming of course that you don't mean to shut down any further discussion whatsoever by invoking "forum shopping" along with "stirring the pot." Personally I feel strongly this matter goes to the heart of a number of concerns widely expressed regarding Rfa and the culture of top-down authority that many Wikipedians are increasingly finding difficult to accept unquestioningly. Just as Wizardman felt it was wise to seek a broader spectrum of opinion, I feel that this Rfa brings to a head issues that deserve further airing by the community. Jusdafax 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is shutting down discussion, I'm politely asking you. If you want to interpret this RFA as "top-down authority," well, I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. It seems to me that RFA is one of the few areas where there is very little top-down decision-making ever - the community consensus rules as far as who becomes an admin. 52/23/4 isn't what a consensus to promote looks like, generally, and there's no special issue about the oppose votes that mitigates them. Andrevan@ 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

By today's standards, 79 votes is a very low turnout. We can only speculate why this happened here. If I remember rightly, some Wikipedias require a minimum number of total votes for an RfA to be valid. That said, perhaps we do need more bureaucrats, but I would hesitate to suggest that there should be an official quorum for a 'crat chat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Low turnout isn't a mitigating factor for oppose votes. If anything, the low turnout suggests poor name recognition for the candidate with people reviewing RFAs, which probably worked against him and plays into the interpretation of no consensus, if indirectly. Those unfamiliar but unwilling to support might not oppose because they do not want to pile-on. By the way, a "crat chat" doesn't appear in the adminship promotion policy (unless someone wrote it in, but it was certainly ex post facto if so), it's an ad hoc consensus mechanism as a fallback for when consensus is unclear. Andrevan@ 05:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about 'crat chats. In fact I have always thought it an excellent idea, especially where 'crats are perfectly within their rights to close any RfA unilaterally. The only mention I can see is "the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion)" at WP:RfA, but this does not specifically refer to 'crat chats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrevan's right - you get a low turnout when the candidate is weak but there's isn't a "smoking gun" reason to oppose. Lots of editors will abstain in this situation. We should not interpret silence as consent. Warden (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'll pass over further comment then on a number of points regarding this Rfa since I have been asked to do so, though I see no one else has been. In any case it's moot now. I will merely second Kudpung's comment regarding something I was unaware of... a surprisingly low number of active 'crats, and a possible, even probable, need to encourage further Rfb's. We have a process of desysopping admins who stop editing, and perhaps a similar process should be created for the bureaucrat flag. I see no need for couple dozen "ghost" bureaucrats. Jusdafax 09:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  Bureaucrats are subject to the same inactivity guidelines as administrators. –xeno^talk 15:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware of that fact. Thanks Xeno. So it appears we have a couple dozen very "low-activity" bureaucrats then. Jusdafax 20:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Final comment?

I just wanted to say that I am pleased to see this whole conversation done on-wiki, for everyone to read through the discussion among bureaucrats. A lot with ARBCOM decision-making involves email communication so even though only just a few bureaucrats participated, I'm very grateful that this "chat" was a public one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is essential that this sort of discussion remain in the public sphere. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, these discussions will only move off-wiki over my dead body (& I exaggerate only slighly). For those interested, links to all previous discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion#Previous bureaucrat discussions. There are only about a dozen. WJBscribe (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"[And] I exaggerate only slighly" — He speaks the truth, everyone. Bureaucrat discussions will only move off-wiki over WJBscribe's severely contused but nevertheless extant body. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)