Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

Extend discussion

The RfA instructions say "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer". Having watched the RfA, I have seen votes switch, from support to oppose, from oppose to neutral, from neutral to support .... every which way really. I wonder if just leaving things open for another day or two would allow a consensus to settle one way or the other and ensure people have cemented their decision? I can't recall any recent case where this was done, but it might be worthwhile doing here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lear's Fool's RfA in 2011 is the last time I remember that, so it has been done. Obviously I'm not disinterested here, so I won't comment on the merits of doing so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As WJBScribe mentions in the 'crat chat, there's off-wiki forces at work, especially towards the end of the RfA. I think that those forces would have more of an effect if this were re-opened, and personally agree with the decision to close. I'm sure the 'crats can make a decision, that's what they're (we're) there for. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Extensions can work where canvassing has occured early in the RfA, as extending serves to dilute the effect. The reason I ruled it out in this case is that apparently this RfA was flagged on a non neutral off-wiki site within the last 24 hrs of the RfA, so extending the RfA would presumably give greater opportunity for the result to be distorted by the canvassing. I also made some comments about the dangers of extensions just to see if the result gets clearer in the last cratchat. WJBscribe (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note in the interest of transparency: The Wikipediocracy thread mentioned by User:Sitush in this edit was started on August 1 at 5:03PM (roughly half way through the RfA). Disclaimer: The thread is now hidden and I am not a WO member so I can't verify this personally. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am, and I do, allowing for timezone confusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I totally agree with Worm and WJB. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller I'm perplexed by comments about lack of content contribution, given she has 12,389 edits to mainspace. I'm also bothered by people opposing because she has a high level of activity outside of mainspace. I'm mulling this, but minded to seriously downgrade opposes on these bases. I would like to say that downgrading any opposes because users are concerned about mainspace contributions and article writing competency is wholly inappropriate. The community is empowered to have whoever it wants as an administrator, if they don't want Liz because they don't like their contributions, that's their inalienable right. I would suggest you're getting to the stage of downgrading the validity of comments because there's no consensus, you can't really make consensus appear by telling people their comments are less worthy or downright wrong. Nick (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And admins wonder why normal editors don't trust them. Dweller, discounting opposes because you don't agree with the rationale of the editor is BS. My opposition was not based on the number of mainspace edits, for me that is a "who cares" statistic. What I care about is the fact that she has not demonstrated that she knows how to create quality content, and that she spends too much time on the drama boards. Ritchie333 has it right, below. GregJackP Boomer! 15:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, I'll also note that coming to my talk page to tell me not to call BS when I think something is BS is not conducive for open discussion. But if you want to chill conversation, that's the way to do it (or to try to do it). I don't think it is appropriate for you to substitute your judgment for that of the community, I believe that an admin that does so is not fit to hold the bit. Is that clear enough? GregJackP Boomer! 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz's volume of mainspace contributions is actually quite impressive (she outstrips mine by quite some margin; I guess that means I'm not fit to be an administrator either). Granted, many of these are categorisation edits (and who needs those, right?) rather than content, but still, oppose votes based on "doesn't edit mainspace enough" are therefore pretty wide of the mark. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the same thing [as Nick]. There are some opposes that seem to be telling untruths (e.g. 54), but mainspace edit ≠ content contribution. The vast majority of Liz's mainspace edits are just reverts of unconstructive edits or large scale categorization changes – I'm not saying that it's not helpful, but it doesn't involve creating anything new of substance. People are perfectly justified in opposing because they dislike Liz's lack of content creation. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I see opposes from well respected admins, including Philg88, Drmies, Dennis Brown, Bishonen and Kudpung. I don't think sweeping them under the carpet with "well we don't agree with your view" is going to work - there is a serious risk that if the RfA passes by downplaying oppose votes, there will be a handful of people watching Liz and booting her off to ANI the minute she makes even the slightest of mistakes (this happens to admins generally, but in this instance I feel it'll be more pronounced). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And at least it is a meaningful rationale. There are support votes with none at all. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a valid objection; if they're supporting her candidacy, it must be that they're not especially concerned. The real question here is, have all of the supporters taken into consideration the arguments in opposition? There's simply no way to know that. Alakzi (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Or it might mean that they haven't been paying attention. There is no "must" about it. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You first sentence is a rephrasing of my second sentence and your second sentence simply does not follow. Alakzi (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Ritchie here and I was quite disturbed by the Crat chat, as I have been following Liz closely and consider myself very informed as to her suitability, yet their comments seem to say they will completely discount my vote because they don't consider it valid. This is insulting and has not gone unnoticed. Noting that an editor has spent too much time in politics relative to content is as valid a vote as any other. Crats are obviously here to weigh the validity and applicability of any vote, but there is NO policy that says content contributions can not be used as a valid reason to oppose, so throwing out well expressed votes that use this rationale is not within policy and would constitute a supervote, ie: substituting your own opinion above that of the community. That is political and the antithesis of what Crats were selected for. I'm trying to remain open minded, but I am disturbed by the tone and ease of which some are willing to cast out votes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto to Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown; I presume Dweller's comment was just a posting-when-tired blip which he'll retract. If a 'crat seriously believes that they have the supervoting right to disregard any comment with which they don't personally agree, then to be blunt they shouldn't be a 'crat. – iridescent 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never had anything but high regard for Dweller, so I hope you are correct. The very idea that one can't consider content experience for adminship is absurd to the point of bizarre, as we are an encyclopedia. Not saying it's the only criteria, but obviously it is a valid one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it so absurd, actually? Writing is a key aspect to an encyclopedia but adminship is more concerned with maintaining the content as well as policing behaviours rather than outright writing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absurd. I never had a GA or FA until after I got the bit. I'm not a wiz at prose, but I had deep experience with sourcing and writing small stuff, gnoming, and could demonstrate the ability to settle editing disputes I was involved in. This takes experience, and the lack of quality experience doing this is as valid a reason to oppose as there is. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't change the validity of my vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Crat chats: when it rains, it pours. Is this three in the last couple of weeks? Anyway, to echo some of the others above, I disagree with at least part Dweller's comment – it is possible to rack up that number of mainspace edits without contributing any significant content, and I think it has been shown at previous RfAs and crat chats that lack of content contributions is a valid oppose rationale. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The validity of the "lack of content contributions" rationale has been under dispute in the past, c.f Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion. And of course, the fair amount of "Not an issue for me" posts in a number of RfAs. That would need a community discussion to settle at some point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

...and despite having some experience with it, I still don't think it is necessary to be an admin. I believe that each user has their own way of contributing, and I very much disagreed when I read a comment stating that gnomes/vandal fighters/etc. were not valuable compared to the content creators. It is true, of course, that without content creators there would be no Wikipedia, so perhaps there is a bit of truth to that statement, but as Wikipedia grows the importance of dedicated maintenance users also grows. Suppose the content creators had their way and all these users left, and only content creators remained. They would have one of two choices: (1) Continue to be a dedicated writer and simply monitor articles in which they have a personal interest, while the more neglected sides of WP rot; (2) Revert vandalism throughout Wikipedia, while simultaneously attempting to write content; considering the undeniably small number of dedicated content creators in proportion to all users, a flood of vandals could simply overwhelm them and not leave any time for writing anyway, unless they give up on maintaining the other articles and fall back on option (1). I'll let readers draw their own conclusions as to what they would prefer. ;) --Biblioworm 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that opposition based on one's lack of content contributions is fundamentally a solid foundation to ground one's opposition upon. Suggesting what a candidate might do with the tools based on his or her "political conviction", on the other hand, is categorically baseless and a quite blatant assumption of bad faith. I think !votes casting that aspersion rightfully should be reduced in weight, and there are several of them in the mix. Good luck discharging your duties as a crat; I am confident that a proper close of this RFA is at hand.--John Cline (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Our bureaucrats are held to a very high standard and are assumed to be, and believe themselves to be impartial and dispassionate when assessing a debate. They are going to have to be very wise in what they do here to avoid marring that image. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Like Nick, I too am dismayed to read Dweller's comment. Firstly, the number of mainspace edits alone is not an indication of content creation. Secondly, some editors have decided that content creation indicates a greater appreciation for content and the creative process, which may help admins to undertake administrative actions with more care and respect for editors. The fact that you (Dweller) have decided that this factor is unimportant is justification for you to support the candidate. However it is not justification for you to "downgrade opposes" just because you disagree with those opinions. If I had known that you would take this approach, I would have opposed your RfB. (Ironically, at that time I wrote "Dweller clearly knows how to interpret "Consensus".") [Disclosure: I support Liz's application.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are also a number of editors that don't agree with content creation being necessary for adminship, though. And neither policy nor the nature of the administrator tools imply a need for such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Those editors should !vote in support of candidates who have the other skills required while lacking content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would be very disappointed if "not enough content editing and creating" were simply discredited. By the same token, I think "too many edits on the dramaboards" probably means, for many of those who made comments of the sort, "too many edits without contributing positively" or something like that; that is certainly my position. I've been looking at AfDs (after looking at dozens, if not hundreds, of discussions the candidate was involved in one way or another), an important area and one where the candidate has done little work, and I keep asking myself how she would act, and whether she would decide on any of them at all, since decisiveness was one of the qualities I found lacking, on ANI and elsewhere.

  Anyway, we should (no, you all should) be very careful in discarding some votes--after all, one may well wonder what kind of support "This easily could have happened a while ago" is. (Yes, it could have, but it didn't, and if it had, would that have been a good thing? and if so, why? etc.) Typically, "support per nom" is good enough, and I don't have much of a problem with that attitude, but criticizing the opposes smacks of bias. In fact, I think overall this RfA has been hotly contested, but the tone was generally collegial; let's not sour it afterwards by placing conditions on what a decent "oppose" vote is and what isn't. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)I don't think anyone is "discarding" votes. When a debate is close to this one must look at the quality of the claims being made. I think it is more a matter of opinions failing to sway others than it is dismissing anyone's opinion. An argument that drew challenge and failed to sway someone should be given less weight than an argument that went unchallenged or succeeded in swaying people. The fact is that the opinion that content creation is a requirement met with significant challenge and not only did not not sway people several people doubled down on their support position. It is not bias against the idea, it is recognition that the idea was not compelling to many of those involved. Chillum 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Chillum, in all fairness, but that reasoning goes for each and every argument pro or con that was advanced during this RfA... --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Every argument that was challenged, and particularly arguments where people doubled down on their original position. Chillum 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• "This easily could have happened a while ago" went unchallenged. Are you willing to argue that therefore it was a strong argument or swayed people? This is not a path we wish to go down. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• My suggestion the level of challenge that an opinion receives should be taken into account when deciding its weight does not imply that I think a lack of challenge means that it swayed people. No I am not willing to argue that, nor do I think that my position is anywhere near the same path. Chillum 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) Chillum, this approach might become the thin end of a nasty wedge. Currently, I avoid replying to almost all RfA comments that I disagree with, because even though I do disagree with them, I respect the other person's right to hold them. What you've just said ups the value of challenging comments we don't agree with. Such challenges are often the cause of considerable heat in RfAs. To avoid that, I think each comment needs to be taken on its own merit, regardless of who did or didn't challenge it. --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is a reason we call it a !vote instead of a vote. RfA is supposed to be a discussion, you are supposed to engage with people you disagree with. Remain silent if you wish, but you will not be heard. Chillum 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bullshit. This is what happened last time I was held in a "discussion". Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I second Drmies' last remark. Despite being hotly contested, this RfA shows that those who claim that it's a snakepit are wrong. This was a civil debate, not marred by personal attacks on anybody, including the candidate and with many opposers expressing appreciation of the candidate, even though they don't think she's admin material. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh no – I fully find it to be a "snakepit". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• "[no] personal attacks on anybody". Bullshit. (Drmies's smearing comment I have "well-known dislike of almost all admins", and Blade's characterization of my Oppose !vote as "petulant rant".) IHTS (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think that's what it means – I've gotten from this the strong impression that there is a subset of RfA voters who will view any participation at something like WP:ANI as a "black mark" against the candidate. (I bet poor User:Erpert, et al. wish they knew about this viewpoint earlier in their Wiki participation!) Apparently, "pre-training" for any aspect of Adminship means you're a "careerist" with suspect motives... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• WJBscribe the wide support shown in this RfA While I agree that there is wide support and a highly unusual number of support !votes (at least in recent RfA history), the same goes for the highly unusual number of oppose !votes. And as you note, many people apparently wrestled with this, which in my view makes the opposes !votes more significant, not a kind of doubtful supports as you seem to imply. --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Randykitty. Plus, there were editors who changed from support to oppose or decided on oppose after waiting on the sidelines and seeing what others had to state. And a number of the oppose votes did not use a "You need to create article content" rationale. In fact, some of them stated that they did not care much about that or the WP:GA and WP:FA arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm farly convinced that this high turnout is the result of the candidate's own subliminal canvassing by constantly being in those places, and often enough, where one gets noticed. Halve the number of votes in all columns and the percentage still stays the same. It's only the high rate of participation that could lead one to perceive this RfA as having been an ordeal for the candidate. As Drmies states, ...overall this RfA has been hotly contested, but the tone was generally collegial; let's not sour it afterwards by placing conditions on what a decent "oppose" vote is and what isn't. As I said above, the 'crats are going to have to tread very carefully on this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The tone at the RFA was not particularly heated compared to RFAs of the past, but the tone of the Crat chat...I find disturbing. I wan't to assume good faith, it almost feels like some are invested in promoting and simply searching for a rationale to do so. I'm not saying that is absolutely the case, but the choice of language has been poor at best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have cared for some of the comments in both directions, it wasn't the most heated discussion ever but it was far from ideal. A lot of the points (and I include myself, I think it's fairly obvious which comment of mine I refer to) could have been made a lot better, and as much as people below are discounting the canvassing the accounts that were obviously only there because of it left some of the more toxic comments. I don't need to be a mind-reader to say this was an obviously harrowing experience, whether you care for Liz's editing or not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I like Liz and was looking to her eventual RFA down the road some time, even though I had no choice but to oppose her now. The point, to which you seem to agree, is that the RFA was rather typical in my respects in that there was some heat. What made it seem worse was that the participation was quite high, so even with a typical signal to noise ration, it was a fair amount of noise. From my own RFA, I understand that, but it comes with the territory when you live a high profile existence here, it can't be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's only the high rate of participation that could lead one to perceive this RfA as having been an ordeal for the candidate." Seriously? [dumbfounded...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Subliminal canvassing by...get[ting] noticed"? Shirley you jest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus should be determined by quality of arguments through the lens of policy, so I think some !votes should be discounted at the very least. If some consider there should be a privileged class of "content creators" who can take ownership of any article they choose, without threat of policy enforcement, they should obtain WP:CONSENSUS for removal of WP:PILLARS 3 and 4, rather than bullying a candidate they fear may not treat them unduly favourably. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, those who consider there should be a privileged class of "administrators" can seek consensus to abolish pillar 1. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

only the high rate of participation that could lead one to perceive this RfA as having been an ordeal for the candidate - only? Well, there's an actual human being who is the subject of all of this discussion and who might have some insight into what aspects of this process made it feel like an ordeal. Maybe descriptions like the candidate's own subliminal canvassing might come up. Kudpung, I hope you posted this before having enough coffee or something, because that's a remarkably insensitive, callous, dismissive comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

Just out of curiosity, where was the off-site canvassing taking place and was it support or oppose? --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on Reddit, although it is disputed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That canvassing doesn't seem to have added much to the oppose camp. The aforementioned discussion on Wikipediocracy likely contributed more so to the influx of editors...on both sides. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that explains at least in part the unusually high number of participants here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty, see my comment in the section above.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would assume Liz's high visibility is what led to the high turnout. She does clerk at Arb and is a regular fixture at ANI. I would have been shocked if the turn out was low. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The effect of canvassing is very difficult to assess. Were I assessing the consensus, I'd be focussing more on strength of arguments and less on numbers. I'd also take note of the change in voting type after the canvassing took place, and would take it into account that way in a final decision. It's certainly not easy. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It swung both ways in the hours around that Reddit post. There was a large influx of supports, followed by more opposes. I doubt very much that the post made any difference at all. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the impression that canvassing had a large impact. As has been noted, there are very few new accounts participating and not in numbers that distort the percentage support/oppose. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Concurring with this. One or two now struck votes may have been canvassed but from an analysis of the edits of some late opposes/supports I do not get the impression they arrived here through canvassing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the things to note about off-wiki canvassing, at least on RFA's, is that it generally tends to attract people who are already Wikipedia regulars but wouldn't have otherwise voted. You dont need to see some guy with a redlinked talkpage and an edit count of 2 to say "canvassing"! And they need not have even posted in the reddit thread. Thus there's really no smoking gun that leads us to say a vote should be scrubbed. But we can see trends like a sudden surge of votes by people who havent voted or even edited recently, but are comfortable with Wikipedia and RFA's in general as evidenced by sizable long-term edit counts.

Eleventh-hour oppose votes by UnbelievableError and Auerbachkeller stand out to me as people who likely wouldnt have even logged in to Wikipedia that day had they not been alerted of the RFA from elsewhere. One of those had not edited anything since April and the other had only made a few Gamergate-related edits since late May. I would say those votes are at least the very least suspicious. Also we could consider the possibility that some people were brought in by a site completetly different from Reddit, or through email. —Soap— 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I somehow didnt notice that Auerbach's vote was removed. I apologize. However, the other wasnt, and that account had had even more of a gap between the oppose and its next most recent edit. —Soap— 16:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How can Mkdw-an administrator create such a misguided heading about a discussion concerning himself ? Move to talk page justified. Could have selected some other heading. With that controversial heading, there was a negative vote swing yesterday. However, such speculation was not fair, as he is an administrator.Aero Slicer 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a very poor choice of heading, it is hard to say how much effect it had. Any careful examination would show that there were no canvassing concerns, however that does not change the fact that "Liz" and "canvassing concerns" kept showing up on the watchlist of all the participants here. Chillum 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There was almost 5 to 4% negative swing after that heading was given by Mkdw. It didn't harm him but harmed someone else. Previously it was coming down slowly. I never wanted to vote here as at first there was 95% support but when it went below 80% I had to enter the scene. Aero Slicer 16:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

26,500 HotCat edits

To verify, go here and click "Next 500 results" 53 times. A bureaucrat mentioning the "12,389 edits to mainspace" roused my curiosity. I didn't find a way to search by namespace, but glancing through the results shows a substantial portion are to mainspace. Manul ~ talk 16:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One can filter for someone's (Liz's) mainspace contributions here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but the point was tallying the HotCat edits, which you can't do from Special:Contributions (setting aside the impractical solution of counting them manually). Manul ~ talk 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a namespace filter under advanced options; unintuitively, you have to put a comma in it to search the main namespace. 9501 of her mainspace edits have the word "HotCat" in the edit summary. —Cryptic 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this is, other than to highlight a possible error re: numbers. HotCat stuff isn't content work in the sense that most people would use the term; it is more akin to semi-automated filing. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A bureaucrat said, "I'm perplexed by comments about lack of content contribution, given she has 12,389 edits to mainspace." That 9501 of those are HotCat edits would seem important to know. Manul ~ talk 16:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) And this shows another 1500 or so Twinkle/STiki edits. Not all of the latter will be to mainspace, of course, but it looks like about 10,000 of the "12,389 edits to mainspace" are automated edits. To put this in perspective, I consider myself a rather heavy user of aut0mated edits and have about 21,000 of them, but on a total of 57,000 edits. Sitush, I think the point of this exercise is to argue that the "content creation argument" is stronger than the "12,389 edits to mainspace" suggests. --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-automatic tool, actually. One has to still assess every edit manually, not like a fully automated bot which operates without input. Not that it affects the argument in either direction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In which case, the answer is that it is not. Content creation involves writing, research, weighing up neutrality/reliability etc, discussion of issues. Categorisation in articles, in particular, might be useful but it is robotic and routine by comparison; often extremely so, as I find out periodically myself. Click on one, modify/add/delete, repeat. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't admins routinely use semi-automated tools? It seems like Liz has had some good preparation for the roll. On the otherhand, I haven't seen much evidence that supports that an admin has to be a significant content creator to be able to be trusted with the tools. INeverCry made an excellent point in that regard. However, I do concede that significant content creation would be an asset for an admin who wanted to work in certain areas, such as closing RfCs.- MrX 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea what admins use but you are missing my point: what she has been doing with HotCat is not "content work" in the sense that most people would consider it. That content work is considered to be important has already been stated by numerous people although, fwiw, I would not be one of those requiring a FA. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think it would be useful to know what admins do, broadly speaking, rather than (apparently) assume that they primarily adjudicate content disputes. I'm aware that there are a numerous people that believe that content creation is an important prerequisite for adminship, but the are a seemingly larger number that believe otherwise. If our goal is to build an entire online encyclopedia, then I think categorization is an important part of that. It's easier than researching sources and writing prose, but it pretty closely aligned with what a lot of admins do on a daily basis.- MrX 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Many admins are dealing with behavioural issues when wearing their admin hat. The best way to understand behaviour is to have experienced the other side. The example I gave that related to me was very well analysed by Abecedare, and unfortunately showed a lack of understanding by Liz in multiple aspects relating to content. Don't forget that the mop comes as a full toolset. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and partly agree. I would hope that any admin who lacks such experience would venture cautiously into areas requiring it. A lot can be learned about (Wikipedia) behavior though quiet observation.- MrX 17:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Trust of the community

For those who are claiming that content creation is not a "valid" oppose, I'll point out that WP:ADMIN states: Any editor can comment on a request, and each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way.

In other words, if an editor does not believe that the candidate is ready due to lack of content creation, that goes to their confidence in the candidate's readiness to get the bit. It is just as valid and should be given just as much weight as those who !voted "support" with no policy comments. Either is equally valid. GregJackP Boomer! 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If that were actually the case, then all votes would be counted equally and a supermajority would win the day. I think the reality is a little more nuanced. Bureaucrats are trusted to assess consensus. If they assign lower weight to some votes, for example, because the reasoning is tangential to the duties of adminship, then that is their prerogative. - MrX 17:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an over-simplification. What makes their view that content creation is "tangential" the correct view? Grix outlined any number of valid reasons that content creation is a valid argument. Why shouldn't they assign a lower weight to those who just said "support" without much further explanation? GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN doesn't say anything about content creation being a prerequisite for or a duty of adminship. In fact, it says it's a "technical ability" and "Anyone can request adminship ("RFA") from the community, regardless of their Wikipedia experience." To answer your last question, "support" without additional explanation is traditionally construed to mean "I agree with the nominating statement(s)".- MrX 18:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Which means an awful lot of people agreed with a error made by one of the noms. (A minor thing, acknowledged and explained earlier today - got to dash but a diff shouldn't be hard to find). Opposers have to "work" much harder to get their voice heard. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The only prerequisite is the trust of the community. It is reasonable for individuals to have their own criteria in order to trust the candidate. Any criteria that is "reasonable" (ie: many would agree that the criteria is reasonable, even if a minority of editors) then that is reason enough for the vote to count fully. Many people consider moderate experience that doesn't use HotCat or automated tools a criteria, thus it is de facto reasonable, as it is a widely accepted criteria. Requiring many FAs to get the bit? Not reasonable (per the fractional minority that hold that view), but that isn't at stake here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I don't think that's an oversimplification at all. You said "Either is equally valid". No, it's not. You're actually being too generous. Giving a rationale of "little content creation" is better.

I think the most flawed !votes in this RfA came from supporters: e.g. "Support I thought Liz was already a sysop" (179). That's not a good reason. If someone says something along the lines of "In my experience, Liz has shown good judgement and strong knowledge of Wikipedia, always managing to keep a level head (etc.); the fact is, I thought they were already a sysop based on their excellent conduct", that's a valid reason to support. Saying "I thought Liz was already a sysop" is not a reason at all; it's a statement which has many different potential connotations, depending on what the reader of the comment chooses to infer. I can cite many more examples of rationales which are essentially just votes with no reasoning in disguise: "sounds good to me", "wait, she isn't one already? Weird.", "I think is an excellent move", "absolutely" etc. These really shouldn't be given as much weight as any !vote which came with a genuine argument.

As for content creation (or lack of it): yes, it's a valid reason to oppose. It does not have as much weight as (e.g.) "candidate has been topic banned for inflammatory behaviour and had rollback permissions removed", because it is not as big an issue (and I don't think anybody would say it is). I think that could possibly be what Dweller and some other people seem to be trying to say (although – as always – there's a large chance I'm just completely wrong); lack of content creation is an inherently weaker issue than some reasons for opposition. It is not, however, something that should be ignored. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This has to be the most laughable and invalid justification for an oppose during the entire RfA! Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And what about the substance of this one?: "Support No brainer. Bazj (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bilorv is spot on. Content creation is and always has been an obviously-valid reason to oppose. I supported but I think the opposers have a valid point in objecting to the candidate's disproportionate focus on drama boards as opposed to content involvement and I would similarly oppose most candidates with that focus without hesitation. However just like any other position at RfA, editors are expected to give due diligence and actually assess each individual candidate's content contributions, rather than set an arbitrary statistical benchmark and automatically oppose if it's not meant. The OP's obvious tendency to do the latter rather than the former discredits his attempt at lecturing the community. RfA is generally a productive discussion on both sides, but the editors who decide to start trolling RfA, automatically opposing everyone who doesn't meet whatever unreasonable criterion they've set, are hands down the biggest contributors to RfA's toxic atmosphere. Since GregJackP decided to start participating in RfAs this June and has participated in 10 so far. He has done nothing but oppose every candidate, with the exception of one. The candidate he supported, citing GAs and FAs as his reasoning, was soundly rejected by the community. So, while Greg's general point here isn't wrong, that's not all there is to an RfA. His behavior certainly isn't right and not only do I think him to be a poor judge of administrative candidates but a denigrator of the RfA environment. Swarm ♠ 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank god I don't care what you think. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Exhibit A. But as long as you continue to behave unreasonably without regard for the community's opinions, myself and others will continue to point out why you're utterly in the wrong. Swarm ♠ 20:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

So I should just become part of the hive mentality? No thanks. I do respect the community's opinions and consensus should be honored. But I'm not going to stop pointing out where I think the community should be going, or where it is wrong. Not paying attention to content is one of those areas. That's why the lifetime appointment of admins is wrong and why the whole admin system needs to be rebuilt. However, this is what we have and I'm allowed to contribute. I get that you don't like someone who thinks differently. Too bad, get used to it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think replying "lol, really?" to someone acting in good faith is anything other than rude, disrespectful and intentionally provocative? I don't want you to stop having opinions. But I would really appreciate it if you could keep the snark and inflammatory thoughts to yourself because it just encourages hostility. You don't have to listen to anybody. However, "Thank god I don't care what you think" is just a classic troll line. It doesn't say anything of substance; it only implies that you have no respect or sense of maturity. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. GregJackP, WP:CIVIL is one of our policies, and you have to follow it. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The above comments were removed by Opabinia regalis in this edit; I assume this was a mistake, so I'm restoring them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks, it was indeed. Though for some reason your ping didn't ping. Are small pings not a thing? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Your ping seemed to work. How odd. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Presenting an argument about adminship standards is part of how the community's preferences get defined, so complaining that someone's arguments don't follow the current community preferences is talking in circles. It's not clear why a single, entirely predictable oppose !vote is somehow unusually toxic in any case. And since the only person Greg has supported this year was not in fact "soundly rejected", it's hard to follow your point, Swarm. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Opabinia regalis. Swarm, I understand that you do not like that I don't follow the hive. I haven't done that in my life and I'm not going to start now. The problem in Wikipedia is, for the most part, administrative. We allow children to be admins. We appoint them for life. Try reading what my admin criteria are, and the reasons for that. If you don't agree fine, but I really don't care if you (or anyone else) agrees or not, because it is my opinion, not yours, not the hive's, not the community's. So long as I respect the decision of the community, the consensus that is developed, there is nothing to be said but that you don't like my position. That doesn't mean I don't get to try and shape the consensus in a later discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on on every point, Opabina, but thanks for your input anyway. And yeah, the Rich RfA is what I would consider "soundly rejected" particularly for an editor of that magnitude. My point is incredibly straightforward though. This is not a matter of merely "not following the hivemind" because one is an individual, the idea here is that holding to and advancing opinions and positions that are unreasonably detached from those of the larger community, in effect showing a striking disregard for general community standards as well as other editors, on a consensus-based project, is literally not helpful to anyone, not given much weight, and only affects the project negatively. RfA is enough of a hellhole as it is without editors making it that much more difficult by opposing for ridiculous reasons. This is in no way a sign of evolving consensus, on the contrary it's been happening longer than I've even been here. Not saying you're not entitled to your own opinion Greg. I'm just saying that your way of operating is in my opinion inappropriate and despite your disregard for mine and others opinion, you're going to continue to be called out on points of serious contention. As to how any of this relates to your original post, the point is that you're not incorrect but coming from you that doesn't mean much because it ignores the actual reasons your argument stands out from other ones and should actually be given less weight. Swarm ♠ 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, I will let this go for now as I've made my point and I'm sure this discussion will be reignited by someone sooner rather than later anyways. Swarm ♠ 22:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

without editors making it that much more difficult by opposing for ridiculous reasons - yeah, that's so much better than my comments. It makes me want to reconsider all of my actions in my entire life, strike all opposition to the hive-mind, embrace groupthink, and no longer be unreasonably detached from the larger community. OMG, what was I thinking?

Oh yeah, I actually was thinking. For myself. Without help from the hive. You really ought to try it. GregJackP Boomer! 22:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Content

In this and other RfAs, there has often been an issue with content contributions. It can mean many different things, and it may not be articulated well by those raising it. It is an important issue, and two of the three nomination statements acknowledged that: Worm, "I do always have a concern when a candidate does not have significant content work - it makes it harder for them to empathise with those editors who do and lack of empathy leads to a significant portion of admin problems"; Yunshui, "The spectre of content creation (or lack thereof) will undoubtedly raise it's head during this discussion; my position is that content creators are at the heart of Wikipedia, and that those who don't deal in content have the primary duty of supporting those who do."

There are several ideas that may be behind an editor's requirement for content. Those ideas may not be express, but here are some that I see:

• Membership. The encyclopedia is about developing content, so candidates should have developed content. A simple analogy is a birdwatching club will only promote members who actually do a significant amount of birdwatching.
• Experience. Candidates will interact with editors in content disputes, so candidates should have some experience with their own content disputes. It's not enough to read about such disputes, but it is necessary to experience them. There's a gamut here. After a few thousand content edits, one will be subject to some heated content disputes, edit wars, crazy editors, and even some POV pushers who know how to act nice. For new content, there's the frustration of having the work CSD tagged within a few minutes (and while still editing it). Such experience will temper an admin's actions.
• Conflict. Another result of content work is getting to see how one responds in stressful situations. The crux of Q3. Reverting obvious vandalism is a safe edit; it helps the encyclopedia, but the one doing the revert does not have the same stake in the article. If a candidate has not been in any conflicts, then it is difficult to judge how they will react when they are.
• Skill. An important part of providing content on WP is doing research, understanding the research, summarizing the research, and providing references. Providing content shows that one can do that. If one does not provide content, then it is not clear that they have those skills. Someone who provides good content will probably take the time to research, understand, and apply the appropriate policies. Someone who has not provided content may not be able to adequately interpret and apply policy.
• Attitude. A low percentage (not just count) of mainspace edits is often a concern that the candidate may be more interested in policing the community rather than contributing to it. The concern is a Catch-22; an admin candidate is often volunteering to do some policing, but a !voter may not want a gung-ho policeman. A milder form of this is hat collecting.

There may be other viewpoints.

Disclosure: In this RfA, I am a reluctant oppose. I do not envy the 'crats in this evaluation, but that is why we pay them so much.

Glrx (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well stated. GregJackP Boomer! 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This may be already covered there, but also "Policy understanding: Without article editing experience, one cannot easily assume that the candidate understands the core content policies and practices that underpin this project and that administrators are frequently called to assess (e.g when closing an AfD). GA, DYK or FA work can also train policy and practice understanding." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would counter that as a severely flawed analogy by pointing you to the one I drew up in the RfA, namely that we don't require federal judges first commit a crime and go through the justice system before permitting them to sit on criminal cases. It's their legal knowledge which counts, not whether they've had direct experience being prosecuted themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, but we do require that they be lawyers and have training in the law. You don't take a baby lawyer, straight out of law school, and make them a judge. Even where judges are elected there are limits, like in Texas, where a trial court judge must have been a lawyer for 4 years to run, an appellate court judge for 10 years. That's the experience, not whether they have been a criminal or not. GregJackP Boomer! 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait—baby lawyers can't become admins? Won't someone please think of the children!- MrX 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GregJackP; it is good to have some admins who have experience in writing content, and who have at least one GA or more. Although I supported Liz because my concerns about content were made up for by her diligent work on ANI, fighting vandalism, etc., I would have liked it better if she did have some more content work. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And your support for her should be completely weighted, not discounted or downgraded. GregJackP Boomer! 18:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaghetti07205, I'd say that until you've come forward and told everyone who you're a sock of, your support isn't worth the paper it's written on! Cassianto^Talk 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If a sock, his comments should be struck, and not considered at all. GregJackP Boomer! 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. How many of the other votes were made up of socks I wonder? Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, none of the opposes, obviously... GregJackP Boomer! 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is long-standing that we do not routinely checkuser participants at RfXs; the chilling effect and harm would far outweigh the gains. If you have strong reason to believe that multiple accounts were used by the same person to manipulate the vote, please open a request at WP:SPI. I will say that if we are talking a handful of accounts, I do not think that removing a few accounts from either side would materially affect whether or not consensus was demonstrated. This was a very well populated request (about 280 respondents in total) where 3 or 4 on either side aren't going to tip the scale that dramatically. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing chilling about it. I predict the identity of the puppeteers would come as no surprise to most. Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be chilling if everyone who responded at an RfX knows that they would be checked. That's what I meant by "routinely"; that part of the routine of opining at an RfX is that your account is CUd. Of course, if you have evidence that there has been abuse of the multiple account policy, a check can be run, just like for any other part of the project. -- Avi (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How is it chilling? If you are not a sock, a CU won't matter. If you are a sock, we don't want you affecting an RfA anyway, and socks should be blocked. But it is not chilling for those who are not socking. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)]

Historically, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia as a whole, have been against the checking of accounts without a good reason, even if the information is not disclosed outside those who are allowed to see it (Staff, stewards, checkusers, Jimbo). The global checkuser policy states that "…must be a valid reason to check a user." I do not believe that participating in an RfX is ipso facto a valid reason to check, nor do I think that the Foundation or any of the other checkusers or stewards would agree. If Wikimedia ever moves to a paradigm where anonymous/pseudonymous editing is no longer supported, then all bets are off. For now, though, Big Brother is not watching, nor should he. -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm aware of that as to CU, and I don't disagree that CU should only be used when necessary. I probably wasn't clear. I do not see a "chilling" effect by the use of CU at RfAs, but I am not proposing that we start using it at RfAs. I just don't see that we need to worry about a chilling effect on a sock. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Philosophical discourse on whether analogies are useful

In my humble opinion, every single analogy that has been expressed in regards to this issue is just stupid. The judge comparison is wrong because it would only apply if someone was saying "Oppose because Liz hasn't been blocked, so how can she administer blocks?" Content creation is a positive contribution, not a negative one, so comparing it to a crime is absurd. On the other hand, the birdwatching thing is ridiculous because there is no differentiation in that situation between different types of activities related to birds; the logical conclusion to come to is "A member of a birdwatching club should watch birds; an admin should have edited Wikipedia", which no-one is disputing. The closest I can come to a birdwatching analogy is "To become a member of a club for bird enthusiasts, one should have published a novel based on birds; the fact that this applicant has spent thousands of hours birdwatching is completely irrelevant", which is absurd.
So please, can we all just drop the analogies? There's no analogy which perfectly reflects the situation here, and everyone seems to understand the situation well enough for us to avoid resorting to simplified explanations which capture the issue imperfectly and just make everyone quibble over details. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In a word, no, there's no good reason for dropping analogies. Even if all are flawed (which I dispute), a flawed analogy can be insightful. For example, the judge analogy was invoked to suggest that content content contributions should not be required. The very discussion of the analogy provides a useful insight into what actions might be legitimately required and what actions should not be required. I personally find analogies a powerful tool for understanding issues. They work best when they are apt analogies but even flawed analogies can be insightful. And even if every analogy to date has been flawed, your suggestion that we should drop all analogies is itself absurd. Perhaps the next one will be the perfect one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Analogy as a method of explaining things can used extremely effectively as a teaching tool. Good analogies may also provide some comic relief even in the most dour of situations, but even a poor analogy usually gets uts message across. Clever analogies are akin to thinking outside the box. They have that 'wow' factor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Analogies have in common with logical puzzles, and are difficult to construct without cooks and flaws. Casually constructed analogies usually easily break down once you start to analyze them. Most people don't analyze them, so their "power" really has invalid basis but goes undetected. A sound analogy, like Romeo & Juliet true love, is as beautiful as it is rare. IHTS (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearing something up

I seem to have caused various problems with my earlier post. And with at least one other post I've made today elsewhere, so I'll try to be careful this time, but I think I owe it to Liz, the other Crats and various puzzled people on this page to try to explain. One confusion that has become clear was around my use of the word "downgrade". My meaning was "give less weight to", not dismiss out of hand. The role of the Crat at RfA is about weighing opinions, not counting !votes. My apologies if I gave an impression that was high handed.

Furthermore, there are different flavours of oppose !votes on content at this RfA. My take was that two of the types of oppose rationales I'd perceived seemed logically flawed. I clearly wrote that I was "perplexed", and "mulling" it and if people didn't understand that this (and other comments I've made both here and elsewhere) reflected an open-minded position, I don't think that particular confusion is down to my lack of clarity.

There's no need for distracting arguments here, so anyone wishing to discuss this futher, please do so at my talk page, where cocoa and biscuits will be available, as well as further befuddlement the next time I express myself poorly. Again, apologies for that. --Dweller (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Validity of the opposing arguments

I think what needs to be said here and is going unmentioned is that a lot of the opposition seems to be based more off personal animus than a broader evaluation of competency. The Tumbleman example is a good instance of this as these are opposing disputants who are simply outraged that Liz took the "wrong" side in the dispute. Except, admins should remain impartial and make cautious use of their tools. Getting upset that an admin is not showing enough favoritism to the "right" people and being more ruthless towards the "wrong" people is demanding a standard of admin conduct that is directly in conflict with what is expected of admins. Some of the concerns about an alleged hostility to content creators and overbearing attitude on civility are further in conflict with this characterization of her as being too lenient. The concerns appear to be an extension of personal battles between her and certain cantankerous content creators. Her response to my question is consistent with her general pattern of leniency and none of the cited examples indicate that she would be particularly harsh towards anyone in her enforcement of the civility policy. In other words, the opposition is largely from people who want her to adhere less to the standard of conduct expected of admins or is all smoke and no fire.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments moved here from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard

• Waiting to see if Bureaucrats are going to allow a known cabal and an off-site harassment group derail a RfA that should have passed with no problems(despite some minor concerns that only show the editor wasn't ready 2 years ago). 200 support votes should not go unnoticed. Dave Dial (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I respectfully differ that the concerns were minor. Moreover, there is precedent for receiving more than 200 supports and not demonstrating {automatic} consensus {to approve}. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Where is the evidence for lack of consensus in your precedent? The candidate withdrew with the !votes at 299 support, 85 oppose and 17 neutral (72%). According to the "As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80 percent approval pass; most of those below 70 percent fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion" rule of thumb, if it had not been withdrawn it would be up to the 'crats to examine the arguments and determine consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Just showing that WP:200 is not, ipso facto an automatic demonstration that consensus to approve exists. Nothing more. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • And everyone knows that most of the 'oppose' voters, and their sound reasoning, is because Liz dared make the statement that content creators should not be given carte blanche exemptions from the rules. Everyone knows this, including you and the other 'crats. Dave Dial (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Like Seriously. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • For what it is worth, if you have issues with specific bureaucrat statements as posted on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion, I think that Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion is probably a better venue than here, at least whilst the discussion remains open. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Does anyone object to moving this thread there and leaving a link here? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                • I would suggest to leave my first message here, followed by a link.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • I'd agree with User:Ymblanter. -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • Moving thread now. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• 100 of those support votes were in the first 2 days. Calling the opposers a "cabal" and "offsite harassment group" misses the mark. It's the same argument as saying the first hundred support votes were more akin to facebook "Likes" rather than an assessment of the candidate based on qualification and policy. Getting 200 support votes and also attracting such large opposition that it's not a shoe-in is an indication of polarization, not consensus. Using a conspiracy theory to discredit people that disagree with you is an indication of just how polarizing it is. In the candidates before this one, there was another candidate with nearly identical percentages and closed "no consensus" with similar arguments but half the participation. That was much less polarizing. --DHeyward (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And no, my sound reasoning "oppose" had nothing to do with 'carte blanche' required for content as I am not FA or GA reviewer, rather it was a concern that the use of the tools would be to further goals other than an encyclopedia and it included both content and judgement - Sitush's argument was about stepping into disputes and Bishonen's concern was defending sockpuppets. Both events seemed to Liz is more about protecting WP as a social space rather than an encyclopedia and really wasn't a cabal nor was it arguing for carte blanche for content creators nor is it a knock on gnome work. Jumping into drama is not gnome work. Both were "you're in the way, and you don't know you are in the way" type of problems and both were resolved as expected. We do need admins that can jump into drama, but not admins that don't understand how to approach the issue before jumping. Characterizing the opposes in anything but good faith is sadly misplaced. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that most of the 'oppose' !votes occurred because Liz made statements indicating that content creators should not be given carte blanche exemptions from most rules. Which, I guess, means that I can never be an administrator, but I already knew that. I think that this irrational prejudice against wikignomes and against editors who are mostly interested in the kind of work that administrators are actually called on to do is toxic. It results in new admins who are great at creating GAs and FAs but inexperienced in mediating disputes or dealing with user behavior problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Most users who do categorisation or vandalism reverting won't have any more experience in mediating disputes or dealing with user behaviour problems, additionally they'll have had little or no experience in collaborating with others to generate GA/FA content, and are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to making suggestions and defusing potentially unfortunate situations relating to content. This is, at the end of the day, a project to produce encyclopedia content, and people seeking administrative help generally will expect the people they contact or interact with to have experienced similar issues and know from personal experience how to resolve them. Nick (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

!Votes and trend

Another analyses that is missing is the trend. I was disappointed that it was not extended. The trend to oppose started much earlier than the canvassing. After the first two days, the !vote was S:100 O:7. Since then it has been much weaker. Whether this is due to the opposing editors doing investigation prior to !votes or perhaps the supporting editors simply liking the candidate without needing to to do much review, it's clear that it wasn't canvassing. On trend alone, support eroded from over 90% with 100 support votes to just under 74% at close. Had this been extended a few more days with the same trend, there would not be a need a for this discussion as the 70% marks would have been reached. The strong participation in addition to large amount of opposes indicates a rather polarizing candidate and it seems based on trend and polarization of the community, there is no clear consensus to award the bit. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Support and Oppose votes plotted against time.

Some data usually helps with things like this so I threw together a graph of the supports and opposes against time, having recorded them from 6 hour intervals. The result can be seen on the right. It actually shows a strong burst of support in the last day of the RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I just missed the end by minutes, or there would have been one more support !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are some more too-lates here, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The crats instinct to close due to external publishing seems to line up with that spike. --DHeyward (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the last minute support voters are keen /r/WikiInAction/ readers? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sam Walton's graph is quite interesting. Although, as already noted, it shows a lot of early support that leveled off as opposition emerged, the latest time points actually show a larger late surge in support than in opposition, although both showed late increases. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: I have no idea. I don't read it and I think it was your notice that pointed it out. If I take the count when support was at 158 support votes, opposes were at 50. That was still a higher percentage than the close. What's missing is the !vote support percentage trend. SamWalton can you put running percentage "support" on the right Y axis and plot? Or email me the data and I can do it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Sam Walton Sorry about that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was among the last-day trend of supporters, such as it was. I'm not sure how much you can read into trends here. Lacking clear spikes, usually due to the revelation of "new information", probably not that much. Of course, when there's a strong oppose trend in the first few days, RFAs often don't run for a full week. Myself, time was running out, so I had to come off the fence before bedtime, or just not vote at all. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reason for finding it interesting is that late trends can indicate whether one "side" is convincing the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The trend for that is % support. It was still declining even with the spike. --DHeyward (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sam, thank yu enormously for that graph. Its exactly what I wanted to know but was too afraid to ask for.I would have done it myself if I knew how. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How to pass an RfA

I know exactly what it takes to pass an RfA and become a Wikipedia administrator.

• Do a lot of noncontroversial edits to lots of articles. Typo fixing, Reverting obvious vandalism, adding references, that sort of thing.
• Pick a bunch of poor-quality articles that nobody has edited in a while and bring them up to GA standards.
• If anyone opposes you on in any way, let them have their way and abandon the article.
• Comment on things like AfDs, RfCs and RfAs, but always wait until here is an overwhelming consensus and agree with the majority.
• Never, ever become involved in any way with any sort of noticeboard or other dispute.
• Never express any sort of opinion about anything.
• Keep this up for at least a year.
• In other words, completely avoid anything that in any way resembles what administrators are asked to do in real life.

Do this and you will sail through your RfA with little or no opposition. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

- until some clever Dick like me realises that that was the agenda all along... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and I think that's rather the point: do all the things Guy suggests, and you'll be accused of "cynically doing things to build a resume for Adminship", and get rejected (even though, by that point, you'd almost certainly be qualified for it...); or, actually edit the way you want to, and get rejected either for "not having the right background: come back in 6–12 months" or be accused of "not having the right attitude for Adminship". IOW, you're damned pretty much no matter what you do – the voters want neither candidates that explicitly "prepare" for Adminship nor the ones that just "edit away". I said this elsewhere – but if the collective RfA voters are expecting a bunch of NeilN's hiding in the woodwork, you're going to be disappointed, because there just aren't that many of those... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)