Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 29 July 2019

Due Weight

I have only one request of you folks (crats). Please remember to separate the Floq RfA from Framgate and WMFgate. I know that there are unavoidably going to be areas of intersection - but please remember to put weight where it belongs. Just a reminder - not a "you need to do this or that" post, I'll trust you folks to know what to do, that's why we picked you for that hat. — Ched : ? — 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell are you? You only seem to have a little over 6000 edits to the mainspace in more than a decade! I don't think you're in a position to be demanding anything. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass ping

Pinging @Acalamari, Avraham, Bibliomaniac15, Cecropia, DeltaQuad, Deskana, Dweller, Maxim, MBisanz, Nihonjoe, Pakaran, Primefac, UninvitedCompany, Useight, Warofdreams, Worm That Turned, Xaosflux, and Xeno: bureaucrats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T/p msgs are probably necessary per precedents. Do we email, too? ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am not certain if that is something any editor/admin should do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the closing crat will send a note to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list on this. Email is not necessary. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...which I've just done (MMS, not email, btw). Primefac (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all

No matter what happens in this chat; let's keep our cool and all stay friends. Deal? *group hug* –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I won't hesitate to close any discussion down that spirals out of control.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support votes

May I ask why support votes require no further discussion? Support votes should be subjected to the same scrutiny that oppose votes get. Weak supporting arguments should be treated differently. You never see admins and well-established users attack supports, but they sure do attack the opposition. Happens on every RfA. Noah^Talk 20:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they should. Not entirely sure why @Dweller: thinks that is not the case. This is what is says at WP:RFA "...numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way"." Leaky caldron (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would specifically observe that Dweller says, "the "per XXXX" comments, which we should weigh as heavily as XXXX's comment" and "support, which, remember, means supporting the nomination". Both of these seem to imply that an unexplained support should be treated as if it were "per Floq". I think that the 'crats should then assess the strength and quality of the nomination statement and question answers. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, support votes are interpreted as "I agree with the nom statement" while opposes are expected to give rationales. It's not a "policy" or "guideline" but there you go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, even by that logic, which I agree is the accepted procedure that should be followed, the 'crats should look at the nomination statement in assessing the quality of unexplained supports. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and it isn't as easy "per" to follow. It's more a confessional than anything. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'crats do have the freedom to weigh supports and opposes based on the strength of the argument, but a support per the nomination statement should certainly be given full weight as a legitimate argument. After all, it is our role as a community to determine if the nomination statement is a valid reason to promote the candidate. We assess the nomination statement as a community; that is not the special purview of the 'crats. Lepricavark (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I interpret it, the statement the "per XXXX" comments, which we should weigh as heavily as XXXX's comment refers specifically to Oppose votes, not Support votes. --Hecato (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. But there is another issue at play. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I support without leaving a comment, part of the reason for that is that I don't wish to campaign for others to vote the same way I did. (Here it was that I found nothing intelligent to add to the discussion, and I missed out on saying "confirming support per Boing"). —Kusma (t·c) 20:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then the RfA wording needs to be changed to say that unexplained supports are treated equally to an explained oppose. Noah^Talk 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) This has been somewhat made up. In any situation where a bureaucrat is not vote-counting, they must weigh the arguments on both sides. The sense and strength of opposing votes are weighed against the same qualities of the supporting votes. Bureaucrats have never applied the rule only to the oppose votes and I strongly question Dweller's decision to do so. AGK ■ 20:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as relevant to this RFA as there were arguments put forward by the earliest opposers, but in other RFAs I have seen the first oppose not having a rationale. In such circumstances it is hard to know whether it is a thought out oppose or a personal attack. However once there is an oppose with an argued rationale I don't see much of a problem in interpreting subsequent opposes without rationales as being per the opposes above. Of course that does make things difficult when some of the above strike their opposes, which is why per xxx is better, or is at least as long as xxx doesn't switch to support. I note a bit of movement in this RFA - but I haven't noticed if anyone is supporting or opposing per an editor who has subsequently changed position. I consider such !votes to be tricky to give the right weight to. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's lengthy precedent that support votes require little or no justification to be counted. I have long disagreed with this precedent but here is not the place to dispute this. I see a support and an oppose that should be discounted due to suspicious behaviour by the editors (i.e. not having edited otherwise for years). Other than that, I don't see anything that should be discounted outright, but in both the support and oppose sections (perhaps even the neutral one), some !votes need to be assigned more weight than others. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 21:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's precedent for it in the case that the nomination itself contains powerful arguments to promote. This one does not, though. It's a self-nom and doesn't really give much rationale as to why promotion should happen. Indeed it even omits the three compulsory questions. Support per XXX is fine, but I don't think it's automatic that "per nom" is a valid one. Dweller should probably amend their assertion to be simply a statement of their own opinion rather than something binding on the crafts as a whole. — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A slight correction: there are no "compulsory" questions, only "standard" questions. No candidate is required to answer any question -- although, realistically speaking, they have little or no chance of being promoted if they don't. In any case, the implication that Floq didn't do something that he was required to do is incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're also incorrect about "powerful arguments". Plains "Support" votes were just taken as being "per nom", whether or not the nomination was convincing or "powerful". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a self-nom and doesn't really give much rationale as to why promotion should happen. You might as well say that self-noms are prima facie evidence of power-hunger. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of self-noms, but in this case, given the circumstances, it was really the only way this could happen. The community needed to know that Floq really wanted the bit back, and wasn't being influenced by an outside force. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is where the idea of assigning !votes lesser or stronger weight come in. (That's what the "!" in "!vote" is for.) — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

I would like to suggest that the 'crats look to the RexxS chat -- where RexxS was promoted with only 64% support -- for guidance in coming to their decision in this case. In particular, this statement by Maxim seems pertinent: "It has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project," as does the discussion about what type of !votes should be discounted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: Having been on the other side of the aisle on several occasions in the past, as an "oppose" voter, it was my experience then that uncommented "Support" votes were taken as meaning "per nom", while uncommented "Oppose" votes were frequently pestered to give specific reasoning. I felt then that this was unfair, and I still do, but that was -- and as far as I know -- remains the precedent, that "Support" votes are not scrutinized nearly as closely as "Oppose" votes are. If the 'crats decide to break with precedent in this case, I can only hope that the new precedent will carry forward into the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the 'crats decide to break with precedent in this case, I can only hope that the new precedent will carry forward into the future. Put differently: If you are going to make new precedent, you need to justify your departure from precedent and craft a rule or standard of general applicability going forward. Treating this as a one-off case under different rules is honestly no better than promoting or refusing to promote because you feel like it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Of course, they could always do a Bush v. Gore and make a decision while simultaneously saying that it doesn't set a precedent. I wouldn't advise it, though. I trust that the 'crats will not do anything as silly as that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The community recently reaffirmed that RfX is a consensus discussion not a vote so perhaps that suggests that RexxS is not a precedent and instead Crats need to give new thought to how they handle unsupported participants. Of course this was a reaffirmation and as such would suggest that perhaps precedent would hold. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If they're of a mind to change precedent, I think that might want to hold back and do it on a non-controversial case. "Hard cases make bad law." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would the circumstances be where they could change precedent where it is also non-controversial? Like open a crat chat on some RfA that finishes at 55% support and change the precedent there? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's no such thing as a "non-controversial case" in which the numbers are close. But I'd rather crats do nothing to change precedent, which is neither "64%+ is consensus when the editor is long-established" nor "65-75% is no consensus", but "evaluate the strength of the arguments and the support behind them and determine whether they believe the community has faith in the editor using admin tools". — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but it could be done, let's say on a case at 70%. The 'crats discuss, and agree on a general formula for weighing votes that's slightly different from the one in use now, and they apply that new formula, creating a new precedent. Chances are the new formula isn't gong to make that much of a difference, and the case is going to stay in the discretionary range. Of course whether the 'crats should be changing precedent at all without the community telling them to is another matter, but it could be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing WP:RFA guidance seems clear enough: In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". Leaky caldron (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky Cauldron you didn’t quote the footnote, that says Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the discretionary range set at 65-75%, it's very hard to argue that at 74% support the consensus is in any significant way "unclear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Here's such an argument: 74% lies within 65% and 75%. We don't set a strict bar at 70% for a reason. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a particular good argument. The range is 65-75%, so 'crats look at anything within that range. Are you honestly arguing that the case for a RfA which sits at 74% isn't inherently stronger than the case for an RfA which sits at 66%? Are you saying that 'crats should treat them both equally as if they were both supported equally by the community? That everything in the discretionary range is equal to everything else in the discretionary range? I don't buy that, and I doubt many others do either. The range tells the 'crats that they need to discuss, it doesn't tell them not to weigh cases differently, according to the differing specifics of the !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I said nothing of the sort. Of course the 74% is stronger evidence than 66% but neither are ipso facto reasons for an outcome (nor is 64%, as we know—it's your own argument, taken symmetrically, which fails to account for the crat chat of RexxS). I argued that the matter is not a clear consensus—your wording, not mine. The only time I will ever argue that "everything is equal to everything else" is when I am made of straw. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was exactly my point, that at 74% consensus is not "unclear", it's just a bit under what gets you in automatically. As for RexxS, I simply wanted the 'crats to be reminded of the precedent they set at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation RfAs will naturally tend toward lower support percentages than first-time requests, for the very simple fact that admins have more opportunities to piss people off. (In fact, while I may be mis-remembering or thinking of another project, I seem to recall that we toyed with codifying this axiom in policy during one of the term limit/reconfirmation RfCs.) This being the case, I don't consider 74% to be within the discretionary range for a long-standing admin. I understand why the 'crats are going through the motions here, but it's plain to me that this was a successful request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the Fram controversy

One of the aspects of the RfA that the Crats will probably need to evaluate is the context of the Fram controversy, which obviously was looming conspicuously in the background. In that way, the RfA was an atypical one. To some extent, the RfA was a referendum on how the community feels about what en-wiki policy should be about overturning office actions. It occurs to me (maybe I'm right about this, or maybe I'm wrong) that, if this were instead an RfC about policy, a 74% support !vote with a very high level of community participation would probably be closed as a consensus of "support", but with a few caveats about taking the opposition concerns into account. (In this case, perhaps the candidate's stated commitment never to overturn an office action again would be an example of taking opposition concerns into account.) I suggest that this way of looking at the raw numbers may be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's nothing of the sort. Most of the votes specifically excluded the Fram events from their rationales. This is purely a decision on whether to regrant Floq the tools. Nothing to do with a referendum on office actions. — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but my impression was that only some of the editors excluded that. (And in case I didn't make it clear enough, I'm not saying that the entire analysis should be done this way, more like something to consider, in part.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder - don't edit the 'crat chat page please

Anyone who isn't a 'crat shouldn't be editing the actual 'crat chat - no, not even to fix formatting. We're in sad shape if our bureaucrats can't fix their own formatting, and non-'crats imposing their personal formatting preferences, preferred spelling, etc., is not appropriate in these circumstances. "But it wasn't a comment, I was just tweaking..." isn't an excuse. Let's leave the 'crats to do their work. We might want to consider all sitting down to a hot beverage or something similar, since there's nothing more for most of us to do here. Risker (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa [1] - I won't do it again, now, or in the future. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blame the heat <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional recusals

Since, among other bureaucrats, Xaosflux has elsewhere [I can't readily find the diff(s) in the mass of polls/discussion] made it clear he sides with WMF and against persons like Floq who defied them, I believe he and any other bureaucrat who has made any statements pro or con durng FRAMgate should recuse. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find the diffs first, demand the recusals afterwards, please, there's a good fellow. MPS1992 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

btw, are you sure that you mean defied and not deified? MPS1992 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I considered advocating this as a general thing (specific recusal requests need diffs), but I think some level of significance and with specific regard to Floq is going to be needed here, or we risk dropping to a very low number of participating 'Crats. However, in a similar vein, firm good/bad Floq commments in the "did they resign under a cloud" RfC could also be recuse-worthy. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, Xaosflux's position was more nuanced. (Also, Softlavender is not a fellow.) El_C 23:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 I have only one request of you folks (crats).  Please remember to separate the Floq RfA from Framgate and WMFgate.  I know that there are unavoidably going to be areas of intersection - but please remember to put weight where it belongs.  Just a reminder - not a "you need to do this or that" post, I'll trust you folks to know what to do, that's why we picked you for that hat. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small>   —  19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
+:Who the hell are you? You only seem to have a little over 6000 edits to the mainspace in more than a decade! I don't think you're in a position to be demanding anything. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 == Mass ping ==