Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

Comments from me

I find WJB's analysis very persuasive and he says what I would have wanted to say, only better.

I'll add that the raw percentage was rising over the last few days, which is mathematically interesting, in an RfA with high level of participation. I would also give heavy credence to the sheer weight of numbers, as opposed to percentages. The gap between supporters and opposers almost passes WP:100 on its own. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I just wanted to point out that while it's true there are 90 more supporters than opposers, that's only on account of there being a particularly high number of voters overall; that gap will naturally scale with the number of participants if the support percentage is fixed. The fraction of total voters making up that gap is similar to that in, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy, which was closed as no consensus. The main point being, there's a particularly high number of supporters, but there's also a particularly high number of opposers. Sam Walton (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the principal difference in Godsy's RfA is that opposition picked up towards the end with concerns about his ability to judge the reliability of sources (particuarly the conspiracy theory website InfoWars). That's a well-grounded oppose to consider, and it tipped support downwards towards the lower end of the discretionary range. Additionally, a number of people tactically voted to force a crat chat in that RfA, whereas nobody did in this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable, I just wanted to point out that (number of supporters - number of opposers) isn't a very useful metric. A gap of 90 could be between 91 and 1 or 600 and 510. Sam Walton (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Steel1943 at support 149 voted tactically to force a crat chat. Snuge purveyor (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The RfA was within the same range for almost all of the time and it's unlikely that a crat chat hadn't happened without that !vote. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: One of my biggest pet peeves are people who attack others for their honesty. I particularly enjoy and encourage people to be open and honest about their motivations, biases, interests, and intents. But this project has a habit of taking that honesty and weaponizing it. What does that do? Well, it promotes secrecy, manipulation, and distrust. If you believe it's not okay to attack someone for making themselves vulnerable with their honesty, then please retract your comment.--v/r - TP 12:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: I'm confused by your request. Ritchie said "a number of people tactically voted to force a crat chat in that RfA, whereas nobody did in this one" and Snuge pointed out that someone did, which you can check for yourself. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry.--v/r - TP 13:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Even though that may have been true about me moving my comment from "neutral" to "support", my neutral stance was more in support of the candidate, including my comments in the "General comments" section commending the nominee on not withdrawing despite the percentage. With the way the discussion was going, I would have ended up in the "support" column eventually. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite my opposition I think Will's analysis is mostly correct. I'm disappointed that most people don't share my concerns of this user's ability to correctly judge speedy deletion requests but since they don't, I have to accept this. The concerns about low activity which were raised by most opposers are not that persuasive imho, seeing as there is no policy that forces admins to have a certain number of edits or make a certain number of edits or perform a certain number of actions (even the inactivity threshold is mainly for procedural reasons). Personally, I prefer a thoughtful admin who mulls over one edit for five minutes to an admin who makes ten edits, nine of which fix the previous one. Combined with the fact that most opposers indicate that their !vote is subject to change when the required activity levels are reached (and thus profess support for the candidate in general, even if not at this time), the consensus seems to be slightly in favor of promotion. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, you had the same concerns about me at my RfA. WP:WIHSD was an absolutely fantastic read and, I think, set me straight.--v/r - TP 13:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, Balloonman who wrote that essay would certainly be pleased if he were still active. But actually I neutraled your first RfA because of the lack of edit summaries used. Anyway, I do think GR is an editor who can probably learn to make correct choices and most users seem to think so as well. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The main (only?) grumble I had about SoWhy's comments was about "incorrect deletions" - if you are certain an admin has made an error and done something that policy doesn't permit, talk to them and get the error reversed. I don't think referring to their mistakes offhand in an unrelated discussion is helpful to get the article fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I used to be one of the most cautious admin voters re speedy deletion errors. Perhaps I've become less inclusionist over the years, but I like to think if I'd seen a candidate with relatively few speedy deletion tags but including the accurate G10 tags I saw in their deleted edits, I'd have supported in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And mine

I think it is interesting that this RFA was mentioned, as if, corollary to Godsy's RFA. That we can disagree, agreeably, is there shown as I do have abundant respect for each, to whom I speak! Rather than similarities, I see the two RFAs as nearly the antithesis of each other, (I'll do the math with you later). It is for the many ways they each, in fact, were dissimilar that the one rightly closed with no consensus while this one should rightly succeed. Oh yeah, I agree that WJB could not have done better in his opening statement!--John Cline (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that I only mentioned Godsy's RfA for a random example of vote numbers on a recent RfA which closed unsuccessfully; no other links between the two were intended. Sam Walton (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

zero uploads or new articles

This isn't the first RFA where I've seen people oppose per lack of new articles started, but I don't recall anyone previously opposed per lack of file uploads - was that a commons RFA argument drifting over here? I can see that sort of argument deciding an RFA there. In either event it would be interesting to know why people think that those should be tests at RFA. Without an explanation as to why an admin needs that particular experience such opposes just look odd. Perhaps that would merit a thread at WT:RFA if someone wants to make such an uber inclusionist test.

We have had a longrunning debate as to whether new admins must have content contributions, and I'm pretty sure no-one could pass now without them. Since GoldenRing's contributions did include adding reliably sourced material but didn't go so high as even a DYK he clearly met some people's content contributions criteria and failed others. But I don't fancy the crats job of deciding what weight to give an oppose from someone who didn't check and thought he had zero content contributions.... Perhaps this is where RFA clerks would be useful - your !vote asserted x which others now dispute. Would you care to revisit your !vote and reaffirm, respond or strike? ϢereSpielChequers 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I can sort of see the file uploads argument if the concern was understanding of WP:NFCC.--v/r - TP 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If the candidate had indicated a desire to work in the filespace, then I would understand this concern. As far as I can tell, they have not indicated such a desire, so the lack of file uploads does not strike me as a big deal. As far as requiring content contributions goes, I understand the argument. The mainspace is at the core of Wikipedia, and things like what to do when someone disagrees with you, or what to do when you observe two other editors in a disagreement, are stuff that I think you really have to learn by being in the situation. Having GAs, FAs, DYKs, aren't necessary, but I think a relatively wide range of experience is. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Zero uploads" isn't even true, as the graph used in the Fabian Stedman article is by GR. Schwede66 15:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the file uploads thing is a cross-over from commons, since those making the argument... forgot to check commons. It's not a long history (a grand total of one upload - I doubt this would have actually made a difference to those opposing on these grounds) but it's there. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• The editors who mentioned file uploads didn't focus on this in isolation; it was typically mentioned alongside other functions such as page moves and page creations. The point seemed to be that the candidate had many gaps in his experience; not that he had just that particular one. Myself, I didn't make anything of it but I agree that this is a significant area of experience because there are lots of pitfalls – issues of copyright, fair use and protection. These often matter because most articles are expected to have an image. So, for example, the candidate in this case has shown some interest in In the News. Admin work in this area involves putting articles onto the main page, along with thumbnails of images. When admins do this, they are supposed to check that the image is free. They are also supposed to ensure that the image is protected on commons, to guard against image vandalism. Now I'm not familiar with the exact details and process for this because I am not an admin and so haven't done it. But I've done plenty of image uploads myself, have worked in areas where such images have been challenged, and so am generally quite familiar with the issues. If you've not got your hands dirty in this way, then you have a lot of learning to do – both the basics and also the extra admin functions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't even get to an evaluation of the candidacy

I just want to note that many opposes (myself included) didn't even get to an actual evaluation because the record isn't there. "An admin should have some experience in administrative areas" is not a weak rationale, and I felt no need to review further. We tend to weight high edit requirements/tenure requirements lower because they eventually get a bit silly, but more reasonable expectations shouldn't be discounted as easily. If someone had 500 edits on site and was here a month, the only opposes would be "Not enough experience". Are those "weak" rationales? Certainly not. Expecting more than ~2,500 edits over 10 years to show knowledge of current policies and guidelines is an extremely reasonable criterion. I will lose whatever limited faith I have left in the RfA system if that is discarded as "weak". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

+1 I started writing something along these lines but couldn't find the right words. 'Doesn't have enough experience' is such a strong argument that we outright close or delete RfAs for candidates to whom that applies to a strong degree. Sam Walton (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally agree with you, however in the specific circumstances, the only people who could write something like "... we're all aware of the admin who's had a long term grudge who jumps on an AE report to issue a long block, or the admin who makes a false accusation and then continually doubles down on it, or the admin who takes a thread with a lot of back-and-forth and issues the maximum possible block within the letter of an arbcom remedy, or the admin who treats an ANI request about themselves as vandalism and edit-wars it closed." are long-term lurkers who really have seen it all, or socks. And I don't think GoldenRing is a sock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have some oceanfront property in Switzerland for anybody who thinks that edit counts are reliable measures against socks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)GoldenRing's exemplary answers to the questions show that, despite a "low" arbitrary edit count, he does have knowledge of the relevant policies and guidelines. It's a weak argument to cite "not enough experience" and point to an an arbitrary number like edit count. "Not enough experience" is a strong argument when the citation is evidence where a candidate clearly handled a situation or answered a question incorrectly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I was about to post something similar to this, but Rob beat me to it. There is a significant difference between This candidate doesn't really have a track record for us to judge his knowledge of policy from This candidate has 12,000 edits and 1.5 years, but I prefer my candidates to have 4 years and 25,000 edits.. One is about the community being able to see if they trust the candidate, another is just making up arbitrary numbers. While there were some of the latter (and I think that is ridiculous and weak), there were opposers who commented that they weren't able to judge because of lack of experience. This gets to the heart of what RfA is about: the trust of the community. Arguments based on being unable to make a judgement I would not consider weak. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• The use of edit counts as a proxy for admin suitability has always been contentious. Most SNOW/NOTNOW cases don't even have a 1000 edits. This case is more marginal. Expectations of edit count have risen over the years but without evidence that newer RfAs pass better candidates than old ones a push-back will ensue. I also wonder if this RfA is being viewed as a "test case" for low edit count candidacies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I didn't start it with the intent of it being a test case, though of course I can't speak for how others have viewed it since. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The RFA had been heeding towards a crat chat for a few days so "I felt no need to review further" is not really much of an excuse. AIRcorn (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• That's not what he's saying; it's not that he didn't feel the need to review, but that there wasn't enough of a record to make a sensible review possible. I disagree (obviously...) but let's not start a bun-fight here. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Aircorn and GoldenRing: No, I'm very much saying I felt no need to review. I had no way to know the crats would supervote in deciding that complete lack of a record was a weak rationale, so I had no way to know that I should dig deeper. Trust me, in the future, I'll go through every single edit and highlight every potentially objectionable one when an editor has less than 4,000 edits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• You had a full week to make as strong of a rationale as you desired, especially since the RfA has been in the discretionary zone for a good half of it. There's consensus that any RfA above 65% may pass as sucessful, so calling a promotion a "supervote" is laughable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Tavix: I gave the strongest possible rationale: complete lack of record. The fact that bureaucrats have decided a lack of a record is fine is not something I can predict. I am not psychic. I cannot predict when bureaucrats will descend from on high to determine a very normal rationale at an RfA is weak when it hasn't been similarly discounted in the past. The choice to discount perhaps the single most prevalent oppose rationale at RfA in the past several years is certainly imposing their own values, not assessing what the consensus is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Multiple thousand edits is easily enough to build a track record. You felt it unnecessary to not dig any deeper and now you're regretting it. That doesn't give you permission to spam this talk page and ask for a completely unnecessary extension (which would set a horrible precedent, IMO). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• So we care not whether the community wants to promote or whether there's a record that would lead the community to promote, but rather that the bureaucrats can play "gotcha" by unexpectedly discounting a perfectly valid rationale. The bureaucrats are ruling a rationale weak without any precedent. There's no way for me to predict that. Tavix, would you have the same opinion if bureaucrats arbitrarily decided to call "no issues" a weak rationale? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be justifiably upset that standards for which rationales are weak and which are strong have arbitrarily changed with no notice to the participants, who felt no need to expand beyond a rationale they felt was quite strong. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• So far only two bureaucrats have weighed in so it's a bit early to be having these kind of reactions. I already gave my opinion on the matter above, and I'd be satisfied with whatever outcome they decide. I disagree that anything is being arbitrarily changed—after all, there really isn't any firm criteria for adminship. That being said, I'm a firm believer in WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I don't think we need to make this a big deal either. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the bureaucrats are saying that it's a weaker rationale in the context of this RfA because man supporters specifically addressed the edit count and implied or stated that edit count isn't a reasonable metric for RfAs in general. In contrast, when RfAs are more contentious due to discussion of temperament or policy understanding issues, most agree that those issues are legitimate considerations in an RfA but aren't important in the context of a specific RfA. In this way, edit count is more of a broad RfA issue, whereas the "stronger" rationales are an issue with a specific candidate - or at least, that's my take on what the bureaucrats are describing. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I believe the bureaucrats are saying that it's a weaker rationale in the context of this RfA I don't believe that's the case. The language used was "[Lack of experience] is usually regarded as weaker opposition..." and "[lack of experience] has always been regarded as less weighty than evidence of misunderstanding policy / temperament etc", so WJBscribe is making a general point about objections which are based on lack of experience, and not referring to this case only (although Cecropia did limit their comment to this specific case). I think this is a mistake, for multiple reasons. Certainly temperament and knowledge of policy are important, but knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works for the people with their boots on the ground who actually build the encyclopedia can only come from having the same experience that those editors have been through, and I just don't see that in this candidate. I am, in fact, rather personally insulted by the fluffing off of the question of experience as being unimportant and not as "weighty" as other considerations. Frankly, I don't think it's the place of bureaucrats to make that kind of value judgement: if the community thinks a nominee isn't experienced enough, and their !votes put him in the discretionary range because of it, it's really not in the 'crats purview to ignore that collective opinion and devalue it as a whole in order to push the nominee over the top. It seems to me that their job is to weigh the factors as the community sees them, and not according to their own personal values. I don't see that happening so far in this chat, which I find disappointing in its disrespect for the people who !voted as they did due to the nominee's lack of experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with an oppose such as "Zero content contributions" or "An admin should have some experience in administrative areas" is that when someone gives diffs for some content contributions or mentions some valid deletion tags you don't know whether the refuted oppose was simply mistaken, or exaggerated to make the candidate look bad. Someone opposing because they think the content contributions or deletion tagging was insufficient to meet their standards is a different matter, clearly in this case the candidate didn't meet some people's standards. There've been other case where insufficient content contributions has looked odd, I remember one candidate getting such an oppose despite having featured content. But there are often outlier odd !votes at RFAs, they rarely matter unless the attack is blatant or the decision close. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No big deal

I think we have a rare opportunity here to put our money where our mouth is and give credence to WP:NOBIGDEAL. We have, in GoldenRing, an editor who has been around for a really long time, seems to be a reasonable sort of chap, and comes with a high-ish apriori probability that they won't go berserk and break the system. By all appearances, they will be willing to admit mistakes and undo errors, whether in deletion or elsewhere. If WP:NOBIGDEAL really has meaning, then, well, giving GoldenRing the admin tools is probably the best test case we're going to have in a long while. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

[Like!]--v/r - TP 17:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NOBIGDEAL became empty words every time an admin engaged in misconduct and fellow admins closed ranks rather than take the bit away. We don't need to promote marginal candidates to re-ify NOBIDGEAL, we need ARBCOM et al to crack down on admin misconduct. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Holding admins responsible became harder when every sock and every grudge wielding asshole in the project started ganging up and brandishing the battle canons every time a sysop said "fuck". It takes balance and trust; and both have been lacking.--v/r - TP 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Become an admin yourself then, so you can wield the powers of the cabal for good instead of evil. The situation is, of course, more complicated than admins covering for each-other. And I don't think that that problem is solved by stopping the promotion of new admins. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I like RegentsPark's reasoning about affirming no big deal. This also ties into WJBScribe's point in the bureaucrat discussion: if there are any candidacies at all that are to be successful in the 65-70% range, this candidacy should be one of them. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, NOBIGDEAL is NOLONGERTRUE, and hasn't been for quite some time, and it's really impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube at this late date. Being an admin is, in the Wikipedia world, AVERYBIGDEAL, given what we've become, and how many people rely on us. Every RfA which goes through this kind of process confirms that, and repeating NOBIGDEAL won't change that. It's a new world, and there's a new standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's only a big deal if you want it to be Beyond My Ken. Wikipedia for the most part will continue to function as it always has whether somebody becomes an admin or not. 67% in this case believe that adminship hasn't fundamentally changed to such a degree that a very high standard is required. The major tools that an admin received in 2004 are the same as in 2017. It's only a minority who think it's a big deal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but, factually speaking, no. The stakes are significantly higher now then they were back when, and that makes the role of the admin a much bigger deal. That's not a personal opinion, that's just plain old reality, facts on the ground. Pardon my bluntness, but people who continue to hold firmly onto NOBIGDEAL are holding onto a philosophy that has not stood the test of time. The sooner everyone lets it go, the sooner we can all deal with the reality of what Wikipedia is at this moment, as opposed to what it was 14 years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Editcountitis or not

In Vanamonde93's RFA, Swister Twister opposed, as he felt 24,000 edits are not enough. While that was too much to expect of edit count. Even 5000 edits are okay.

After this RFA becomes successful, then it can be noted that editors can pass RFA without editing, by focusing to build their temperament. Editors need the right attitude, personality and give reasonable, logical answers to the questions, even with 250 edits in 5 years.

What they don't get is that the more you edit, then you are more likely to face sockpuppets, vandals, paid editors, you will be facing personal attacks from biased WP:SPA accounts, your userpage and usertalk page will get protected by administrators. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the nice things about edge cases is that they give you a better idea of where the edge lies. If this passes with only 2,400 edits plus some tool building then it would still be possible for someone to pass with even fewer edits, though I'd suspect they'd have to be more manual. But 250 edits would remain a snow close per NotNow ϢereSpielChequers 21:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. Yes, this RfA gives an indication of the lower limit for edit count. 33% of !voters (counting only supports and opposes) opposed almost solely on edit count. Several of the supporters originally could not support because of edit count. Many other supporters noted edit count as a concern, but decided other factors outweighed the low count of 2400 edits. How many more edits would it have taken for a clear pass? How many fewer would it have taken for 3% of !voters to swing to oppose? Probably not many fewer. Edit count is still hugely important. At this boundary level it was barely insufficient to cause the RfA to be unsuccessful.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

I missed this AfD and found it interesting to sample what was said. His answers to questions were stellar. Honestly so good that I was worried a bit about his being a sock (a group effort of experienced editors maybe). But assuming that isn't the case, I felt that the objections raised were mostly things that can be discounted a bit (edit count) though there were some non-trivial issues with CSD which I think need to be taken seriously. Overall, I'd agree that this AfD RfA was successful. I think a crat chat was worth having though. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is trying to get GR deleted, so I woudn't say any AfD was successful. His RfA, on the other hand, might have been. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think it's time for WP:EfD to be active again! Regards SoWhy 18:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. And off to get sleep as I clearly need it... Hobit (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Let this be known ...

As the moment that we started telling potential RfA candidates to stop editing because a single slip-up in 25,000 edits is a strong rationale to oppose an RfA, but a complete lack of edits is not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I really believe that, if a 25k candidate made a single slip-up, most !voters would not be dumb enough to !vote oppose, unless that slip-up was pretty egregious. But RfA is to a large extent a form of democracy, and second-guessing !voter intentions is like trying to second guess intentions in a political ballot: not always consistent. To get away from this you would have to propose some pretty radical RfA reform, but that has not been forthcoming. This result may be a reflection on avoiding WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, and as such may be a positive step, but who can say how this will pan out in the future. What I truly believe is that if this passes it is unlikely to adversely affect WP particularly. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Single slip ups are causes for many of our unsuccessful RFAs. Editors who actually edit actively, especially in administrative areas, are apparently at a disadvantage because crats have decided experience doesn't matter but finding a couple mistakes (see Godsy, etc) is a strong rationale to oppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If that really is the case then the fault lies within the !voters. But I don't think this really diminishes the suitability of GoldenRing, who I doubt engineered a low edit count to avoid this sort of occurrence. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously we are commenting on the voting trend, not on the candidate. Anybody can nominate himself/herself. It's up to the community to take a good decision, by not getting carried away by two good answers. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing that infuriates me is that the voters aren't getting it wrong here. A large enough portion of editors to make almost all RFAs dead in the water opposed based on lack of experience. Since 2013, zero editors have been promoted with less than 71% support. If this had closed with the same percentage and the opposes were based on minor issues, the bureaucrats would close no consensus saying the years-old mistakes are sufficient to prevent a finding of consensus. Here, they're applying a personal value judgement that opposes for lack of record are weak opposes and actively discounting them. There's nothing we can change to fix this, because there's simply no record on which to judge the candidate. One can't critique what isn't there and the bureaucrats have decided from their ivory tower that simply not having a record isn't a valid reason to oppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I can remember one RFA derailed when the nominator accidentally picked up the candidate's laptop and responded to something whilst logged in as her. But generally speaking opposes that cite a single mistake are ineffective, you need to demonstrate a pattern to have an oppose that derails an RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect: if bureaucrats decide here, why are many of them encouraging us (example here), the mortal editors, to vote? Two thirds supported the candidate, that's all they should mention. Nobody can force me to support a candidate if I consider they have insufficient activity in the mainspace.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anyone to support or oppose this or any candidate. There is a discretionary zone from 65-75%. Few RFAs close in or even near that zone. Many passes are with 85% or more support. When crats encourage people to participate they don't know which RFAs are going to end in the discretionary zone. ϢereSpielChequers 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, one/two mistakes in total of 70,000 edits is very bad, even you made a mistake 2 years ago. Don't edit, no mistakes, stay away for 8 months, make 5 edits, then take a break for 4 months, make 3 edits, you will pass RFA. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I have to add is that I thought Wizardman put it well, namely "[What] I'm getting from this is 'do some work = not qualified. don't do any = plenty qualified.'" — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

RFA is far from a perfect system. It has fashions and fads, and too few editors who actually look through a candidate's contributions as opposed to voting per the Q&A session or worse per statistics. I've seen at least one RFA fail because the candidate was misjudged by !voters (pro tip though not relevant to this RFA, if your talk page sometimes gets deletion notes for things you uploaded many years ago and you are contemplating RFA, then a one liner such as "Agreed. I think it met the Fair Use rules when I uploaded it 8 years ago, but we no longer need it" will disarm future RFA !voters). Old mistakes from two years or more ago have to be quite egregious for people to worry about them, especially if recent edits show you've learned from them. As for "don't do any = plenty qualified", I'd say "2400 edits is insufficient for adminship" is a valid oppose that may or may not get consensus this time. 2,400 edits including some content contributions and some "need for the tools" plus tool creation and excellent question answers is enough for 67% to support promotion. I think a candidate who was "plenty qualified" would be more like our 95% or more passes where the crats have to do little more than flip the bit. 2,400 = 0 is simply an error and should be treated as such. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I get from the discussion the problem most !oppose voters have is not the low edit count of 2,500 per se, its the low amount of content work which amounts to ~250 non-automated edits over the span of 13 years. I didn't vote in the RFA because I was undecided, but I understand the sentiment, given that during the last 2 years we had editors with much, much more edits and content work which were rejected due to "insufficient content work". Dead Mary (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We've certainly had more prolific editors who have failed at RFA and perhaps we've had insufficient content work as one of the concerns. But there's more than one way to measure content work, and number of manual edits is not a good one - it smacks of looking at statistics rather than checking edits. I seem to remember one recent RFA where the concerns included what they had regarded as a reliable source. I've recently been in email communication with a much more active editor than GoldenRing who I would be happy to nominate, if they started adding sourced content. I don't recall a recent candidate whose content contributions were better than this and who failed largely on content grounds. Failed on other grounds, yes there'll be plenty. For example GoldenRing had done enough CSD tagging to demonstrate a need for the tools. Personally I'm not keen on the need for the tools argument, but I'm sure there've been some stellar content contributors who have failed on that criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The case for an extension

So I think it's fair to say many oppose voters had no clue the bureaucrats would view "complete lack of record" as a "weak" oppose. That implies there should be a small extension (~ 2 days) to allow those who oppose the lack of a record to actually review what's there and point out what isn't there. This mentality from the bureaucrats has come so out-of-the-blue that the oppose side has not been given a fair opportunity to actually present what is apparently deemed a "strong" rationale. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The oppose "side"? Leaky Caldron 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Most !voters at RfA know about the discretionary range and this RfA did stay in it for the whole time, so the "oppose side" had plenty of reasons to expect a crat chat to happen. But even if they couldn't, is it really the point of the discussion that is an RfA to withhold arguments because one already found one reason to oppose? I had always thought that it's in the best interest of all involved if a candidate gets feedback on all the reasons someone opposes because otherwise, how can they improve before running again?

Also, there has not really been a crat discussion yet, so how do you figure crats will view your reasoning as "weak"? All Will wrote was that abstract concerns about an editor based on their lack of reviewable experience have generally be considered a weaker reason compared to specific concerns, which is correct (much like "I know his is a murderer" is a stronger reason to distrust someone than "I cannot tell if he is a murderer"). Regards SoWhy 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a case could have been made to extend the RFA a little longer, but not for the reason suggested by Rob. This appears to have been a very active RFA, and active discussion continued right up until WJBscribe started the Bureaucrat chat. Almost 300 people logged a vote and I think the voting trend could have continued. While I think it would have been reasonable to let the discussion continue a little longer to see if a clearer consensus developed, I can also see the argument that this is not an exceptional circumstance and nothing unusual happened to disrupt the voting process. The RFA ran for a week, and while the developing discussion about the candidate's activity levels and edit history may have resulted in a livelier discussion, it was pretty clear by the halfway point that this was not an ordinary RFA...if such a thing exists. Just some random conjecture while we wait for more Bureaucrat input. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We've extended RFAs in the past where something big emerged at the end. This got a lot of extra !votes at the end, and that took it from just below the discretionary zone to well inside it - but nothing new came up late in this RFA. We've also extended discussions - mainly AFDs rather than RFAs, where there was insufficient participation. Clearly that doesn't apply here. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My request

Regardless of what the crats ultimately decide to do here, I think it's important to recognize the difficulty of the choice at hand and to show them a little respect. Many of us will disagree with the result, and that's fine, but already I see numerous folks sharpening their pitchforks and fueling their torches. Some of our community's most level-headed and rationale people are deciding the fate of this RfA, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the project will suffer any sort of dire consequences resulting from their decision, whether it be "promote" or "no consensus." There will inevitably be whinging and caterwauling in abundance, but before that happens, I'd just like to offer thanks to the folks who have spent their Friday combing through 35,000 words of discussion – a short novel – and trying to gauge consensus from the opinions of almost 300 people. It's not an enviable task. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Juliancolton, for those words. Seeing the snide comments directed at the bureaucrats who've weighed in so far is disheartening. 28bytes (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

+1 (= 2) likewise agree ツ Fylbecatulous talk 12:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a close call, either way it sets a precedent. But I've seen more toxic RFAs where people on both sides were more worried at the result. I suspect this will be raised at many future RFBs, but I don't think that in a years time anyone will be regretting this result, whichever way it goes. Yes the crats are earning their keep on this one, but I don't think their reputation will be tarnished by this. ϢereSpielChequers 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said Juliancolton, I concur. I !voted to support, but I really can see how the chat outcome could go either way and I won't be complaining. We selected our crats precisely to crack borderline cases like this, and I thank them for doing such a tough job (for such lousy pay) - and I really hope we can avoid any bitterness whichever way it goes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

My two cents

I obviously knew this one would go to a bureaucrat chat, seeing as one person could not be expected to unilaterally judge consensus in a discussion like this. I've followed the RfA as it transpired, and my impression is that the community does trust GoldenRing enough to promote in this case. Even those who opposed him based on raw edit count or activity levels generally did so with reluctance, which I took to mean that they actually would like to see GoldenRing become an administrator at some point, but would simply prefer that he gain a bit more experience before giving him the tools. I also noticed that the ratio of supports to opposes increased markedly in favor of promotion among later participants; in other words, the support column grew at a faster rate than the oppose column. Based on those two factors, along with WJBscribe's assessment of the opposing arguments, I think this should pass. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement with Xeno's statement

Xeno says in their comment in the 'crat chat:

The community advises us to closely review the discussions and promote candidates that obtain at least 65% support so that more administrators can be brought on board to bolster the declining attention available to administrative tasks.

I believe this is be incorrect for a number of reasons. First, the community does not advise bureaucrats to promote candidates in the discretionary range, it advises them the carefully review the discussion to determine whether there is a consensus to promote them. This is not the same thing, as there is no default position to promote, and to act on the basis that there is is to distort the meaning of the discretionary range. Secondly, while there are certainly loud voices who repeat that there is a crisis in the number of administrators, there are also adamant editors who believe this is not the case and the vast majority of editors never mention the putatively drastic need for more admins. Again, to act as if an admin shortage is the default position is to take a distinctive POV and elevate it to a policy. That, also, is not within the purview of bureaucrats, it is the responsibility of the community alone to decide that.

I have great respect for Xeno, but -- in this case -- I believe they are operating from an incorrect basis, and request that they reconsider their opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence got mangled in a copyedit. It should have read: "The community advises us to closely review the discussions that obtain at least 65% support and promote candidates where consensus exists so that more administrators can be brought on board to bolster the declining attention available to administrative tasks." I do disagree when you say that there is no "default position to promote". Certainly adminship has always been considered no big deal, see some of the earliest appointments - as long as no one turned up to oppose, the bit was flipped on. In the present candidacy, over two-thirds of individuals advanced an opinion to promote, for us to deliver an unsuccessful or 'no consensus' result, it has to be shown that the oppose arguments holds significantly more weight than those presented in support. –xeno^talk 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The community reached a consensus to lower the discretionary range. Clearly the community would like more admins promoted.--v/r - TP 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't actually a site-wide consensus per se to lower the discretionary range. There was a nose-count with no analysis of the arguments therein; nor was the RfC properly done (it was more than a dozen questions all shoe-horned into one RfC) or with site-wide input (not posted on Centralized Discussion that I recall). It was closed after 30 days with a very quick nose-count by a single bureaucrat, more-or-less out of the blue. Contrast that with much less important RfCs, such as the title of the Hillary Clinton article, which was carefully closed after 45 days, by a pre-selected panel of three people (2 admins + 1 non-admin), who carefully weighed every single argument and conferred with each other at great length before closing the RfC (which was for one single question, not a dozen questions). Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Softlavender sums up that RfA reform program quite accurately. Lauched with every ounce of good faith, it did not however take note of a lot of previous, solid research into RfA issues. If its overall goal was to increase the number of RfA passes or even attract more candidates to the process, 16 months later I don't see where it succeeded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Evidence of experience

I'm curious as to the rationales being put forward by the 'Crats who are saying there is a consensus to promote because lack of experience is somehow weak or weaker than other reasons. As long as I have been on Wikipedia lack of experience has been the main reason for not promoting a candidate. Our Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page says: "Nomination standards. There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low." It is the only reason given on that page because it is a long standing community expectation. When Jimbo set about appointing the first admins what he was looking at was evidence of contributions, not answers to questions. We have an information page Wikipedia:Not now to which prospective candidates with little experience are directed. Lack of experience is the most common reason why candidates are unsuccessful. Temperament issues or mistakes in policy are hotly debated, but are not reasons to immediately close a RfA, while clear and obvious lack of experience is a common reason - indeed, looking at the most recent RfAs on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent and we see two clear NOTNOWS, and two withdrawns, one of those because of lack of experience.

What has happened in this RfA is 67% of those !voting felt that the answers to the questions compensated for lack of hands on experience. Others disagreed. The 'Crats should not be discounting the central concern as "weak" or "weaker", but be looking closely at the debate to see if the argument that answering questions is sufficient enough evidence of experience. If that is the case it would have far-reaching implications. This RfA would set a precedent, not only for allowing a low percentage, but also for changing the expectation that candidates should show commitment and ability mainly through contributions - it would change the balance a little, and allow more weight to the interview process than to the CV. While by itself this RfA if successful may not be enough to change our guidelines, it would be used as an example in future discussions when a candidate with little experience is nominated. As such I would urge all 'Crats to look again at the central issue, as it is important and does have implications. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing here is a group of bureaucrats that are making decisions based on a 2005 mindset. We, as an aggregate, may have made a mistake electing some of them on the assumption that they wouldn't do anything destructive with their tools and those few appear to have seen fit to punish the aggregate for having higher expectations at RfA than we did collectively 10 years ago. I always thought a longer track record was needed to really judge someone's suitability on the job, not simply their ability to ace the interview questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Point of order; This RfA would set a precedent, not only for allowing a low percentage - yes and no, I can think of RfA's that were successful at the bottom of the old (70-75%) discretionary range. Liz at 73%, Trappist the Monk at 71% and GorillaWarfare at 70.7%. So it's only unprecendented in that it falls within the new discretionary range. By the way, since this seems to have been overlooked above by a few people, a key note; discretionary means "at the discretion of". So any complaint that this discussion was unexpected or that people didn't have enough time to prepare for it is really a complaint of "I didn't take the discretionary range seriously and assumed [poorly] that this would really mean automatic failure". Not directed at you Silk Tork. I haven't got a strong opinion on the general point about experience as a general measure of an admins ability, I find that argument to be a double-edged sword and would, even though I fully support the candidacy, take each such rationale into consideration on its own merits. In my personal opinion, there is a significant value difference between oppose #83 (no reasonable rationale provided), #63 (a punch at the supporters more than anything else) and #79 (a well reasoned and thorough explanation of the concerns held). I'll summarize it this way. I am unswayed at all by an oppose of "not enough experience", but, would give greater consideration to "declares an interest in new pages patrol, but, has not participated tangibly in this facet of the encyclopaedia in recent years for me to take it into serious consideration" - [paraphrase of part of Xaosflux's full oppose (#79)]. Since I'm here I'll give my two cents on why I support the candidate and why I am not moved (at all) by experience based votes. You can have all experience in the world, write fantastic articles, and have a thorough understanding of Wiki policies and guidelines, but, if you don't have a suitable temperament then you're going to be a shit admin. Hastiness, spitefulness, impatience, and an unwillingness to listen are some of the worst traits that come to mind. By contrast, a low experience editor with good temperament and an ability to demonstrate knowledge of the policies and guidelines can easily become a good admin. I am far more concerned with how an admin will behave with the tools, then any metric (which I think is often useful) of edits. I find Golden Ring to be in the second category; good temperament, could use more experience, will make a good admin given the tools now. I.e. good enough is good enough. To each their own I guess. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there are good arguments on both sides of the evidence debate, and I think those arguments are being closely looked at. I'm not sure how I would !vote if I were a 'Crat looking at this. There was a steady increase in folks !voting support, but it wasn't significant - and that point has been brought up. There was only one significant concern (outside of experience) that was brought up, but despite being brought up early was not regarded as important enough to impact on the RfA - and that point has also been brought up. The thing does come down to the debate around are the quality of the answers sufficient enough to outweigh hands on experience. I think if I were a 'Crat my quibble would be that while the community have lowered the consensus threshold for admins, they have not lowered the consensus threshold for changes to policy or accepted practise. Even though this is being talked about as a special case due to the quality of the answers, it would still be used as a precedent for the community lowering its expectation that admins need hands on experience, so it would influence the direction that RfA would take. I'm not entirely sure that 67% is enough, though it is damned close. I think something that might tip me to say No consensus is that such an outcome would have little impact on either Wikipedia or GoldenRing, who could take on board the concerns of lack on hands on experience, do some positive hands on editing, and apply again in six months, while a Consensus outcome would have an impact on future expectations. But then I might consider that our policies and guidelines reflect actual Wikipedia activity, and here is a demonstration of the community feeling that evidence of clue is more important than edit count, so such a demonstration should have an impact on future RfAs. But then, is 67% enough of a demonstration.... Gee, it's enough you send you round and round in circles. Part of me is glad I'm not a 'Crat, while another part would love to get involved in that 'Crat discussion! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Are the quality of the answers sufficient enough to outweigh hands on experience - well, in a sentence, that is why we've ended up here isn't it. This RfA has been very much borderline and I think that we'd practically hit the peak support/oppose ratio (67%) when the crat chat started. Either way this discussion goes it will closely reflect consensus, a no consensus is an equally justifiable ruling as a weak consensus to promote. I know a consensus to promote outcome would set precedent, but, I only see one real effect; the (possible) devaluation of the "not enough experience" argument. Really I'm split up on RfA issues; in some respects I'd like it more stringent, in others more flexible. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate my grumbling that was attached to my neutral vote: If RfA were more like BRfA, and allowed a candidate meeting objective qualifications a trial run using the tools (after which a full-dress discussion ensued and focused on the conduct during the trial run), this would be a hundred times easier. I don't expect that any acceptable formulation of trial qualifications would have excluded GoldenRing, and the evidence of positive or negative use of the tools (or insufficient use of the tools) would be far more useful than anything we relied on in this discussion. In that regard, I find the rationale that at least one 'crat has articulated that "not enough experience" votes should be considered weaker rationales frustrating. When there's not enough evidence, there's just not enough evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume that at some point in the past that has actually been suggested and rejected? It seems, you see, to be a (near- / almost-)perfect compromise for both parties- it would enable the community to 'dish out' the toolbag with a lot more latitude, and take it back as easily; whilst the candidate would get some hands-on experience which would demonstrate their suitabilty and give them the chance to decide if they didn't, after all, want the position. All without the palava of a full-blown RfA. Or Arbcom, even :) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 11:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen this specific mechanism suggested before, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's been suggested in the past. I know we used to have a lot more "ride along" or apprentice-like mechanisms where an experienced admin could prep an RFA hopeful, but to my knowledge those are all dead, likely for lack of participation, though also possibly for lack of RfA outcome changes. Who knows, maybe I'm onto something here. Honestly, with any of the RfAs I've opposed recently, in retrospect I'd have happily supported a month's trial for all of them just based on their credentials. The keys have to be reassuring our RfA participants that the probationer could have his or her tools pulled summarily in the event of a major foul-up, and ensuring that the proper probation regime was developed to minimize the risk of probationers returning to the confirmation with insufficient breadth of admin experience for people to evaluate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I will say, though, that I am thoroughly unimpressed with the suggestion that concerns about a candidate's lack of experience could be adequately addressed simply by asking RfA questions and quizzing on policy. As an analogy, I could easily describe to you, in great detail, the steps involved in bringing a lawsuit against a government agency to compel it to take some specific action, or in litigating a class action lawsuit. I could probably describe it in such detail that many normal attorneys would think I knew enough to give it a try. Fact of the matter is, I don't know a damn thing about those things in practice. RfA questions, especially those that are quiz-like or ask for seemingly open-ended inquiries on the candidate's feelings about a certain policy, are an abysmally poor way to evaluate a candidate's actual appreciation of those policies and how he or she integrates those into everyday editing and an everyday approach to Wikipedia. Perhaps the worst part of it is how recycled most questions tend to be—one can find a roadmap on how to respond just by skimming past RfAs. Though I do believe candidates should do that: One of my biggest pet peeves is an underpolished and underprepared RfA candidate. My point, however, is that RfA questions only really test the candidate in terms of applying pressure, not in gaining any real insight into how the candidate will apply policy. And moreover, addressing the original suggestion, the idea that concerns about a candidate's general lack of experience on Wikipedia should be adequately addressable by asking questions about specific areas of policy or procedure is absurd. This is the opposite of why we adjusted the discretionary window downwards. We wanted to lower barriers to adminship so editors who have gotten their hands dirty in disputes before wouldn't get their RfAs ruined (or pushed into retirement) by people who cherrypick that one dispute out of ten thousand edits. Giving an inexperienced editor both the benefit of the lowered discretionary window and discounting voters who point out that editor's inexperience is a recipe for disaster, and is only going to signal a return to hardcore nitpicking in more skeptical RfA participants. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Asynchronous Admin Score

GR scores an atrocious 204.3 out of 1000 on the Asynchronous Admin Score: [1]. I was fairly mild in my wording in my !vote at the RfA (simply to be polite), but that score on this analyzer is a serious yikes for me. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons from the supporters weren't based on arbitrary numbers and benchmarks though Softlavender. The dominant theme was that focusing only edit count, number of page created, etc. would be even more misleading than usual because quality of edits is always a better predictor of someone being a competent and beneficial admin than quantity. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The benchmarks and numbers are not "arbitrary" (please use the tool); they are hallmarks of a well-versed editor who has enough all-round experience to competently perform the job. There is nothing "misleading" about expecting adequate experience and preparation. As it is, 67% of S/O !votes and 64% of !votes overall (S/O/N) is simply an inadequate mandate from the community, in my opinion. The appointing of an admin, which is a heavy and complex responsibility these days (as opposed to 10 or 15 years ago) needs an effective and obvious mandate from the community, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect SL, a large portion of these discussions has been about the use of lies, damned lies, and statistics. These numbers are arbitrary in all respects. You are using a tool created by another user (admin?) to dictate (not even estimate) the quality of an admin candidate. That is by definition arbitrary; personal whim trumping reason or analysis. Numbers are not an analysis. For example, the AA tool provides the number of edits made (WP:EDITCOUNTITIS), but, has no measure for the quality of any of those edits. What is of greater value 2,000 good edits or 10,000 mediocre edits? the quality of the edits is not measureable with a simple tool; even with ORES. This is just an example and I'd point to "page creations" being the worst offender here; -140 points for having never created a page... where the hell was that number plucked from? We're all entitled to our opinions and they form the basis for most arguments (support and oppose) at RfA, but, while I agree that appointing an admin now is different to 10 years ago, I disagree as to how significant that change is. It is not a "heavy and complex responsibility" to elect a new admin, if it were we'd have a) a more stringent vetting process for candidates and b) limitations on who can partipicate in that process. A new editor is as entitled to a vote (with literally zero experience, knowledge, or ability to carefully consider the candidate) as a seasoned veteran editor/admin/bureaucrat - and both votes will receive the same weight. If this were on the level of a Congressional hearing for a Supreme Court Justice nominee only Senators would have the ability to vote, not, every Tom, Dick and Harry. I take the SCJ comparison due to the normally required "60 vote supermajority" (out of 100 senators = 60%) which is still a lower bar than our, at bare minimum, 65%, and in general, 75%. Seriously, we hold admin candidates to greater scrutiny that the Senate did Neil Gorsuch for his nomination to the 10th circuit to which, literally, only one person showed up - Feinstein if I recall correctly. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not "dictating" anything. I am saying that by any yardstick this candidate has very little experience in general and very little experience overall. If you do not believe that adminship is a heavy and complex responsibility these days, then I simply have nothing to say to you. Moreover, since you have only been on wiki for less than 2.5 years, I do not personally believe you can effectively opine on how the encyclopedia, much less adminship, has changed in 10 or 15 years. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictating was the wrong word, but, I can't think of a word suitable to describe it. You weren't suggesting that the candidate is insufficiently qualified, you were baulking at bureaucrats considering the possibility of "consensus to promote" given on how unqualified the candidate is in your opinion - "atrocious score" is what really gives me this impression. I'm not sure that that is a much better description, but, I hope we can get past that to get to the meat of the point.
SL, I have the ability to read and observe. This is a skill that people have. I did not have to be present at Charlemagne's coronation 1300 years ago to be able to profer an opinion on it. I vew your "effectively opining" argument as ... in nicest possible terms, very poor and mildly insulting. I agree (with you) that things have changed because a) that change is observable to the naked eye (logs exist for a reason and I do look at them), and b) because people repeatedly bring it up at every. single. RfA. to demonstrate either how big, or, how small a deal adminship is. Feel free to look down at my 2 and a bit years tenure from your 10 years and 1 month, but, that's not an argument (or counterargument) and does not convince me to change my position at all.
No, I do not believe that adminship is "a heavy and complex responsibility". What duty does an admin have? only one, consequences for actions they take as an admin, that's it. I fly privately and am looking to get into the aviation industry, I deal with duty of care (to passengers, other operators, and ground personnel) and strict liability on a daily basis. I am telling you this so that you can understand what perspective (and/or biases) I am commenting from - I believe admins bear no comparison here. Now, we can discuss till the cows come home how badly admin accountability is handled and the existence of admin cabals, but, that is a separate discussion. I can, however, grant you on a silver platter that there are innumerable complexities that admins face and deal with regularly. I don't want to downplay the work admins do, but, you are, imho, significantly overplaying it. I am pushed to give an equal response in the opposite direction. Tl;dr I respectfully dissent. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It still remains that you have not personally experienced the enormous changes that have occurred on Wikipedia over the past 10 to 15 years. If you do not like the word "atrocious", then I'll state it as pure fact: GR scored 20% on the scale. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no I am not concerned by the use of "atrocious" or any other descriptive term - your prerogative to explain things as you see fit. I'm not going to police your language, that would be both degrading and silly. My opinion is simply that an automatic measure is not (imo) a substitute for an analysis. We disagree on the value of the measure itself, I think we can accept that we disagree and thus have differing opinions. Oh, and of course, reading about x is different to experiencing x - I just don't feel that chucking my opinion out with the trash because I wasn't there is fair - much as I hate to describe things as fair or unfair because "life isn't fair". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I have a score of 1476.6 on that admin scoring system, and it is still loading pages created. I tested it on a non-admin whose last RFA failed badly, they got over 1100. At least we now know where the pages created as an RFA metric seems to be coming from. Bots work on easily measured things such as redlinks in CSD logs and pages created, rather than more relevant things for an admin candidate such as accurate AIV or UAA reports, and content added with inline cites. Now if someone could produce an RFA score that listed sources cited that would be interesting. ϢereSpielChequers 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Well, it's sort of under permenent deveolpment here. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's just let the Bureaucrats get on with it

Folks, I !voted Oppose to this. However, I believe in consensus - the consensus in this case is that the RfA ended in the discretionary zone and the Bureaucrats get to decide. Making negative comments about them, or bringing up things that nobody thought to bring up during the actual RfA, doesn't reflect well. Frankly, if people expect their comments to change the outcome then they're deluding themselves, so what's the point of flinging virtual poo around? Let's all take a breath and go back to fighting with helping new editors promote their fringe theories that you can change your eyes from brown to blue through the power of thought (I'm not making this up). Exemplo347 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wizardman couldn't put it better.However, I'd say give them the tools. The user had 67% of support. What I don't like about the outcome of this RfA is some people saying opposes had a week basis. Opposes are as valid as supports or neutral votes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. More than twice as many !voted yes than no, which leaves it to the crats. I !voted oppose, but I will respect their decision, whatever that is. Jonathunder (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, God please. I think half this discussion could probably be hatted with a gratuitous link to wikt:discretion. TimothyJosephWood 14:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The bureaucrats do not get to "decide". They get to assess consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

wikt:discretion TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats lays out their job when it comes to promotions. You'll apparently be shocked to find that it has nothing to do with discretion and everything to do with assessing consensus. I'm baffled that you're arguing against that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm shocked that neither WP:CRAT nor WP:RFA defines the scope of that discretion in any meaningful way, or seems to really deeply address the application of the discretionary zone at all. Probably because it's never blown up into a giant shit storm that required a reevaluation of policy. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the things repeated most concerning 'crats is that they have discretion because they rarely use it. I think the controversy that would ensue with a successful close, especially since right now the 'crats can't seem to come to a consensus amongst themselves yet demonstrates why they rarely use it, because this is certainly messy. That said, xeno's statement I think does a very good job at justifying a successful close without underweighing the opinions of those of us who opposed based on no track record to evaluate. While it might not be the outcome I personally think should happen, I can get behind that reasoning, and I think its probably the most well thought out statement of the entire 'crat chat thus far. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I think it's always been clear that crats use their discretion in the sense of assessing what consensus exists. The "discretionary zone" implies discretion as to what the consensus is, not that they have discretion to choose a result based on their personal judgements of which rationales they agree with. Even the crats would agree with that, I believe. It's why we go on and on about selecting them for their ability to read consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You're pretty obviously arguing semantics, and if you can't see that, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, if you replace which rationales they agree with with which rationales they feel are valid according to policies and guidelines then you've pretty much described the entire way that consensus works. If you think this feels like a WP:Supervote then that's probably because it is, intentionally or otherwise, kindof designed that way, because at some point, crats actually shouldn't participate in a discussion because they're crats, and there's only 22 of them. So you can try to fix the crat problem, or you can try to fix the lack of guidance on the discretionary area, but you can't fix them when they've sat for years the way they are and finally come to the point where they actually matter. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob's point is very clearly not about semantics, the point being that the discretion given to the bureaucrats is about evaluating consensus and not about evaluating things such as what is or isn't an acceptable opposition. In particular, I would appreciate @WJBscribe:'s pointing to a specific policy that says explicitly that experience is considered to be a less weighty objection than those based on temperament and other factors. I am not familiar with that policy, but I'm willing to be educated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

So basically, what I hear y'all saying is that all !votes are created equal, no rationale is superior to another rationale, !votes really are votes, thus, in practice, "discretionary range" really means 71%=pass, 69%=fail and 70%=flip a coin/too close to call. wbm1058 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, if you hear that, you're not getting the right message. What is being said is that the "discretion" of the 'crats does not extend to de-certifying whole classes of objections as being less important than other objections, on no basis in policy or procedure that I'm aware of. WJBScribe's "passing" of GoldenRing is based primarily on the notion that "not enough experience" is not as serious or weighty an objection as "bad temperament" or "doesn't understand policy". It is only in that way that GR's position on the low end of the discretionary range can be converted into a determination of a consensus to pass, which is what bureaucrats are charged to do, not to determine what their own personal opinion is about the candidate. Only in that manner can 67% be made to be equal to a straight out 75% passing !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That is actually what has happened BMK. Not one crat has said anything coming close to resembling "I feel x about the candidate, therefore the consensus is y". Every single 'crat has spoken specifically about the arguments presented. If the bureaucrats can't make a value judgement [read:the ability to come to a conclusion about a question based on their own individual reasoning] about the arguments then there is no point in having the crat chat in the first place. You can say that they have made a poor judgement, but, that is entirely what has been entrusted to them as 'crats. The 'crats did exactly what they were charged to do - adjudicate. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll just keep this in mind when they're up for re-election. Oh, wait a moment.... Coretheapple (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There's the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline. Basically when you say you haven't seen sufficient evidence of their competence, you are assuming the possibility of incompetence. That should carry less weight than evidence of actual demonstrated incompetence. The discretionary range lets in a few at the lower end where incompetence is merely being assumed, and excludes a few at the higher end where substantive incompetence was demonstated. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are more along the lines of appellate court judges (life appointment), then U.S. senators (six year terms) or ARBCOM (two year term, previously three). I agree with the below by TJW. As rendered, the power of bureaucrats in a discussion like this is ... well unlimited if my reading of WP:RfA is correct. A couple people mentioned that their power of discretion is in determining consensus, but, no such clause or restriction exists on the RfA page and it leaves me with the impression that their power is to determine outcome. The choice of words is very specific in this regard. I wouldn't mind clearer wording at least than currently exists. I'm replying to Coretheapple, I think Wbm is replying to BMK directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're correct on your first point, and perhaps this situation may inspire another look at bureaucrats receiving lifetime appointments. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

When the discussions came up to lower the "discretionary range", my reading of the policy was that even the "discretionary range" was merely advisory, so in extreme circumstances the bureaucrats are empowered to let someone in even below 65% or exclude someone above 75%. While the likelihood of that happening is very small, it's not flat-out prohibited. wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

See my instinct was that at below 65% an RfA could succeed only where extraneous circumstances (like a 100 sockpuppet opposes or something) impacted on the RfA and that above 75% an RfA would fail where the candidate could be demonstrably classed as unsuitable for the role - they're a sockpuppet for example. But again, the RfA page is unclear on what the exceptions to "almost all" and "most" are. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly; the problem is caused by the framing- only absolutes can have precise exemptions, so where there are non, there can be none. It's brilliant really. Just like the bloke from The Terminator said, actually... — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Overall, I happy to disagree about the specifics, and although the particular RfA is now rendered moot, the overall argument probably isn't, and if someone wants to work on a potential draft clarifying the scope of Bureaucrat discretion in cases like these, I'm sure there's no dearth of editors willing to weigh in, myself included. On the face of it, it doesn't seem like a monumental task, and could probably be neatly done in under 200 words. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging on questions - not a substitute

@WJBscribe: - Your, 'opposers could ask questions', makes no sense for the oppose, which was, in the trenches experience is real, useful basis to judge. It's common sense: 'walk the walk, not talk the talk.' Without the candidate visibly having been much or minimally engaged in applying or discussing in real time, and yes having real disagreements, in/on article and policy main/talk pages on issues surrounding V/NPOV/OR/BLP/ or CVIO just to name the core policies, or on the behavior policies, like NPA or COI etc, where it's actual real-time in the controversy dealing that matters (and not in "above it all" manner), the basis to get to 'yes' is not there. Why should/would many of us go along, now or in the future when dealing with this candidate. Your seeming answer, 'he has not done terribly, yet,' is, given the record, just an acknowledgement, 'he has not done, in practice'.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated above, WJB's suggestion reflects a perception of valid RfA opposes being for specific incidents. This is what we wanted to get rid of when we reformed RfA: Get rid of the meat grinder effect so people could survive the process. Opposers opposing for cherrypicked outlier reasons rather than based on a fair evaluation of the candidate as a whole is what makes passing RfA like running a gauntlet. What's happening here will make RfA outcomes substantially less predictable at the outset for most editors simply because it effectively commands RfA skeptics to focus on personalities and damaging diffs rather than conducting a fair evaluation of the candidate as a whole. Moreover, it signals the true conversion of RfA into an adversarial process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Observation on the discussion

Both the RFA discussion and the meta-discussion on this page illustrate the same fundamental difference to decisionmaking.

On one extreme, some people favour score- or checkbox-criteria-based decisionmaking, fully defining a set of parameters beforehand and then letting the decision "make itself" according to the "score". On the other extreme, other favour an exploratory discussion where the crucial "fault lines", and ultimately the right decision, emerge organically from the discussion. Of course, those are extremes, but people closer to one extreme tend to get extremely uncomfortable with the thought processes of the other side.

In this case, conventional quantitative criteria indicated GR is not demonstrably ready, and so the AFD largely split into 2 camps. Those (Objectivist) essentially saying "my personal score algorithm flashes 'Fail'; what GR might be demonstrating in other ways is not relevant" and those (Subjectivist) saying "there are strong positive unique indicators here (thoughtfulness, temperament); those trump whatever some decision heuristic calibrated on other, nonexceptional or differently-exceptional cases would imply."

The philosophies of these 2 camps are spilling over into this meta-discussion. Those of us, like me, who fall into the Subjectivist camp, are saying, "go ahead, bureaucrats, hash it out; be messy; this is why we pay you the big bucks." Those in the Objectivist camp are really disconcerted by that. So where WJBScribe was musing essentially "given this is messy, we need to think about strength of the arguments and it strikes me that....", Rob13 has Objectivist heart failure: (paraphrase) "OMG, bureaucrats are going to apply a weighting factor <1 to a whole class of !votes and so skew The Algorithm. It's unfair we didn't know the criteria for this since we would have done Something to prevent our vote being underweighted." Softlavender says, effectively, "not only not experienced enough, but look how woefully inexperienced based on someone's quantitative objectivist scale", presumably since to them such quantitative Evidence increases persuasiveness.

The good news is that this was actually a very clean RFA. Lots of people participated and more of them explained their !vote (whatever camp they fall into) than sometimes happens. There were no surprise revelations, inaccurate red herrings, clearly inappropriate rationales, or strident conflicts. The key issues were out in the open pretty quickly and !voters appeared to engage with them as much as they each individually viewed them as relevant. Opinion split quite cleanly, starting with a ratio of about 3:2, towards the end closer to 4:1, averaging 2:1 (a trend not at all surprising since Objectivists will make up their mind as soon as their personal algorithm yields an outcome, while Subjectivists are more likely to reflect and discuss for some time first). This will therefore actually be a very good precedent-setting RFA since there is nothing to "clean up" about it. It will establish either that the 65-75% "discretion zone" is being applied as an opportunity for bureaucrats to dig deeper and look through any noise, but ultimately a clean split of reasonably-held opinions of this level does not constitute consensus. Or it may establish that such a split is deemed enough to trust someone with the mop. Or that in such a situation bureaucrat discretion is applied by their own subjective evaluation of persuasiveness of the arguments raised. In my opinion, all of these are acceptable resolutions. Martinp (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding: my use of the labels Subjectivist and Objectivist above is a bit nonstandard (they mean something slightly different in decision theory), but couldn't think of simple, better labels right now! Martinp (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, "involvement" , if by the you mean depth of testable experiences, is most certainly not just quantitative, it is also qualitative. Visible practiced application is not qualified in not doing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I just find it disconcerting to find that the well-grounded concerns of dozens of editors, that this person just doesn't have enough experience, is being viewed as secondary to other factors. To me and many others the lack of experience was a threshold issue. The current discussion seems to be whether bureaucrats will rationalize promotion of this editor in the face of a clear lack of consensus. At the moment there is a lack of consensus in determining whether there was or was not a consensus, so it will be interesting if a simple majority will be sufficient in resolving this question, or whether the crats need to find a consensus among themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Rationalize promotion" and "clear lack of consensus" are loaded terms, here. It is equally possible to say the 2/3 fairly "noise-free" support among RFA participants *is* clear consensus to promote, according to the community-endorsed lowered discretionary range in particular. And likewise that 2/3 of the bureaucrats agreeing about it *is* clear consensus as well. It is also possible to say all of this is in the discretionary range where consensus should be divined by qualitative judgment, which includes the bureaucrats' best attempts to gauge relative importance and durability of individual factors raised. A lot of people are talking about WJBScribe's "weaker" comment (which can be interpreted in a range of ways); if one feels this should be a no-consensus close, I also think one needs to address his comment, "if an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion, then I have difficulty imagining the sort of discussion that could succeed at the low end of the discretionary range." (There is argument against his comment, just not one I personally agree with: that the low end of the discretionary range is intended only to allow bureaucrats to "de-noise" a (say) 65% support RFA, but they should only promote if after doing so there is a consensus much higher once that is done; so that an RFA like this should not pass but a hypothetical future RFA with apparent 65% support, which increases to (say) 75% when a whole bunch of clearly misguided or factually inaccurate opposes are excluded, is his requested example of one that should. For overabundance of clarity, no-one is arguing the opposes are "noise" here - they are thoughtfully held and not unreasonable, just rejected with equal thoughtfulness by a significant supermajority.) Martinp (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"well-grounded concerns of dozens of editors" blatantly ignores the well-grounded enthusiasm of nearly two hundred editors.--v/r - TP 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Noise"? Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis, neither has to be ignored, blatantly or otherwise. There is simply no consensus unless you move the goal posts. Many editors viewed the lack of experience as a disqualifier, a threshold issue, and didn't even bother to examine his qualificatiosn beyond that or his answers to the questions. Now we're told: oh your concern with his lack of edits is a lot of "noise." Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just the thing: the goalposts were moved - by community consensus. Community consensus is that our requirements have become too strict and editors are opposing for less than reasonable reasons. Not all, but enough that it has made RfA a negative and aggressive place. The community agreed that lowering the threshold was a reasonable counter measure.--v/r - TP 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what I had in mind was the sudden revelation, after conclusion of the discussion, that opposing this editor on the basis of his edit count (which strikes many as a disqualifier) is not as consequential as opposing on other grounds. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin you asked: I also think one needs to address his comment, "if an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion, then I have difficulty imagining the sort of discussion that could succeed at the low end of the discretionary range."

There are at least two responses:

• Measured discretion does not give the benefit of doubt to a "dark horse" -- someone who had proven himself in the open, over and over, in actual experiences with the rest of the community would be a more likely candidate for benefit of the doubt by the Crats.

• Nor does measured discretion give the benefit of the doubt to a 'break-from-past-consensus' - not only is that poor rationale (we nor the community have ever done this before, so let's do it do it because imagination fails), it is recipe for ignoring actual consensus - which is itself demonstrated over, and over. Benefit of the doubt should more likely go to the candidate, who does not present an anomaly.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. An editor who had a couple minor mistakes brought up in opposes over 20,000 edits in difficult areas should be given the benefit of the doubt over an editor who had a couple minor mistakes brought up in opposes over 2,000 edits that don't include getting involved in any difficult areas. The former obviously speaks more strongly to the candidate's ability to handle difficult situations well. I'm not saying the latter can't handle such situations, but we just don't know. It's a mystery. But then again, it's perhaps not surprising that many of the supporting bureaucrats consider inactivity to be a virtue, considering that half of them have 602 edits combined in 2016. All three of those bureaucrats either directly discounted concerns of activity and experience or invoked another bureaucrat's arguments which did. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"someone who had proven himself in the open...would be a more likely candidate for benefit of the doubt" - Except that in practice we know this never happens. The community is more likely to go for blood. If what you said were true, you'd have hordes of established and experienced editors at RfA right now.--v/r - TP 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: We're comparing two hypothetical editors with equal support percentages and saying what should happen in a crat chat, so commentary about how the community votes is irrelevant. It would become true if the bureaucrats appropriately considered a large record with few mistakes to be grounds for promotion in a crat chat. This has nothing to do with the community. The bureaucrats go for blood on a couple mistakes pointed out by a minority of the community, but they see no problem with someone who hasn't even had the opportunity to make such mistakes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a really short memory. I'd expect you to be more open to the idea. Editcountitis isn't the only plague at RfA. Time of Service also plagues RfA. You've overcome one and you're holding this candidate to the other.--v/r - TP 21:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @TParis By that logic, experience counts for diddly-squat. Maybe it doesn't. But it does if you want experienced admins. I don't think it's a good idea to pick admins who haven't managed to offend anybody because they just haven't done all that much. But they have a pulse, they answered a few questions. Whatever. Let's elevate em to a lifetime post. P.S. being an admin is a very big deal, essay to the contrary notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's be frank, here. Wouldn't you prefer a system where NOBIGDEAL was the norm and removing an admin was a simple matter?--v/r - TP 21:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh there's no question that if there admins were not a class of super-users, not removable except for major transgressions like socking, it would have many positive results. One would be that selection would not produce anxiety in the community to the extent it currently does. By the way, as you know "nobigdeal" is actually policy (I was in error when I said "essay") so it is supposed to be the norm. Instead it's a kind of inside joke. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: "it's perhaps not surprising that many of the supporting bureaucrats consider inactivity to be a virtue, considering that half of them have 602 edits combined in 2016" is low. I appreciate your single-handed widening of the Overton window concerning what the 'crat chat should be about, but you have already made the point about supervoting based on personal preference without having to dig some dirt. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Martinp's comment: "the low end of the discretionary range is intended only to allow bureaucrats to "de-noise" a (say) 65% support RFA, but they should only promote if after doing so there is a consensus much higher once that is done; so that an RFA like this should not pass but a hypothetical future RFA with apparent 65% support, which increases to (say) 75% when a whole bunch of clearly misguided or factually inaccurate opposes are excluded" is interesting, and raises a point that perhaps hasn't been explored fully enough. The reflection on "If an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion..." is also well made, because that comment as it stands could be interpreted as that the community have lowered the percentage needed to become an admin, though Martinp's comment suggests that the case here is that the community would like the 'Crats to apply the usual consensus sifting to see if there is significant consensus (which is generally around 75%). I'm not sure if it is clear enough to the 'Crats or the community at large what is expected of 'Crats during these discussions at the new lower discretionary range. Is it closer to WJBscribe's view or Martinp's view? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Silktork, happy that you found my comments useful, but noting for the record that the part you quoted was me deliberately articulating a plausible argument that I actually disagree with (and labeled as such). My personal view is actually the same as WJBscribe, though I recognize that opinions may vary and some might prefer the reasoning you quoted. So by all means lets have discussion about it but let's not call it "Martinp's view", please. Martinp (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding it rather ironic that the editor leading the brigade for the argument that "GoldenRing just doesn't have enough of a track record to be able to reasonably judge their fitness for administrator" himself was promoted to administrator based on a track record that those opposing his candidacy characterized as "barely 9 months of active editing". I certainly never anticipated all the drama this admin would involve himself in barely nine months after his promotion. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I went in expecting that a crat chat would close as unsuccessful if I was in the discretionary zone, in light of my tenure. Having said that, in my 13 months of editing (not 9) before my RfA, my record was over 15 times larger than the record here. I had more closes, including many difficult closes, than this candidate has total contributions in the year prior to their RfA. There is little comparison, but again, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me if I had finished in the discretionary range and the crats closed it unsuccessful. I would have respected that the community didn't think my record was sufficient. I certainly considered the opposes based on my tenure to be valid opposes that didn't warrant discounting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's unkind and unfair. I see from the discussion (which I didn't participate in) that this editor (Rob) had "three GAs and 39 DYKs" vs. zero (I believe) for the editor under discussion here (GoldenRing). This in addition to his other work. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is ironic, irony gives a lesson: take lack of track record seriously. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to WJBscribe

Saying questions are an automatically acceptable substitute for observable proficiency is absolutely ludicrous, and completely misses the point of requiring admins to be proficient. I, and many other editors, do not trust someone's crafted responses to be enough to get the right. We don't have some form of "God-like" ability to see if someone is truthful, but we can determine whether they are proficient. To do so we, as always, need a substantial length of contributions to review, in order to determine whether someone can actually handle some of the more difficult arenas of the site (in a manner compliant with all community requirements); this is not some silly requirement. I understand that "editcountitits" is absolutely ridiculous at times at RFA (and I'm painfully aware of the need for admins), but there's a huge difference between requiring someone to have 10,000 edits and requiring that they have more than 554 article-space edits. This comes down to a question of literal experience. And admins are not just required to be experienced, they are required to be proficient. To pretend that this editor is anything close to proficient truly blows my mind. WJBscribe, if this goes through at such a low side of the discretionary range, without clear consensus in the community that experience no longer matters before one becomes an admin, I do not think that I (nor many others) will possibly be able to take this system seriously anymore (nor the idea that crats must make their decisions impartially, as I thought they had been entrusted to do by the community). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. To simply brush aside those opposes as an extension of "they must have 20,000+ edits" is a misreading of the purpose behind those opposes in the first place. Anyone can answer questions. We can't know if they are going to actually be able to be proficient since there simply isn't enough information to go on in any area. The 'crats seem to be making a precedent here that is going to have to be adhered to in the future. Else all they are doing is playing a cruel game of favoritism amongst themselves. --Majora (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not arguing for or against you there but you do realize that we wouldn't be having a crat chat if not a substantial number of editors had disagreed with that reasoning? Your comment seems to imply that Will is replacing the community's arguments with his own when all he did was to point out that a majority of the community did disagree with the argument you are now making. Personally, I am inclined to agree that it's inconsistent to say the least when candidates with far more edits have failed for not having enough experience but then again, those RfAs never landed in the discretionary range (or where withdrawn before they could). In the last three crat chats (i. e. in all chats in 2015 and 2016) that ended in unsuccessful (for RfAs by Godsy (mentioned above), Cyberpower678 and Rich Farmbrough 2), lack of experience was never the most pressing argument against promotion. Maybe the community has really changed their expectations and GoldenRing is the first one who just stuck with it despite early opposition while other, more "worthy", candidates withdrew too early. However one feels about this candidate (who I opposed), we should trust our crats to assess the consensus at the RfA correctly. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be bothered by this process if "no significant editing experience necessary" had been previously known prior to the initiation of this RfA. I would suggest that what the crats are doing here is to make the process harder for future admin candidates, even ones that otherwise might seem disqualified by something obvious (in this case, lack of editing). Admin candidates are going to be scrutinized much harder to ensure that nothing like this happens again, that no stone is unturned in every RfA. So if you think the process is a "trial by fire" now, watch what happens in the future. Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee - I know you, you're very bright. You've accomplished this earlier than many other people. What would happen if you were always held to people's judgement and perception about the level of experience you had rather than your strengths and aptitudes?--v/r - TP 21:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I came anywhere close to creating such a false dichotomy. One can, and should, have experience and clearly identifiable strengths which fit the need for the tools. Is there a possibility that this user's answers to questions reflect the way this person will operate when they have the tools? Sure. But, don't try to make me forget all of the people who have straight up lied in their answers over the years either. If anyone wishes to debate whether I should have been given the tools or not, that's a discussion I'm willing to have (on an appropriate talk page). But, it is not even slightly relevant to the point made by me above: proficiency is required. You are a fellow Non-Commissioned Officer, and an intelligent one, so I'm pretty sure you understand the need for a thorough and clear record by which trustworthiness can be established before additional tasks/clearances are assigned. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally give much weight to the Q&A session, and while my content creation standards are lower than some, I do expect admins to have demonstrated an ability to add content to the pedia with inline cites to reliable sources. When I came to the RFA and read the opposes I expected to wind up an oppose. But I still looked at their edits, searching just in mainspace and ticking the ignore minor edits box, and it was easy to find edits that added cited content. Then I checked the deleted edits and found several correct G10 tags. What we don't know is whether the people who just relied on stats would have supported if like me they'd looked at the edits. Looking at this candidate and saying zero new articles created or zero file uploads isn't convincing as a reason to oppose. As for the number of edits, my first 2,400 wouldn't have sufficed for RFA, my first 10,000 didn't suffice, but I'm not sure if my first 10,000 edits involved as much effort and content creation as this candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that I didn't actually review GoldenRing's available edits, so let me clear this up for you: I did. Let's not create some fake aura of mystery around the opposes just to discredit them more. - I also never stated anything about him having "zero new articles created or zero file uploads", and I've never had a content creation standard. What I do have is a proficiency standard, and from the edits he's made so far it is almost impossible to properly determine (from looking at his edits) whether that's met here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please list some of the more difficult arenas of the site where you expect candidates to be proficient, and explain how you measure proficiency in these areas. wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern application of notability standards (only 5 AfDs since start of 2016; could be evaluated by seeing more AfD participation), ability to close discussions (could be assessed by seeing closes or even just discussion of closes that others make), knowledge of BLP (no substantial edits other than reverts of obvious vandalism since start of 2016; could be evaluated by seeing more content creation or even discussion of content on talk), knowledge of content guidelines (added only a couple sentences to one article since the start of 2016, not counting content creation done near the end of the RfA; could be evaluated by seeing some content creation or more discussion on talk pages), any understanding of how templates operate (two edits in template space, one of which was a mistake, the other of which was reverting that mistake; assessed by participating in the template or template talk namespaces - note that I'm not saying technical proficiency is desired, just an understanding of how things work), any understanding of copyright or files (zero edits in the file namespace; assessed by contributions there), any understanding of categories (zero edits in the category namespace; assessed by contributions there), and the list goes on. I'll stop there, because I believe the point is made. A candidate doesn't need all these things, but I would expect to see some. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058, Oh you mean like User:Coffee/RFA-standards, which I created over 9 years ago? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)