Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

As of 04:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Slon02
User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Dec 14, 2009 03:33:41
Unique pages edited:	13,407
Average edits per page:	1.45
Live edits:	17,988
Deleted edits:	1,426
Total edits (including deleted):	19,414

Namespace Totals

Article	8231	45.76%
Talk	929	5.16%
User	520	2.89%
User talk	6491	36.09%
Wikipedia	1183	6.58%
Wikipedia talk	518	2.88%
File	37	0.21%
File talk	9	0.05%
Template	41	0.23%
Template talk	9	0.05%
Help	2	0.01%
Help talk	1	0.01%
Category	12	0.07%
Category talk	2	0.01%
Portal	3	0.02%
	
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2009/12	898 	
2010/01	250 	
2010/02	2 	
2010/03	1 	
2010/04	519 	
2010/05	341 	
2010/06	603 	
2010/07	1388 	
2010/08	1415 	
2010/09	1383 	
2010/10	1393 	
2010/11	1293 	
2010/12	475 	
2011/01	1037 	
2011/02	853 	
2011/03	732 	
2011/04	163 	
2011/05	641 	
2011/06	758 	
2011/07	923 	
2011/08	332 	
2011/09	1077 	
2011/10	234 	
2011/11	732 	
2011/12	545 	

Top edited pages
(hide)Article

    57 - Arctic_policy_of_Russia
    56 - Renewable_energy_in_Russia
    28 - List_of_Ambassadors_of_Russia_to_France
    26 - Hispanism
    26 - Vladimir_Teplyakov
    17 - Cambodian–Vietnamese_War
    16 - Periyar_E._V._Ramasamy
    16 - Greek_Civil_War
    15 - Archaic_Greece
    14 - Environmental_issues_in_Russia


(hide)Talk

    8 - Renewable_energy_in_Russia/GA1
    6 - Tamil_Nadu_Newsprint_and_Papers
    5 - Brandeis_blue
    5 - Renewable_energy_in_Russia
    5 - Redwood_(color)
    4 - Foreign_trade_of_the_United_States
    4 - Municipal_council
    4 - Amethyst_(color)
    4 - Persian_orange
    4 - Cool_grey


(hide)User

    191 - Slon02/CSDlog
    111 - Slon02/CSD_log
    107 - Slon02
    17 - Slon02/monobook.js
    15 - Slon02/PROD_log
    12 - Slon02/huggle.css
    5 - Slon02/July_drive
    3 - Taroaldo
    3 - Shirik
    2 - Koujiatwolf


(hide)User talk

    125 - Slon02
    17 - Fetchcomms
    10 - WereSpielChequers
    9 - Kudpung
    8 - Diannaa
    7 - The_Utahraptor
    6 - Relljam15
    6 - Greyhood
    6 - Wayne_Slam
    5 - Capolinho


(hide)Wikipedia

    218 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    149 - Huggle/Whitelist
    50 - WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_eliminat...
    50 - Articles_for_creation/Redirects
    48 - Requests_for_page_protection
    48 - Files_for_upload
    42 - WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests
    23 - WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests/Archive...
    20 - Requests_for_adminship/Slon02_3
    20 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention


(hide)Wikipedia talk

    10 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
    10 - WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors
    6 - WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators
    4 - Articles_for_creation/Scream_World_Tour
    4 - WikiProject_Spain
    4 - Articles_for_creation/Beauty_Without_Cruelty
    3 - WikiProject_Color
    3 - WikiProject_Ireland
    3 - Articles_for_creation/Chiniot_Islamia_School
    3 - Articles_for_creation/Cheese_Rock_Fish


(hide)File

    2 - 1-tepliakov.jpg
    2 - European_Arboriculture_Council.gif
    2 - Platform_Computer_logo.gif
    2 - Mecwacarelogo.jpg
    1 - N3_-_Eve_of_Tahiti.jpg
    1 - Stuck_in_the_80s_logo.jpg
    1 - ME!inblue.jpg
    1 - Burton.JPG
    1 - Delta_Spirit_-_History_from_below.jpg
    1 - Bones-s1-dvd.jpg


(hide)File talk

    1 - ESF_logo.jpg
    1 - Fushizen_na_Girl_Natural_ni_Koishite.jpg
    1 - Maemo5-screenshot.png
    1 - Magnum_Carnage.jpg
    1 - Platform_Computer_logo.gif
    1 - Manuel_Schenkhuizen.jpg
    1 - European_Arboriculture_Council.gif
    1 - Worms_Reloaded.jpg
    1 - Hidayat_tv.jpg


(hide)Template

    23 - Vandalism_information
    3 - Irish_barnstar
    3 - Spanish_barnstar
    2 - Finnish_barnstar
    2 - Districts_of_Murmansk_Oblast
    1 - Croats
    1 - Misleading/sandbox
    1 - Arkhangelsk_Oblast
    1 - Shades_of_red
    1 - Update/doc


(hide)Template talk

    3 - Did_you_know
    2 - Did_you_know/Arctic_policy_of_Russia
    1 - Spanish_barnstar
    1 - Districts_of_Murmansk_Oblast
    1 - Finnish_barnstar
    1 - Active_Wiki_Fixup_Projects


(hide)Help

    1 - Getting_started
    1 - Pending_changes


(hide)Help talk

    1 - Edit_conflict


(hide)Category

    1 - Wikipedia_backlog
    1 - Hydroelectric_power_stations_in_Russia
    1 - Districts_of_Murmansk_Oblast
    1 - Scholarship_recipients
    1 - Naturalized_citizens_of_Egypt
    1 - Dams_in_Russia
    1 - Hydroelectric_power_stations_built_in_the_Soviet_U...
    1 - Survivalism
    1 - Survival_skills
    1 - Ulisses_F.C._players


(hide)Category talk

    1 - Armenian_people
    1 - Pending_AfC_submissions


(hide)Portal

    1 - Current_events/2007_April_19
    1 - Lego/Selected_Lego_article/7
    1 - United_States_Marine_Corps/Coordination




Executed in 0.77 second(s).

RfA Criteria by candidate with discussion

This was originally below question 8.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Below, I made a comment about the candidate's Rfa Criteria, which Keepscases also mentions. So I quote it here, emboldening possible infelicities:

RfA criteria by the candidate

To (word choice, wc) me, a good RfA candidate should meet (wc: "have") the following qualifications:

• At least a year of active (redundant; perhaps "regular") editing experience (redundant).
• A minimum of 5,000 edits
• A clean block log or (redundant) at least no blocks in the past 2 years
• No vandalism, spam, sockpuppetry or other serious warnings (wc: "In the last 2 years, no warnings for serious misbehavior, such as ..."; also there is redundancy in repeating the same prepositional phrase "in the past 2 years") in the past 2 years.
• High level of policy understanding
• Civil behavior when communicating with (wc: "writing") other editors
• At least 30% of edits should be to the article space
• Reasonably accurate CSD tagging (if candidate wants to focus in CSD)
• At least one non-stub (redundant) well-sourced article created (GA/FA is a plus)
• 95%+ edit summary usage for article space
• At least 500 edits to the Wikipedia space
• 20-30 AIV and 10-20 RFPP & UAA reports (for candidates interested in vandalism work)
• 70%+ accuracy & +50 !votes at AfD

However, I do not bound ("bind", unless evoking memories of Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon) myself by these rules when !voting, and taking a holistic approach (cliche; grammatical fragment). It is very important that candidates be experienced in the adminship areas that they intend to work in, so logically a person who wants to work at AIV should have a strong track record (cliche) of reverting and reporting vandalism. Actual (redundant?) content work- (---) evidenced in article creation, expansion and maintenance- is very important in showing that the candidate understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and needs content to exist (reading WP shows that!). I'll try to (Yoda: There is no try) use common sense and decide whether a candidate would be a net positive for Wikipedia when !voting (modifies "I"), also keeping in mind that it's no big deal (cliche; also modifies "I").

Discussion

Welcome!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of starting an irrelevant conversation, I find your analysis of the candidate's RfA criteria to be extremely picky — to a ridiculous degree.

Firstly, this is not an article, it's a user page. If you're trying to imply that the candidate doesn't have a full grasp of english grammar, then show us some examples of this in the article namespace. Most editors don't obsess over grammatical details when they're throwing together a user page, and rightly so.

Secondly, the only real mistake I see above is this sentence: "However, I do not bound myself by these rules when !voting, and taking a holistic approach." Even with this example, I would not have to stretch my imagination very far to see how this could be a simple typo. I make these kinds of mistakes all the time when I write a sentence, then come back later to change something in the middle of the sentence, and forget to re-read through the whole sentence to make sure it still makes sense. This is not evidence that the candidate lacks intelligence or command of the english language.

Just about every other example of an "error" you point out are not strictly errors, they're just departures from your personal preference, for which Slon02 could certainly be forgiven. This is not the first time you've criticized editors for minor mistakes on non-article pages, and I find it inappropriate and irrelevant.

This is my opinion, and KW has a right to disagree. However, since recent conversations with KW and myself have not been terribly enjoyable, I am not going to comment further on this topic. —SW— ^express 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

At the request of editor Normandie, I explained my statement about the candidates' RfA criteria.

Of course, the clunky prose in the candidate's Good Article is a better indicator that a month with Strunk & White (or diagramming sentences) would help this candidate be a better writer and a more viable candidate to be an administrator (unless the candidate pledge to limit activities).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You know I count at least two grammatical errors in that above post? than not that and pledges instead of pledge. Of course this is all redundant as we all know what you mean and the reason this is a wiki is so that if that was an article I'd proof read it and fix it. This is how the whole website works. You are allowed to make a spelling mistake or two. Normandie 22:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. thank you for clarifying the text you were referring to. Normandie 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer correctly used that.--v/r - TP 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so he did :) Normandie 10:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"[D]ecide" can be used in that manner, as "unless" usually can be followed by the English subjunctive. See English subjunctive#To express a doubt or supposition for more information. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My user page once contained a warning about peculiarities, one being my use of the subjunctive (as a result of Romance).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Q8

• I'm thoroughly confused by question 8. It reads more like an oppose than a question, and in fact the author of the question has already opposed the RfA (which begs the question why any additional questions need to be asked if he's already made up his mind). And then the candidate's RfA criteria are posted below the question, for what reason I cannot understand. If I were the candidate, I would not answer this question. And if RfA clerking were in effect, I would ask for this entire question to be removed. —SW— ^verbalize 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have moved the collapsed box with the candidate's RfA criteria to the oppose section to avoid further confusion. I still believe Q8 should be removed. —SW— ^verbalize 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Would you remind us why your opinion is so valuable? You are not an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Being an admin doesn't necessarily confer value to your opinion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Nobody claimed that administratorship "necessarily" confers value. Scottywong would not pass an RfA because of issues raised by his latest outbursts, and so his musings should be read with due skepticism by new editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I do hope youre wrong about Snotty's chances. Another editor mentioned them recently in an off wiki conversation and since then have been thinking they could be an excellent addition to the admin corps, as they strike me as being unusually honest and honourable, as well as technically competent and helpful. PS – do agree with worm this entire discussion could be moved to talk. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• As Catfish Jim points out, not being an admin doesn't make Snottywong's concerns less relevant. If you don't find that convincing, then as an admin, I have to say I agree with Snottywong's concerns. My main concern with the question is the bizarre logic which goes from the candidate's GA nomination having some flaws to the candidate's unsuitability for handling civility. Why not pick two completely alternative variables and suggest a similar restriction: the candidate has never produced a featured list and should therefore never sort out requested moves. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Hi Tom Morris,

  Too many intellectually immature "editors"—with no experience writing quality articles on traditional encyclopedia content—do not know their place; many have been disrupting the writing of an encyclopedia.

  Many good editors wish to work as gnomes and contribute outside of article-space. Many such RfA candidates have therefore pledged to avoid using administrative tools (and generally to keep a low profile) in content disputes and civility complaints regarding writers (at least until they gain appropriate experience.)

  Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  KW, could you please provide examples of admins who pledged to avoid using tools in content disputes or civility complaints? To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen this - let alone "many" times. Also, this discussion would be best on the talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Pledges have not been as formal as Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" or Al Gore's environmental pledge (before the economic crisis). Candidates have stated that they will focus on gnomish tasks and avoid tasks for which other editors are better suited.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  I see, in which case, can you give me a few examples of who have made implicit pledges - which go further than Slon02's answer to question 1? I've not seen such declarations, implicit or explicit. What's more, as has been demonstrated by Hipocrite's oppose, any such pledge would be entirely unenforceable and I believe that it would actually draw more oppose votes than support. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Does anybody else have trouble recalling any candidate stating that they would work in gnomish tasks and avoid areas for which they were inexperienced? (My personal life is rather busy now.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  The point was that I fail to see how "don't do any article dispute resolution" follows from there being sourcing or language concerns with the candidate's GA. You don't have to have a stunning content record to be able to do dispute resolution. In fact, I can think of plenty of people who handle dispute resolution who are far more at the gnome end than the featured content end of the spectrum. I haven't written a GA, and I did say in my RfA that my primary use of the admin tools would be primarily to handle AfD. But the point is that with your concerns, if the candidate is immature, that's a much bigger concern than simply doing dispute resolution. We don't want immature admins closing AfDs or blocking vandals or closing RfCs... if there is immaturity, that is a reason to oppose rather than ask for a pledge to not do one particular type of admin work because maturity is something we have every right to expect for all admin work. Admin gnome tasks aren't a cast-off for people who aren't able to construct a decent {{Cite}} tag. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• The other issue with Q8 is that KW had already opposed (with no stated intention of changing his vote if the answer to Q8 was satisfying) by the time he asked the question. Because of this, it seems like Q8's sole purpose is to prove to everyone else that this candidate is unfit for the job, even if that wasn't KW's intention. This is only reinforced by the long list of complaints about the candidate that accompany the question (now in a collapsed box). I feel that, in most cases, editors who have already opposed an RfA should refrain from asking further questions unless it is clear that they might switch their vote if the candidate provides a good answer. —SW— ^communicate 15:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Snottywong,

  You are wrong on unusually many levels. For starters, please check the time stamps again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's a lovely idea for a perfect world, but if it helps I am willing to vouch for KW. I have seen him change his opinion from oppose, to neutral to support based wholly on the answers to his questions and discussion on the page. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Don't worry folks, I've already put a call down to hell to make sure it hasn't frozen over. Still waiting for them to pick up.  :) --v/r - TP 15:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite's Oppose

Then perhaps you should start recalling 204 admins. Are you genuinely voting against the current candidate, or against a feature of adminship? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am voting against the current candidate - he pledged to be available to recall as part of his RFA - that demonstrates he's either poorly informed or dishonest, both of which are disqualifying. He is welcome to add himself to the toothless category after he passes - since, as I've said before, every single admin is "open to recall," as the last, first and only step of every single recall process is "convince me to give up the tools," even if it's an unwritten step. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course, that the last step is to convince the admin to give up the tools. In that sense, there is no difference between admins open to recall and admins not open to recall because, obviously, even admins in the latter category can, in theory, be convinced to give up their tools. However, recall sets up a process for that 'convincing' that is usually transparent. In that sense, there is a difference between admins who have set up a recall procedure and admins who have not. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's in theory - not in practice. Review User:Elonka, the first pledge to be open to recall that caused a successful RFA, who was subsequently recalled, but chose not to give up the tools for many and invalid reasons. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of recall is toothless, that asking the question in an RfA is meaningless and that it is impossible to judge the good faith behind the response. However, I wouldn't use it as a reason to !vote oppose because, ceteris paribus, there is no reason to believe that a particular admin or admin candidate does not intend to take his/her recall process seriously. And, there have been successful recalls - example - so it's not as if the process never works. But, you're entitled to your !vote, so .... (I actually agree with you that the best answer to this question is to, politely, defer the answer to after the RfA. But, like I say above, there is the question of taking the candidates response in good faith.) --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, a few months ago, Surturz opposed a couple of candidates for not being open to recall. The response from the community was universally that such opposes are inappropriate. This is no different. Regardless of your personal opinion of recall, RfA candidates should be able to choose for themselves whether they will be open to recall without garnering oppose !votes one way or another. Apart from that, you're assuming bad faith on the part of the candidate, myself, and every other administrator who is open to recall. This extreme generalization (that anyone who's open to recall is either poorly informed or dishonest), apparently based on the actions of one person who reneged on their openness to recall, is inappropriate and unacceptable. Swarm ^X 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review the Surturz discussion. The response from the community was that he should stop asking not stop voting. I know this, because I started the discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Still further, I have no problem with your toothless pledges, as long as they are not made ad captandum vulgus. Still further, I have not said anything about Adminstrators who choose to put themselves in that toothless category - merely ones who promise to do so during their RFA to garner cheap supports. Still further, the oppose badgering is gratuitous and offensive. What exactly are your recall criteria? Hipocrite (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet further - it's not just one - I have scores of examples. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...no. Many editors spoke out against Surturz's !voting on his talk page, WT:RFA, and at the individual RfAs. The result was that Surturz stopped voting against candidates who were not open to recall, and he has since supported candidates who weren't open to recall. By contrast, he was still asking whether I was open to recall as of my RfA, which was quite some time after all the controversy (I answered "yes" and wrote up my recall process shortly thereafter). Secondly, your claim that the statement to be open to recall is ad captandum vulgus is inherently an assumption of bad faith. Thirdly, a dishonest promise to be open to recall would be pointless. Promising to be open to recall has no benefit. Candidates answer the "recall" question with a "no", and still pass, regularly. Swarm ^X 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your recollection of Surtuz's conduct is wrong. If you review his talk page, you'll see how showed up first. I disagree that my claim that the statement to be open to recall is ad captandum vulgus is inherently an assumption of bad faith. Specifically, actions done to please the crowd are not bad faith actions, they are merely actions that are done to please the crowd. A dishonest promise to be open to recall is certainly not pointless - reference Archtransit, Elonka. Candidates that answer no do not pass as easily as those who please the ignorant crowd. Hipocrite (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to Richwales, GB fan, Anomie, CharlieEchoTango, et al. Can you, in turn, cite one RfA that was unsuccessful, even in part, because a candidate said they wouldn't be open to recall? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly can't think of any.) Swarm ^X 23:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Committing to voluntary recall means the community has to trust the user's commitment. And if you don't trust the voluntary recall process, you probably don't trust the candidate's integrity or honesty. Is there something that causes you to distrust this candidate, Hipocrite? Recall is not inherently a sign of dishonesty. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Anyone who pledges to be open to recall knowing that pledges to be open to recall are toothless is playing to the crowd. As an alternative, this user does not know that a pledge to be open to recall is toothless playing to the crowd - then they lack the requisite understanding (and dilligence) to be an administrator. Hipocrite (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So if the candidate is deliberately lying, they're obviously not worthy to become an administrator. If the candidate is being serious, they're not worthy to become an administrator because they don't know "that a pledge to be open to recall is toothless playing to the crowd"? By that logic, there is no suitable answer to Q10 aside from "no". Swarm ^X 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is, in fact, another suitable answer, which is "Pledges to be open to recall during RFA are toothless..." followed by whatever they want to say ("but I would be," or "but it's a broken process that I won't support.") That's the right answer, and I've seen it given before. Hipocrite (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a policy to make recalls have teeth, you can go right ahead, and it'll have my full support.--Slon02 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone might be pledging recall because they believe that they should be accountable but want an alternative to RfC/U or RfAC because they consider those processes overly long or complicated. Why is it automatically a sign of crowd-appeasement to pledge recall? You can't say there are no exceptions to your claims, Hipocrite, because everything has exceptions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite's argument rests on a basic logical fallacy. But it also is a response to a deeper problem with RfA, one that I think Hipocrite is addressing, but in the wrong way. The basic logic is that a promise without some mechanism to bind that promise is not only an empty promise (perhaps) but a sign of deception (a far stretch). For all the grief we give people about AGF, this would be a paradigmatic example of how to not assume good faith. Is there anything other than that simple declaration you find objectionable? Anything on the merits?

The way I'm hearing this argument goes something like: anyone who's open to recall is a disingenuous politician trying to "toothlessly" (new one for me) game the system and we should therefore lower our trust. Well agreeing to be bound outside of some compulsion doesn't insinuate guilt, at least not alone, and not in my life. For instance, couples often make promises to each other with nothing legally compelling them to stay together. The social expectation is enough. Business partners often don't screw eachother even when they could get away with it. The world is better too because of it. Because we have some trust. And accountability.

I in fact find the "open to recall" point refreshing. It shows a recognition that our current RfA process is deeply flawed, in assigning near lifetime terms to admins. If an administrator open to recall refuses to recall, there's all the more ammunition to get the masses to petition Arbcom. Things like this matter.

In the U.S., federal judges are appointed for lifetime terms and are almost never removed forcibly from office. I think that's a good system for judges. Perhaps that's the thinking behind the current adminship process. But I've seen too much in my tenure at Wikipedia that makes me distinguish adminship from judgeship. Adminship is much more like being a senator than like being a judge. Admins need to be directly accountable to the community, and in a more formal way than "community consensus", which often means whoever's active the week that the issue comes up, and also whoever can wade through an avalanche of AN text. I don't like the system we have now, and it dearly needs to change.

But attacking someone who's on the good side here, is not the best way to make this point. I've used RfA comments to make my points before. Sometimes in the right way, sometimes in slightly off ones. But I ask Hipocrite to reconsider the message that this kind of statement is sending. It's not the right way to change something that needs to be changed, and it just entrenches the notion that the adminship system shouldn't change. Of course if you're part of the elite you wouldn't want to cheapen that status. But the rest of us need to make it clear that the system we have now is broken. This is not the right way to do that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to send a message or reforming a system - I'm trying to prevent another Elonka or Archtransit. On the merits? The editor in question has nothing than distinguishes them from the mass of RFA-reform squad candidates, and I'd consider opposing them on "4th RFA, still no evidence of anything but badge collecting." Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some I'm guessing that the fact that administrator tools are an important part of the areas of Wikipedia that I usually work in is badge collecting?--Slon02 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the love of god Hipocrite. I asked the question to see if he voluntarily steps down or not. If Slon02 lies about that, we still have ArbCom that can forcefully remove the SysOp privileges although I don't see anything in this user's contributions that would indicate that this would be necessary.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nondescriptive close by bureaucrat

The closing bureaucrat should summarize the community discussion.

This RfA seems to have been extraordinary in that the all the opposes and neutrals had substantive opposes, usually with independent reasons. The main concerns were that the candidate had repeatedly and prematurely applied for RfA, which suggested immaturity or a wish to accumulate another merit badge (to some opposers). Other concerns included relatively light content contributions, with some wishing the candidate to gain more experience writing articles, especially before working as an administrator in mediating content disputes among writers or handling civility questions concerning writers; in response, the candidate noted a disinclination to leap into admistrative-areas in which the candidate was inexperienced. Finally, another set of opposes raised concerns about the candidate's responses to RfA questions (or about the candidate's responses to opposes). None of the opposes suggested any character flaws or personality defects in the candidate; rather many noted accomplishments and good qualities in the candidate, and suggested that the candidate re-apply after having gained more experience (and after having gained more time since the premature RfAs).

Supports have noted the candidate's maturation since the last RfA, particularly a failure to make egregious CSD/AfD errors for a half year, and the candidate's contributions on several substantial articles on challenging topics, particularly environmental issues in Russia, one of which has attained good-article status. The quantity of proto-administrative edits has remained substantial, while the quality has dramatically improved. Many noted the calmness and reasoned tone of the candidate' replies to many comments.

In classifying this RfA, the bureaucrat must weigh the supports (both substantial supports by heavyweights and the the usual pile-on of lightweight supports by lightweights) versus opposes (most substantial and most suggesting running in 3-12 months, and almost none suggesting that the candidate was unfit to be an administrator). In my opinion, a close as successful was plausible (and not unreasonable).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The closing bureaucrat is not required to summarize anything, especially when the consensus was fairly overwhelming in favor. As you stated, many of the opposers had some decent reasons behind their opposing, but I didn't think they were substantial enough to outweigh the support given. I appreciate your comments, however. I found your summary to be fairly accurate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will note that if it had been closer, I would have included an explanation (as I, and other 'crats have done in the past). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you strike the supports that lack anything specific about this editor, this RfA would hardly seem to have 80% in favor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Supports which lack specific comments are generally viewed to be referencing the nomination statement(s). If you disagree with my close, that's your right, but it doesn't change my decision. I see nothing which indicates my decision was incorrect. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This was nowhere near a close call and requires no justification by the bureaucrat for his/her close. If push had come to shove however, some of the oppose votes might possibly have been discounted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User CharlieEchoTango made an informative reply to user Kudpung's statement, questioning Kudpung's proposed bias favoring support votes; CharlieEchoTango suggested that his initial support, for example, could well be considered to be negligible, because it lacked justification. I take his comment seriously.

The problem with the close and its justification is the treatment of this discussion as a vote. If this is desired, the policy should be changed to describe an RfA as a vote.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then as you are so keen on RfA reform, perhaps you would like to start the RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung,

I would just like integrity in the process.

Your statement and Nihonjoe's seem to interpret this RfA as a vote, contrary to RfA policy. (Current RfA policy is consistent with WP policy about !votes, which discourages voting and encourages discussion and striving for consensus.)

If you have another explanation of your statement that it wasn't close, then please share it.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because, despite all claims to the contrary, RFA is a vote except in extraordinary circumstances or when the percentage is in the range of 70-80%. Above that, you are guaranteed to pass, and below that you are guaranteed to fail, except in the aforementioned extenuating circumstances. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA is already sufficiently worded to accurately describe how the process works. It says, "As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucrat discretion..." Nothing in that statement needs to be updated, and crats rarely give justifications for passing an RfA if it is 80%+.

CharlieEchoTango's deleted comment made a good point, but it fails to take into account that opposes already carry more weight than supports. If 80% support is virtually guaranteed success, then that means that each oppose vote counts as much as 4 support votes. As NihonJoe said above, "empty" support votes are assumed to be an agreement with the nomination statement, most people support when there is nothing which makes them want to oppose; i.e., there are no issues with the candidate, therefore there is not much to comment about. But since oppose votes carry 4 times as much weight as support votes, they are rightly held to a higher standard and discounted if found to be invalid. If I were the closing crat, I would have discounted opposes 2 and 3. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, it would be nice to see some RfAs where there is a significantly higher percentage of voters on both support and oppose actually citing diffs. When someone claims that a candidate is immature, it'd be nice to see a string of diffs that show they are immature. When someone claims they are great at helping newbs, a string of diffs showing that show as much would be quite useful too: because evidence is what should count at RfA, not politics. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ending discussion

Unless there is something specific to this RfA which is of concern, I strongly suggest taking this discussion to the proper forum so that a wider audience can discuss the issues and any concerns. Further discussion here which isn't specific to this RfA is not encouraged. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)