Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.

Well I suppose I should have known it wouldn't be long before we see an RfA that is numerically in the middle of the new(ish) 65-75% range. I think this is also borderline in relation to the comments made by participants. There is opposition based on this being a self-nom and rather extreme length of tenure requirements that are far out of line with the general community consensus, to which I would give fairly limited weight. That said, even without those there is a significant amount of opposition based on concerns about temperament and related concerns. I haven't yet come to a firm view on this one and would welcome input from other bureaucrats. WJBscribe (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read through the supports and opposes. I agree that the "self-nom" opposes ought not get strong weight (especially since an experienced administrator joined as co-nominator) and note that those opposes seem to be explicitly called out in the support section as a reason for supporting. I am, however, very troubled by the opposes claiming the candidate is using InfoWars as a reliable source. I cannot find where the candidate or a supporter addresses that, but it's possible I missed it. I don't want to assign an unreasonably large weight to those opposes if there's an explanation... can someone point me to one? 28bytes (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the editors on the talk page for clarifying the situation a bit. It's a shame that the concerns over POV-pushing and understanding reliable sources came so late in the RfA; they're serious concerns and more discussion would have been beneficial. But as things stand right now, I have to call this a no consensus. A good case can be made for discounting the "no self-nom" opposes (Newyorkbrad and others make good points in that regard), but I really don't see a basis on which to discount the later opposes concerned with sourcing. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to "per nom" or confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there is for opposers, upon whom the onus has lain to show that a candidate is unsuitable. It would not be appropriate to change that mid-RfA or ex post facto (as NYB might say). The correct venue would be an RfC and I will await such an an RfC to express any view on the desirability or otherwise of such a change.
Returning to this RfA, I have now had the opportunity to give this RfA greater thought. I remain of the view that some of the opposition is ill-conceived and was deservedly challenged as such. However, there are two grounds of opposition that were significant - temperament issues and problems with sourcing. Whilst I might personally have chalked those up to experience, and have supported the candidate on the basis that - if not perfect - they would be a net positive as an administrator, I recognise that a significant proportion of participants in this RfA did not. Much as I would like to find a consensus here, I don't think there is one.
I reach this conclusion with regret, especially in the context of us being about to hit another record low for adminship promotions this year. I implore the community to find more candidates, and to reflect carefully on whether the standards they are applying are really necessary. It makes no sense to me for us to be promoting so many fewer admins than we were 10 years ago - I do not believe that either the quality of candidates or the amount of work we need admins to do has decreased. Yet in the last 10 years, we have gone from an average of 1 new admin per day, to 1 new admin per week, to barely 1 new admin per month. WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I have considered the contrary view put forward by Maxim and Avi. My view remains as stated above. I don't think the effect of the RfC is enough to make this a successful RfA although it is certainly a borderline call and I can see how they have reached the opposite conclusion. WJBscribe (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly some very, well, interesting opposes in this particular RFA, to say the least, to which I give limited weight. And, yes, one could say there are a number of supports without explanation, but I'm going to say the same thing that WJB said - the burden of proof is classically on the opposers. I did see the talk page for this very crat chat, regarding changing that status quo. But now is not the time to do so. That being said, there was also plenty of other opposition (such as those about the candidate's attitude, those about the candidate's understanding of policy, etc). Taking into consideration the weight of the supports and opposes in this RFA, I'm going to have to say it has no consensus. It's toeing the line, and, in fact, had it closed maybe one day earlier I think it might've succeeded. This is not the conclusion that I had hoped to find, but nevertheless it is the conclusion I came to. Such is life sometimes. I can only hope that this RFA is an anomaly and not indicative of the current state or direction of RFA, for that thought makes me sad for Wikipedia. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this RfA. It falls toward the lower end of the discretionary range and while there are some oppose votes that I'd weigh much less strongly, I agree with other crats who've given their opinions so far that there is a significant opposition that is well-founded. I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the community to find ways to counter the minimum requirements inflation going on at RfA. But on this one, no consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to comment by WJBScribe. While I have not been closely involved in Wikipedia for some time, I'd like to provide historical perspective here, and am grateful for the invitation. Reading through the opposes on the subject RfA, I am struck by the fact that so much of the opposition is based on various personal criteria that reflect rampant inflation of minimum standards for adminship. There has, so far as I know, never been a consensus to raise standards so high that a candidate with 10,000 edits and two years (Two years!) of participation would somehow be considered inexperienced. I find it hard to believe that an editor would not learn the Wikipedia "way of doing things" in that time, and I find it just as hard to believe that an editor's temperament would not become clear by that point.

There are a number of psychological, political, and sociological reasons for this sort of standards inflation, which are beyond the scope of this conversation but probably worth discussing elsewhere. What I will say is that I believe that the bureaucrats as a group, as keepers of the adminship process, have a legitimate role in making sure substantial changes to the criteria for adminship occur only as a result of a consensus decision and most certainly not as a consequence of cumulative unchecked creep that is solely a result of sociopolitical forces.

The Uninvited Co., Inc.

First, thank you to the over 200 editors that participated in this RfA - having broad representation from across the community is important to the governance of the project. Having reviewed all of the RfA comments, it is my opinion that no consensus has emerged to support administrative promotion at this time. Multiple editors have expressed concerns that some of the !votes did not merit much weight - and I agree that as the entries waned further from the matter of administrative promotion their weight was proportionally impacted. I specifically gave less weight as a class to entries that were self-identified as being made for tactical or vote cancellation purposes only - as these did not offer much to the consensus building exercise. In a related note, I am quite surprised at the amount of time spent arguing on the merits or demerits of "self nomination" - which was barely factored in to my review. — xaosflux Talk 20:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging that I have read the updated information from multiple pings directly to me on the talk page. As I stated in my own RfB, consensus measuring is not literal vote counting and that the community has supported giving less weight to some votes. While there were many editors in favor of supporting, I still do not feel that the participating representation of the community came to a consensus. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the revised standards implemented last year? -- Avi (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While the 65% rule (which I endorsed) allows this discussion to be taking place, it is was clear RfA is still not a "vote". After factoring the relative strengths of the arguments I feel there are still unresolved legitimate concerns preventing a general consensus from emerging. — xaosflux Talk 12:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read carefully through the RfA, but also the comments of my fellow bureaucrats, I find that while I generally agree with their analysis, I don't agree with the conclusions. There are definitely valid concerns raised, especially on the matter of temperament. The sourcing opposes, while definitely concerning, do deal with edits that were made very early in the candidate's history, and for that reason, while they ought to definitely be considered, I would not assign as strong a weight as had those been done when the candidate was significantly experienced. A really significant part of the opposes deal with insufficient tenure, the RfA being a self-nomination, and the lack of antivandalism work. These reasons, as per both the RfA and this discussion, are demonstrably weak. The amount of the opposes that are based on these reasons is quite considerable, and for this reason, my interpretation of the RfA is that there does exist consensus to promote. In a nutshell, while there is a significant quantity of perfectly valid opposes, I do not believe they preclude promotion in light of the extensive support enjoyed by the candidate. Maxim(talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I've not been involved with RfA for quite a while, having reviewed all the comments and also, for information, the subsequent discussion re InfoWars, I have not been able to determine a consensus, although it is a close thing. Very little of the opposition is due to the initial self-nomination or particularly high edit count requirements. Even if all these comments were excluded, it's hard to see this RfA moving out of the borderline range. Incidentally, while, following past example, I'm happy to count support comments without any detailed rationale, I wouldn't attach any weight to "support" comments which merely state that they wish a bureaucrat chat to take place. However, as there are only a couple of these, they don't have any material effect. The InfoWars info may or may not have moved editors to oppose, it's unlikely it would have moved more editors to support, so this doesn't change my conclusion. There is a significant majority in favour of promotion, but there is a significant minority against - marginally, no consensus. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface with my standard disclaimer in that I reserve the right to change my mind if suitably convinced by persuasive arguments. In 2015, the community agreed to reduce the burden needed to demonstrate consensus for receiving access to the administrator toolset. While consensus was not, is not, and will not be a mere mathematical exercise, I think we (especially the more tenured bureaucrats) need to remember that the intuition we have developed in ascertaining community consensus must reflect this reduction. Also, it is long-standing principle that people do not need to provide reasons to support or oppose. An undecorated support simply means "At this time, I am willing to trust this candidate with access to the tool set" and an undecorated oppose means simply "At this time, I am not willing to trust this candidate with access to the tool set." However, should reasons be provided with the opinions, the community expects the bureaucrats to to take that into consideration.

In this case, I believe there is consensus to allow access. I base this primarily on how the supporting opinions, even early on, are aware of many of the valid concerns of those who oppose, and make mention of this in their statements. Looking at Godsy's work as a whole, they are willing to trust him with access to the tools with knowledge as to the concerns he raises. Yes, there is a sizeable contingent which raised opposition. Moreover, most of the opposition's concerns are well-founded being based on temperament and judgement, two of the key traits admins need. Should this RfA have happened in 2006, or even in 2012, I probably would have closed it as unsuccessful. But the community clearly changed the bar, and we bureaucrats need to remember that.

Another element helping me reach my decision was the timing of the opposition and supports. If, for example, the information leading to the oppositions have only been uncovered or posted at the very end of the discussion period, a case could be made to extend the time to allow early respondents to reconsider (that is pretty much the only time an extension is warranted). But that is not the case here. The oppositions were early and well-articulated, yet the supporters nevertheless continued to support, by a greater than 2:1 margin.

I would counsel Godsy to carefully read the oppositions as constructive criticism, and to work on the elements of his editing which elicited valid concerns by Wikipedians, but in my opinion consensus has been shown to allow Godsy access to the tools. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]