Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/APerson

Discussion from question 7

7. Could you tell us a little bit more about the circumstances around the creation and use of your alternative account. You put your main account on a wikibreak - [1] on 22 August 2014, and created the alternative account on 4 September 2014 [2], with no link to your main account. You returned to your main account on 27 November 2014 - [3], at which point you abandoned your alternative account, apart from two edits on 15 December 2015. The edits look fine - though I did note that you !voted in a RfA - [4] with your alternative account. The community does allow the use of alternative accounts in various circumstances - but voting in an RfA without declaring that you are using an alternative account is not one of those circumstances. Was it your intention at that point to abandon your main account to make a clean start with the alternative one, and later you changed your mind?

A: No, I wasn't interested in making a clean start. My rationale in creating my alternative account was that I knew I was going to have very, very limited access to my main account (as I noted in my acceptance statement) and I wanted to keep up with Wikipedia in the meantime. Regarding the RfA vote, well, I'm certain that it didn't constitute socking, as it wasn't at all meant to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus.

Would you like to explain what you mean by "limited access to my main account" and why you didn't link the accounts? DexDor ^(talk) 05:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Like DexDor I would also like a much fuller account of the creation and use of the alternative account. The reason I've asked is it looks odd, and - unless you had fully abandoned the old account - you did go against the socking policy by voting in a RfA with an alternative account that was not linked to your main account. What we need here, just to clear up any misunderstanding, is why you were unable to edit from your main account, yet able to create an alternative account and edit from that. Why you didn't link the accounts. Why you voted in a RfA without revealing that you were using an alternative account. And why you later returned to your alternative account to make two edits. I think all these matters can be explained, and I am assuming good faith here, but if you hadn't abandoned the APerson account, then you were running the Thizzlehatter account simultaneously, and secretly, and you edited project space to vote in a RfA, which is inappropriate. I don't think these things are serious, just odd (I suspect - as you assert above - the RfA voting was because you didn't know it was inappropriate, rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive), and what some of us in the community like of our admins is that they are able to clearly and coolly explain odd situations. So the crux here is not your use of the alternative account, it is your explanation of it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork and DexDor (and everyone else who inquired about this), I can't get much more specific before I get into personal information that I'd rather not post on a public page; however, if you email me, I'll happily respond with the full story. Sorry about the additional bother involved. APerson (talk!) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My email is enabled if you wish to give me a private explanation, but I don't want you to reveal personal or embarrassing details to myself or anyone else. If there are issues you'd rather not discuss in public, you may want to consider speaking to ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork and DexDor, I emailed ArbCom and it was suggested that I should just post the explanation that I gave them:

Last year, at the end of August, I was entering a period of school during which my grades were particularly important, so I had my Wikipedia access taken away. I still wanted to keep up with Wikipedia in a minor way, so I created Thizzlehatter so I could do a bit of maintenance work. I wasn't aware that I was violating the letter of the socking policy when I voted on the RfA for I JethroBT - as it was called the "socking" policy, I assumed that policy bullet point applied to socks only. (You can see in that account's editing history that I was browsing WP:CENT before I voted on the RfA for I JethroBT, so that was my reason for casting that vote.)

Hope this clears everything up. APerson (talk!) 14:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I appreciate your difficulty in having an enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia, and not being allowed to do so; however, I will be voting oppose because of the deception involved to the Wikipedia community and to whomever took away your Wikipedia access. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the Witchsmeller Pursuivant has turned up and is twisting everything APerson has ever done into something bad and disruptive. Do you honestly believe he deliberately and maliciously deceived the Wikipedia community in order to harm the encyclopedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@APerson, I'd like a couple of points clarified if you're willing. First, you said you had your wiki access taken away. Do you mean that you asked someone to do it or it was involuntary? Assuming the former, why did you think it would be easier to resist editing Wikipedia while you concentrated on your schoolwork with the alternate account rather than your main account? I have a guess as to the reason, but I'd rather not put words into your mouth. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, it was involuntary. APerson (talk!) 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my brain is fuzzy from running too many CUs today, but what mechanism was used to prevent you from editing Wikipedia? It can't be the obvious because your block log is clean.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 and everyone else - I believe this line of questioning has gone far enough, as further appears likely to violate the candidate's privacy. If you are unhappy with the answers, either make that clear in your vote or take this to email, where the candidate agreed to elaborate. Worm^TT(talk) 06:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? A bureaucrat is encouraging secret email conversations in lieu of open discussions about the candidate's account being controlled by multiple people? How is this a privacy issue? Townlake (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen enough privacy issues to say that a line should be drawn here for on wiki conversation. The individual has contacted the Arbitration Committee over the matter and issued a statement based on their advice. They've said they're willing to elaborate further by email and it's obvious to me what they would say. Expressing it on Wikipedia is not appropriate. I'm all for transparency and open discussion, but here is a good place to draw a line. I say that not as a bureaucrat, but as an oversighter who has had to sort similar situations in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in a fellow volunteer's well-being, but in my opinion you're overreaching here. The secondary point of RFA, aside from the primary voting purpose, is to ask the candidate questions about things in their account history that look weird. The candidate is free to answer or not answer any question as they see fit, and they can answer "Sorry, that's secret" if they desire. If the pressure related to that is too much for the candidate, the sensible option is withdrawal, not hiding behind a functionary's skirt until the meanies stop asking legitimate questions about who's had access to their account password. Townlake (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When I made my statement, the question of "who had access to the candidate's password" had not been raised. I specifically don't have an issue with the candidate being asked about that. My issue is that the line of questioning above was pushing towards problematic material and I stepped in. I don't regret doing so. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still confused. If wiki access was denied across the board, then a second account could not have been accessed or created. If a second account was accessible, then the primary account would also have been accessible, unless someone with knowledge of your wiki password and with access to your email account went in and changed both your wiki password and also the email listed on the account. Or unless WP was site-blocked on one computer, and you used another computer or device to create another account, creating it because you did not want whoever had blocked access to see that you were (minimally) still editing WP. Is one of those scenarios what occurred? Otherwise, since all that is necessary to access Wikipedia is a computer (and the correct password), this situation doesn't make sense to me except in the scenarios I have posted. Softlavender (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, I don't know, but I suspect that someone with off-wiki authority (such as a parent, teacher, or educational adviser) said "You are spending too much time on Wikipedia, and it is hurting (or might hurt) your grades. You are not to edit again until further notice." If this person knew APerson's username s/he could check for such edits merely by checking the user contribs, but could not detect edits under another username nearly so easily, if at all. There could also have been a siteblock on a particular computer or local network. All this is speculation. Access was not denied by any on-wiki authority, there was no block or ban. I don't see that asking for further details is relevant, and it does risk further privacy violations, IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any privacy violations in my question or in any possible answer from the candidate. I would like to hear from the candidate, and a simple yes or no would suffice. I think it is relevant, because the skirting of explanation is one thing that has cast doubt upon this candidate's qualification(s). There's no shame or privacy violation in explaining in general non-identifying terms what occurred, and since I've already outlined the two most likely scenarios, a simple, honest "yes it was one of those" (if true) would suffice and settle the matter. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, the first scenario you mentioned is mostly correct; however, my email address was not modified, and I was trusted to not reset it. APerson (talk!) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So someone else besides you knew your password and could access your account at will? Parent, teacher, or whoever else, this is a serious security issue. And for all we know, they still theoretically have access to your account and could hijack it, even if they've "promised" not to do it again. Remember that your account is supposed to represent you and you only, and therefore this is your RfA as an individual. Only you know how trustworthy this external authority is, but we do not know and are not supposed to be here to examine or even consider that, so if other people whom we do not know anything about can access your account, then it would be a security risk to give your account access to administrative tools. See WP:ADMIN#Security, WP:SECURE, and WP:GFYE#Your safety and security. (Quote from WP:GFYE: "Don't tell anyone [emphasis mine] your password, even your best friend.) My point here is to show that single-person access to a particular account is a well-established community expectation. --Biblioworm 22:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that that individual also has access to his email address password. So even if APerson now changed his wiki password and kept it confidential, that individual could still hack his wiki account via the "forgot your password?" function. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Kraxler's support

1. Perhaps you could explain why? Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Per long-standing AfD consensus, that's not necessary. Although a laudatio is in order, and one or the other user may highlight some special feature, "support" is taken as meaning that the !voter subscribes to the nomination statement, accepts the candidate's answers to questions, and doesn't find fault with the candidate's track record. The closing bureaucrats know that, so it is unnecessary to spell it out every single time. Kraxler (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   I beg to differ. I don't rely on a consensus's opinion, I require my own. I want to see why people support someone having these powerful tools and it hurts nobody to repeat this. Cassianto^Talk 20:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   I repeat: "Per long-standing AfD consensus a simple "support" is taken as meaning that the !voter subscribes to the nomination statement, accepts the candidate's answers to questions, and doesn't find fault with the candidate's track record". I suggest you learn to read. Or should we debate elsewhere your aptness to take part in a discussion? Kraxler (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Simply repeating yourself and some crackpot consensus is no justification for why you can't elaborate on why you support this nomination. Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Have you ever been blocked for incivility? "Crackpot" and "bullshit" is not what I expect from debaters here. And by the way, I support this nomination because I subscribe to the nomination statement, accept the candidate's answers to questions, and don't find fault with the candidate's track record. Did you get it now? Or is your pot cracked? Kraxler (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   By jove, I think you got it. Oh, and my block log has nothing to do with this discussion or your subjective views in what constitutes as "incivility". Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Your block log has a lot to do with this discussion, you have been blocked four times for "personal attacks and harassment". I see here a pattern of harassment again. I suggest you refrain from running amok. Kraxler (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   My block log has fuck all to do with this discussion. This is an attempt, and a poor one at that, to blacken my name in order to take the heat away from my request to you to elaborate on your justification for this support. And as far as offering you a suggestion goes, if a were to, I'd be blocked for a fifth time. Cassianto^Talk 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Kraxler, I have the same concerns that Cassianto has. Why, exactly, do you believe that this editor should be given the bit? GregJackP Boomer! 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   If you have the same concerns as Cassianto, please read my answer to Cassianto. If you have different concerns, please ask again. Kraxler (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   Why must you be so argumentative? Just answer the question; why do you think the candidate is worthy enough to be awarded the tools? Cassianto^Talk 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of My name is not dave's support

1. Why? Cassianto^Talk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   @Cassianto: I find your instringence on interrogating every user who you think has not added an appropriate rationale to their support !vote rather disgusting. The only person that should be interested in properly weighing my vote is the closing 'crat. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   It's hardly interrogating is it. I'm just asking those who have posted bullshit reasons to elaborate further. I note that people are also being "interrogated" down on the oppose section. Why have you not raised this point there? Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) It's the way you've conducted this, is what has annoyed me. Those in the oppose section are simply conducting counter-arguments to the statements that have been made by the opposers. With this, it is like you insist on some sort of criteria of what can and cannot be said in an RfA !vote. I am more or less repeating what I said in my !vote here, but I support him because APerson seems like the sort of person who shall use the tools without great error. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   There, that wasn't so bad was it? Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of WereSpielChequers' support

1. @WereSpielChequers: He didn't tag it per G11, he merely declined it. It was I who tagged it (G11 and G12). See User talk:Rokibbd. (I cannot see the article history, as you can.) --Stfg (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks, corrected. I appreciate that some consider it helps to inform contributors of all the flaws in their submissions, but my view is that people learn better one point at a time, and that continuing to go through an article after you have found a clear reason to fail it wastes the reviewers time and possibly the submitters as well (though I'm more concerned about volunteer time than that of spammers). More to the point, I consider that RFA is for issues that are relevant to whether someone is suitable for admin. I'd oppose a candidate if they were making multiple mistakes at AFC or new page patrol, I no longer oppose for a single mistake as to err is human, though I do oppose where there is a pattern I find troubling; Also I don't regard it as relevant to raise something at RFA such as whether the candidate gives multiple valid reasons to delete something or gives one and moves on. As for the AFC article in question and whether it should have been deleted G11 or declined as advertising, I think we can all agree that it was a blatant advertisement. As to whether that merited a decline or a G11 tag, the AFC instructions are "In extreme cases, where a submission is a blatant advertisement and the subject is clearly non-notable or otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to tag the submission for speedy deletion". On balance I'd defend APerson's decision assuming he considered it a blatant advertisement from a possibly notable subject, but your G11 tag and the deletion were also valid because the G11 criteria don't have the exemption that AFC presumes. So I wouldn't criticise someone who'd made the opposite call either. ϢereSpielChequers 09:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   So you're OK with AfC reviewers leaving copyvios in Wikipedia because it's not necessary to inform contributors of all the flaws in their submissions? Copyright is more than an AfC criterion, it is a law, to which we must adhere both for itself and for Wikipedia's sake. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Rejecting an article from being added to wikipedia is not the same as leaving an article in Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 10:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   It is in Wikipedia: the text is hosted on en.wikipedia.org, undeleted and visible to the public. It's copyright infringement regardless of namespace. BethNaught (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   There are laws about copyright violation, but laws tend to put the obligation on the person committing the offence. I have edited articles where I have fixed one typo and not noticed or fixed other problems in that article. We are here as volunteers, we take on the tasks that we choose. If a candidate was committing copyvio, or defending/abetting it by removing valid copyvio tags or approving a DYK hook without checking for copyvio then we would have a problem. But in this case you are criticising a candidate who declined an AFC submission as an advertisement for not also checking it for copyvio. That starts putting us on a slippery slope, what other extra obligations might people want to put on volunteers when they reject an article submission? If someone tags an article about a high school prom queen A7 but doesn't spot the G10 worthy bit about her sex life then one could reasonably criticise them for not spotting the more serious flaw in a one paragraph article that they would have had to read the whole of to determine the A7 tag. But Copyvio requires at least a google search, it isn't necessarily as obvious as that it is an advertisement. ϢereSpielChequers 10:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, but the difference here which reflects on their administrative capabilities is that the very first check in the AfC review workflow is for copyvios. This is so important at AfC that when it still held backlog drives, spotting copyvios earned double points. If the candidate does not follow at least the big, red "quick fail check" instructions, and misses copyvios when they would not have done had they followed the instructions, that means I cannot trust them to properly follow the various instructions for administrative processes. BethNaught (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Step one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions is to check if it "meets any of the quick-fail criteria. If so, it should be declined immediately"]], advertising and copyvio are both quick fail criteria. So on my reading of it someone who correctly declines a submission per any one of the quick fail criteria has followed the instructions to the letter. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Very poor reading. That section also says "Please check all submissions for copying from existing sources – copyright infringement is a pervasive problem and it is not only important that we don't host such material, but it often leads to significant additional work when not caught early." Please note: all submissions. And later on it says "In no event should you simply decline and leave the copyright violation sitting in the page history." Please note: in no event. I'm finding it very sad that we're talking about failing to check for illegal material as if it doesn't matter so much, providing we catch merely "unencyclopedic" material. Yes, we're all volunteers, but are our aspirations now really so low? See also: Wikipedia:Expert retention#Lack of adherence to or understanding of scholarly values. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Promotional text copied from a business website into a draft article likely created by someone associated with the business is, on the scale of copyvio problems, pretty low urgency. Arguably, declining this sort of thing for copyvio alone increased the likelihood of wasting time, because even if the text were compatibly licensed we still wouldn't want it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   I respect and understand Stfg's high standards, but I find it unduly critical. Did APerson's decline skip a step in the workflow process? Yes. Did this cause any real harm? No. AfC is often the site of long backlogs, and making an effort towards helping reduce them with only a single, slightest blemish, should be commended. I would like to think that we could all understand that seeing a glaringly obvious reason to decline a draft would cause even some of the most diligent reviewers to decline it for that reason and move on, overlooking the need to run a copyvio check first. I'm not condoning ignoring copyvios, but the real question I am considering is: "does that single incident cause me any worry that the candidate will make mistakes using the tools?" My answer to that question is no. The worst thing I could see happening is APerson deleting an article properly tagged for G11 without realizing it also qualifies for G12, and that would not be a problem. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of SilkTork's oppose

1. It seems to me that the explanation given reflects in no way negatively on APerson's conduct. Obviously the intention was to deceive whoever had forbidden them from accessing Wikipedia, and after the incident fear of discovery would legitimately lead them to keeping it quiet. If you can point to a single disruptive edit from Thizzlehatter I will reconsider, but this gives me no serious concerns. Also note APerson eventually came out with the whole story, and was willing to do so after understandable initial hesitation. BethNaught (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the question Beth. The majority of admin candidates have never made a single disruptive edit. Other people may have different criteria (such as "never made a disruptive edit"); generally what I assess candidates on is their judgement, understanding, honesty, civility, etc. What I am looking for is how likely it is that they will not be deceptive at some point in the future, when they have the tools and they might have made a mistake. Someone who comes to RfA with evidence of being deceptive in the past, with evidence of being vague in their RfA on that past deception, and evidence of making a policy mistake, is someone I would have concerns about going forward. We all have different criteria, and I understand that if you wish to give this candidate a chance with the tools because you feel they meet your criteria, then that's fine by me. But I am voting on my criteria here, and I don't feel this candidate meets it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

   That's fine, I just wanted to give my perspective. I do think yours is a legitimate reason. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

   Greetings SilkTork. I respectfully disagree with your framing of the oppose rationale you've given above. Choosing to label the discrepancies you perceive as the "Thizzlehatter incident" injects a negative bias that is not warranted by any diffs I've seen. And your assertion of inappropriate conduct too strongly implies that APerson had the ulterior motive of voting in a project space discussion when the undeclared account was created; the two unrelated events should not be joined by a conjunction, especially when a causal relationship between the two is necessary to support your assertions, yet not present within factual timelines. I think your reasons for choosing to oppose this RFA are entirely fine "opinion based objections"; they, however, are not policy based infractions as you present them to be. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

   I probably expressed myself quite poorly. I hope I can clear things up. The "Thizzlehatter incident" refers to the entirety of the matter, not just the creation of the alternative account; it refers to the vague reference to the reasons for creating the account, which concealed the real reason (an authority in his life, we don't know who - employer or parent or school, asked him to refrain from editing Wikipedia for a period), and it also refers to his vague shuffling on the point when asked to elaborate. However, yes, for me, the incident is a negative. It may not be for others - everyone will draw their own conclusions from the incident - but to me it is, and it is on the negatives I take from the whole incident (not just the alternative account) that I based my oppose decision. The voting in a RfA while using an undisclosed account is not appropriate. That's the way it is. It's not a major infraction of policy, but is is an infraction. Now, most of us will at some point have broken some rule or other - it happens. He didn't know it was an infraction. But when I pointed out in my question that it would be if he was running two accounts simultaneously, his response was to assert that he had not behaved inappropriately - which is fine, but he had not checked the sock policy page carefully enough, as it is listed in WP:ILLEGIT. Let's put it this way - if you're caught smoking in a no-smoking area, and someone points to the no-smoking sign, the correct response is to put out the cigarette, and say you'll know in future not to smoke there. It's not to say that you have a right to smoke there because there's nobody else in the room, and you intend no harm. So it's not the voting itself that I am concerned about, it is the continued misunderstanding of policy. So it's not the infraction, it is the dealing with the infraction when challenged. So, combining all aspects of the incident together, I felt I could not support because here was evidence of deceptive behaviour, vague answers when asked to clarify, and fumbling over policy. My concern is that if the candidate makes an error when an admin, they will not be easy to deal with. They may be vague, deceptive, and unclear, because that's what I have seen so far. We can only assess a person on what we see, and I'm not comfortable with what I've seen. I don't want to keep saying he was deceptive over and over again, because I don't think the candidate is a bad person, and I have said that I understand the reason for why they did what they did. I just think they are not quite ready now. I'm not saying the candidate should be banned or punished or anything. I just don't feel they quite match what are today fairly exacting standards for an admin. If anyone else wants further clarity on this point, please let's discuss it on my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

   Following a recent comment on my talkpage, I said the following, which I think is worth copying over to here, as it perhaps better articulates my oppose rationale: "Given the amount of wordage on the topic, I felt it was appropriate to have any further discussion on the point away from the RfA otherwise my oppose starts to attract an attention I never intended. I was also uncomfortable having to reassert that I felt the candidate was deceptive. Yes, he was being deceptive, but it wasn't a malignant deception, merely a youthful, inexperienced, doubtful one. But despite it not being malignant, that he wasn't able to either stand by the commitment he had held to not edit Wikipedia (he had posted vacation and wikibreak notices on his account which indicates he was in agreement with the decision not to edit Wikipedia, and was making his formal preparations to temporarily close the account) nor renegotiate it with the authority who had asked him to stop, but instead secretly create a new account to make what are essentially trivial edits, indicates to me a behaviour that is not appropriate for the position of admin. I am perhaps stronger than most on the trustworthy aspect of the standard criteria for becoming an admin. I will overlook most things, but sneaky behaviour, albeit immature and harmless, is not one I can overlook in a potential admin. Perhaps its because when dealing with problem users over the years on Wikipedia, it is evasion and dishonesty that I have found the hardest to confront because it is the most difficult to see. We can clearly see disruptive or incivil behaviour, but concealed behaviour by its nature is hard to spot! And when someone is asked about their behaviour and attempts to evade the truth, that throws up a big red flag for me - possibly the biggest flag of all. But, as I have said on the RfA, this is my view, and the nature of an RfA is we all pitch in with our views, and I don't think my place is to attempt to make others change their mind. What we want in an RfA is a range of honest individual opinions as the community is not one mind, but several." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Stfg's oppose

1. I think this was a bit of a trick question and I would AGF that APerson simply misread what you wanted. Given that APerson has run bots with the DYK process, I find it extremely unlikely that he has not witnessed a case where somebody comes down like a ton of bricks on WT:DYK when a nomination has a copyvio in it. A different question that gets the information you want might be something like "What are the most important speedy deletion criteria to consider when reviewing AfC submissions?" Don't forget you can always copyedit a copyvio away as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   (ec) Please also AGF that it wasn't intended as a trick question :) I don't come to these RFAs merely to entertain myself by tripping candidates up. Your version is nice and generic, but this was a genuine concern about due diligence (or possibly insufficient clue) in an AFC review that the candidate himself did just 3 days ago. I've seen cases before where blatant copy-paste of copyright sources was overlooked at AFC, and it's a real problem. Copyvio is a serious and well-known problem in Wikipedia. Imho sysops need to be wide awake to it, and AFC reviewers need to do due diligence with it. If it had been a case of close paraphrase, which is much harder to detect and prove, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it. But this was a blatant copy-paste and nothing else, and very easy to spot. I do know that one can copy edit copy-pasted text, but the candidate didn't do that, and apparently didn't investigate whether this was a case that would have needed it. So I must stay here, I'm afraid. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   If by "misread what you wanted" you mean APerson gave the result and not the process, well, the result was still wrong. You can't edit out a copyvio if you don't check for it in the first place. Moreover if you are suggesting that APerson did notice the copyvio but didn't mention it in order to avoid WP:BRICKS, that would be a very serious problem. Blatant and irreparable copyright infringements need to be ruthlessly got rid of. BethNaught (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   I see a parallel to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb 2, notice how I opposed for copyvios there and the RfA passed anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, Ritchie, that's otherstuff, and not relevant to my vote at all. Each RFA candidate is a separate case. --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

   It's certainly relevant to my view. Indeed, I'm wondering now if this is just a simple oversight on APerson's part (which I have assumed) or whether it's something substantial; without further feedback, I can't tell. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Maybe I can shed some light on where sysops are useful in the AFC draft space as someone who does a bit of cleanup there. The sysop tools are used there more than might be expected. CSD is quite common there: we specifically have WP:G13 for abandoned drafts and likewise WP:REFUND requests; there are also a number of newly created vandalism and non-sense pages there that need to be cleared out; quite a few companies created advertisement-like pages that are deleted; and lastly as already pointed out, there are technical issues such as clearing out redirects, merging duplicate versions, and so forth. There aren't too many admins who work in the AFC space to begin with and handling them should take extra consideration. For example, unlike pages in the article space, a draft has the opportunity for improvement before immediately needing to meet some of our critical polices like GNG. Often as a sysop, I evaluate the progress of the discussion such as how the editor has responded to feedback and to see if there's genuine intent to adapt the draft to the policies before I delete ones like blatant advertising. I also come across quite a few copyright violations, not only in the words on the page but also for the accompanying images that new editors upload for these drafts. Many times they lack proper licensing information even if the person does hold the copyright and could release it under a creative commons license. Hope this helps the discussion. Mkdw^talk 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with the heart of this comment [I'm unclear about how this information relates to proving the candidate's experience with understanding community consensus]. (Attempt to clarify statement given the confusion stated later in this thread.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC) These are examples of where a request is fulfilled by an administrator usually without consensus-based discussion. The only other major forums that are like that are WP:RFPP and the various boards where an editor can be blocked or granted additional user rights upon request. Yes, these venues need administrators to manage them, but admins' reactions to the requests are akin to a WP:BOLD response by the admin not formed by consensus. For the mop set, an administrator really should have some proven experience beforehand participating in discussions and/or nominations which can only be acted upon/closed via community consensus individually to better understand how consensus works. Granted, WP:AFD is one of those places, but it's not the only place (WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD, WP:AN, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• The point you've brought up was in no way related to what I was trying to say. I was outlining the administrative tasks required in the AFC draft space. You've outlined your opinion that candidates need experience in determining community consensus in the project space. My comment does not address or relate to any position in terms of whether candidates should or should not have experience in consensus based administrative areas and therefore the two are completely different things. I Mkdw^talk 05:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly; the areas you are outlining have nothing to do with consensus-based discussion. Those are the areas I would actually be afraid to give an editor the mop set unless they have experience with consensus-based forums first. In my opinion, participating in consensus-driven discussions helps an editor get a better understanding of what is a community-acceptable WP:BOLD action and what is not. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I guess then I'm looking for the relevance of your reply to my comment and why you disagree with the heart of it if we're talking about two different things? Mkdw^talk 17:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how any of the processes you mentioned in your initial comment have any bearing on my "lack of consensus-based discussion participation" concern specifically pertaining to APerson. (I mean, this is their RFA after all.) To me, the statement just explains where admins are needed for the bold, reactive, no consensus-needed decisions that I referenced above. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)'

• If you're not sure how anything I said in my initial comment has anything to do with your "lack of consensus-based discussion participation" concern, then why did you reply to my initial comment and state you disagreed with the heart of it and then outlined a reason which appears to be unrelated? Just trying to figure out why you replied to my initial comment with the statement you provided so I can respond appropriately. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: Now, I'm a bit confused. I guess I'll try to rephrase my initial statement to better reflect what I was trying to say, and hope it clarifies the confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing the above clarification. I've re-read my initial comment and it doesn't state or allude to anything regarding the candidate and proof that they have "experience with understanding community consensus". Nor does it refute the need for a candidate to have that experience. It's about something totally differently and I think you've taken or implied meaning to my initial comment that simply isn't there. Maybe it would be more appropriate to start a separate comment/discussion about this unrelated issue? Mkdw^talk 22:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Agreed. It would probably be best for this to be discussed in another thread. I'm reading my initial response to your first comment as well, and I'm honestly not sure how I interpreted as so since you clearly said nothing specifically about the candidate. (I clarified my comment because that's what it sounded like I was trying to convey since it made the most sense to me.) I'd have to say that I probably said what I said since this is an RFA, so to me, it probably looked as though the comment pertained to the candidate in one way or another. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looking through APerson's user talk contributions, a huge number of them are variations on "Welcome to Wikipedia!" and "Your AfC submission has been reviewed"; exactly what I would expect from heavy AfC usage as it's best to tell new users directly on their talk page what's going on. I've got a large amount of user talk edits (probably 1,000+) for exactly the same reason; yet somehow this never came up at my RfA and didn't seem to be a problem at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: I don't think I participated in your RFA, though I know it happened rather recently. This was a point that I noticed in another RFA that I came up with. Activity in this namespace does not show proof of administrative competency, especially since most actions that happen in this namespace (deletion discussion notifications, etc) happen in response to another action (nominating the page for deletion, etc.) However, to validate the high number of user space edits in regards to becoming an administrator, there needs to be an equal amount of work someplace else which actually requires the admin tools in the actual forum where the work is taking place, and I'm not seeing it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Are you saying it's about ratio? If a candidate had over a million edits (we had two this year), even if they had 40,000 wikipedia space edits, would you oppose them if they had significantly more edits to the article and user talk space? In my opinion, candidates interested in the sysop tools don't need to be editors who spend the majority of their time doing mop and bucket tasks. I would certainly grant the tools to someone who spends the vast majority of their time writing articles and welcoming newcomers if they were trustworthy, had a use for the tools in where they use Wikipedia, and had some experience in mop and bucket areas. Mkdw^talk 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, since I find proof of experience and focus in the edit ratios. Since I do not know of APerson's work (or some other editors' work) besides this RFA, I have to go with the statistics to explain areas of focus. I wouldn't oppose due to any sort of Article/Wikipedia namespace ratio since the primary reason for Wikipedia existing is for content creation; if a case like this were to happen and the user talk edits were a not a concern, I would probably "support" if "Article" were 1 or and "Wikipedia" were 2 or 3 (as long as "User talk" is nowhere in the top 4) Also, edits in the "Talk:" namespace are preferable as well since WP:RM requests occur there, and since renaming of pages in the Article space is a more necessary task (in regards to discussing guidelines) than renaming pages in any other namespace. When it comes to having the mop in hand, I feel the editor has to participate in venues where they get to see the tools used to close consensus-based discussions. As I stated above (in one way or another), writing articles and welcoming editors are not tasks that are enhanced with the mop set. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Steel1943, Statistics are fun, but in my experience they are a poor substitute for actually checking the edits someone has made. User talk edits are a good way to see how well the candidate communicates with others, and clear civil communication is important for an admin. It really isn't how many edits one has to particular namespaces, what matters is the content of those edits. ϢereSpielChequers 12:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• @WereSpielChequers: I have to respectfully disagree. In my own experiences, knowing where an editor edits frequently is a hint for possible precursor for other issues (personality concerns, "skeletons-in-the-closet", etc.) a candidate may have based on the statistics; this is now one of three RFAs where I have brought up my concern about a large ratio of "User talk:" edits, and in all three cases, other editors stated other concerns that have either derailed or almost derailed the RFA. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Three is a small sample at RFA, and RFAs being close is a long way from "turned out to be someone we should have failed". Whether or not I agree with the other reasons for opposing in those RFAs, my experience is that relying on statistics alone can lead to some good candidates being lost, and of course it makes RFA even easier for genuinely badfaith candidates to game. ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but that number seems to still be growing. Again ... in my opinion ... over-participation in the "User talk:" namespace without any counterbalancing work in places that administrators actually manage is my basis for these comments. An administrative mindset isn't necessary to stick a warning tag on an editor's page, but the mindset is necessary to get to the point of reporting it, and that happens on the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quite right, this current fashionfor opposing RfAs on the basis of high % of edits to user talk pages comes down to discouraging those of us who revert vandalism from giving warnings to the vandals. User warnings tell the user "we're on to you" and encourage them to edit constructively instead; to an IP they indicate to others sharing that IP address that someone is misusing WP from there. They also serve as precursor to administrative action when this is necessary to protect WP: Noyster (talk), 09:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• This validates my opinion to the very point. If one of an editor's focus is "tagging" user talk pages with warnings rather than requesting a block or a page protection occur, then where is the validation that the editor knows how to request the page protection or block, and where is the confidence in believing that the editor will know how to properly answer requests on those boards? Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• And again, the opposition is requesting all those who supported the candidate without providing a specific reason to answer why they support the candidate. Isn't the answer obvious? Wikipedia needs new admins, and the candidate would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE, so the candidate should be supported. Also, an oppose vote can counter about three support votes, so it is reasonable that supporters do not have to provide such a detailed rationale. sst^flyer 08:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• So, in your mind, it is perfectly fine for editors to harass, badger, and hound editors who oppose a nomination? Sorry, no thanks. One of those editors, an admin, pointed out that it was perfectly reasonable to ask what the reason for supporting a nomination was based on. That is what is being done. If you don't like it, then get those harassing oppose votes to back off. Until then, we have just as much right to question the reason for supporting a candidate as others have a right to question oppose votes. My preferred solution is that everyone put their reason down and no one gets to badger or harass them for their !vote. But until then, both sides should be subject to the same questioning. GregJackP Boomer! 08:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• It's a discussion, not a vote. We keep repeating that mantra, and yet when people try to make it less vote-like someone always objects to being 'badgered'. I continue to be perplexed why someone would participate in a discussion, regardless of which column they're in, and then object to being engaged in conversation about their comments. If you don't want your reasoning criticized, this isn't the place to post it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I assume that goes for those who, in their edit summary, said his complaint that supporters were being questioned about whatever Comment about badgering. Why exactly, is it OK to "discuss" the matter when someone opposes, but admins show up at a user's talkpage ([5], [6]) in an effort to shut down "discussion" of support reasons? Sorry, but unless you are going to tell DES and WTT to back off, I don't care what you have to say. Either deal fairly with both sides or talk to someone else. GregJackP Boomer! 08:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes; I started writing my post before I saw yours, and it was SSTflyer's edit summary I was referring to, and that's why I indented my post as a response to theirs and not yours. But it's interesting that you read it as picking on your 'side'. I object to both 'sides' of this issue; neither supporters nor opposers should expect their position to go unchallenged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• If someone gives a reason you disagree with, in particular if it seems to be factually incorrect, then it seems reasonable to me to respond with a rebuttal. However, the absence of a reason does not justify badgering, in my view. Trust the closing crat to weigh such comments properly. That said, the situation is not symmetric. A supporter is implicitly agreeing with the nominator. An opposer who says only "No" is not agreeing with anyone in particular. However, an opposer who says only "Oppose as per user:Example" has given reasons, and if someone else has already expressed one's views thoroughly, there is no reason to repeat them beyond a "per", it just wastes everyone's time writing and reading them. DES ^(talk) 14:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's a crap reason to support the harassment of editors who oppose a nomination, while preventing legitimate questioning of support voters who put no reason at all down for supporting a lifetime appointment as an admin. Plus, I haven't noticed you talking to anyone who has badgered and hounded opposition editors in the past, so I am not especially inclined to grant any weight to your opinion here. Second, asking an editor to explain their support is a whole lot different than being told that an oppose is unreasonable or BS, both of which happen regularly. GregJackP Boomer! 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Flawed rationales in both the support or oppose sections of RFAs do get challenged. But if someone !votes per another editor's rationale then there is not much point challenging that !vote until and unless the rationale they are endorsing is at least partially struck; and I think you've been told before that signing in the support section is taken as a "per nom" !vote. ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no problem with someone supporting with "Per ***". As for the "let's assume a single signature is per nom", that is simply wrong and should be explored further. Cassianto^Talk 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• What is wrong with that assumption? You stating it does not make it so. —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)