Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2

Regarding holds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Beyond My Ken: I see this as non-binding so I don't see any reason we would need to place this on hold. I somewhat don't think we need to actually even close it. The candidate can "withdraw" at any time and there would still be no action to take. I would maybe entertain that if this was driven through a pre-existing recall pledge that met conditions (in which case if it "failed" and the resignation wasn't forthcoming an arbcom case to force the desysop might be considered). Should this self-nominated reconfirmation not be "successful" (e.g. ends in no-consensus) but a resignation isn't forthcoming, I don't see arbcom taking action. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is in a non-policy quasi state of being. As you say, if the RfA should fail, no 'crat action would be taken, Harrias 2 would simply decide on his own if that means he should give up the bit or not - and it was that I was addressing, really. If he truly would like to get a read on how the community feels about his adminship, this is a very odd time to open a reconfirmation RfA, and moving it to another time period would provide a better sense of the community's response. Doing it in this inter-holiday week almost seems like gaming the system, although I'm AGFing that was not his intention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF-ing it wasn't his intention to game the system, yet you felt the need to include the words "gaming the system"? Complete with the caveat "almost", bolded and italicized, no less! How deliciously apropos! I was about to call "bullshit", but I forgot about your fail-safe claim that so much takes place just beyond your ken. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I never have any difficulty remembering about you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Few people do, although in all fairness, wherever I go, I'm usually the biggest asshole in the room, an incredibly efficacious mnemonic. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I would think so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Xaosflux and/or any watching 'crats. I believe I saw a recall RfA in the past where 'crats refused to close as it was not within their accepted community role to determine consensus for recon RfAs where the holder still has a mop. I also looked at HJ Mitchel 3, which only ran after the bit had been surrendered, so wouldn't be comparable here in that regard. I was wondering what the process for a closure was here: the odds of it being below whatever the reconfirmation threshold is are virtually nill, but given the antipathy of some in the community to this RfA even running, I think it would be good to get a clear answer on how this is going to be closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Found the RfA I was thinking of: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. See question 9. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, WP:CRAT outlines the responsibility of 'crats to determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be promoted and WP:ADMIN states it is to determines if there is consensus to approve the request. In this case there is no possibility of "promotion" and no promotion to be "approved". Likewise I don't think this discussion would be categorized as a "successful" or "unsuccessful" RfA regardless of the outcome. I think this experiment would have been better as an attempt to revive the Wikipedia:Administrator review venue, which is explicitly non-binding (just as this is implicitly non-binding). If the community wants an formal (with binding results) admin reconfirmation process the policies would need to be changed via the usual process.

I think that any uninvolved editor could close this with {{archive}} tags, not include it with RfA statistics, etc - and it would still achieve the goal of letting User:Harrias know how other editors feel about their actions and qualifications. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, xaosflux. Those were my thoughts as well. I suspect you know by now I have a bad habit of liking to get clear answers to these things before they actually have to be done, though . TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially, if we're ever going to view adminship as a role, rather than a reward, isn't it about time the language of "promotion" was updated to something more appropriate? (and I don't mean "levelling-up") --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to what Xaosflux said, closing this RfA as unsuccessful and removing the bit from Harrias would be outside the remit of bureaucrats. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship, bureaucrats have a role in enacting voluntary removals and enforcing ArbCom-mandated removals only (with some WP:IAR allowance for emergencies no doubt). So even if this were to fail, there is no group able to implement the failed result - Stewards would desysop in emergencies only, and Jimbo probably lacks the social capital to use his founder bit in such a way (or at the very least would cause some serious dramahz over it). That leaves this RfA as being purely advisory in nature, with the decision left to Harrias whether or not he should resign in the case of a failed result. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be closed early. It does not require further credibility being attributed to it by allowing it to run a normal RFA duration. Leaky Caldron 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, quite right! Shut down this outrage immediately, before it offends decent people everywhere! Good grief. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up

This page has spurned several follow up questions, please review and feel free to add to the list here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Notes_regarding_December_2017_reconfirmation_discussions. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal from Category:Successful requests for adminship

This page has been removed from the category Category:Successful requests for adminship.[1] Should it have been? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not an actual RfA, which is why I removed it from that category. It is a voluntary non-binding discussion that cannot affect an editor's adminship one way or the other. It would likely mislead if put in that category. If others think this is incorrect, they're welcome to undo. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that Rob₁₃ is the editor who removed the cat, so of course he thinks that removing the cat was correct. I personally have not concluded that it is incorrect, but I am questioning whether it is correct or not. I would also note that some of the editors at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Question on "clouds" have questioned the "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship" notice at the top. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I was commenting to explain my rationale and note others can undo, not answer "authoritatively" or anything. I am, after all, just another editor. Thanks for starting this discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are we really going to have to make a Category:Successful requests for administrator reconfirmation page? Can't we just shrug and move on? Does it matter if it is there or not? My person opinion is similar to Rob's. This wasn't a request for adminship. It was a request for reconfirmation. But frankly, I couldn't care less if it was there or not. If you want a compromise, leave it on the page but put (reconfirmation) after it. I must be tired since I forgot that that is not how category pages work. Duh. --Majora (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Making a category for successful requests for administrator reconfirmation would not, in my opinion, be useful, but I do think that discussing the inconstancy of labeling this a successful request for adminship while removing it from Category:Successful requests for adminship is worth doing. As for your "Can't we just shrug and move on?" and "frankly, I couldn't care less" comments, please see [2]. It is a common sentiment that addressing particular minor inconsistencies such as this one is a waste of time, but when you aggregate thousands and thousands of minor inconsistencies you end up with an encyclopedia that is difficult to learn how to edit. (Insert the usual statistics regarding declining editor participation here). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to move the page to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Harrias (reconfirmation)? That way it is clear what it is in the category for those that don't want it there while still having it there for those that do. It would be impossible to undo all the inconsistencies in this project. They are as much a part of Wikipedia as any of our policies and norms. And anyone that actually becomes an editor understands that (and I'm a little wary about the whole declining editor participation since I'm pretty sure it has stabilized). But anyways, perhaps a compromise? Maybe? --Majora (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't an RFA. You cannot request what you already have and which could not be taken away in their circumstances. He has never had the Admin. status removed, confirmation is not a recognised process. Further, there was no cloud. He has remained an Admin. subject to current rules for maintaining the Admin. tools and a "failure" would have had no practical, permanent meaning. The close statement is also incorrect, it was not a successful RFA. Leaky Caldron 09:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Historically, reconfirmation RfAs have been included in this category, though the examples are few and from long ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't particularly care if this is listed in the successful or unsuccessful RFA category, but could we list it in one of them? Pragmatically, it seems not unlikely that at some point in the future, whenever the perennial topic of admin reconfirmation comes up next, someone will want to dig up this example as part of that discussion, and may not remember the name of the "victim" off the top of their head. And while it makes sense to let a random, malformed, only-3-people-opined never-really-was-an-RFA die without indexing it somewhere, in this case a dialogue on Harrias' (continuing) fitness as admin, as well as a meta-discussion about adminship, involving 100++ people took place. I think it would make sense to include it in *some* chronological RFA list somewhere. (Full disclosure: I write this since I remembered this discussion had been ongoing, wondered how it had ended up, looked in both the chronological successful and unsuccessful RFA lists, and then had to go digging to find it since it was in neither one.) Martinp (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

How on earth can he have been successful at something - RFA - when he has held the tools and everything that goes with it continuously for over 5 years? It is a nonsense. A request for Adminship is a request for Admin. rights, not a reaffirmation. That, unfortunately, does not exist. If he wanted community validation there were less disruptive approaches. It has no right to be classed as anything, officially which is why the 'crats did not close it. Leaky Caldron 20:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

How on earth could Theresa May have won the [[United Kingdom general election, 2017] when she has held the [[First May ministry}position of prime minister]] and everything that goes with it continuously for over nearly a year? It is a nonsense. Someone should tell the citizens of the UK that reconfirmation elections do not exist. --Guy Macon (talk)

Do you actually know what the fuck you are talking about, or are you just trying to prove you know nothing about the UK electoral process. We do not elect a Prime Minister - we elect a government. I don't think the citizens of the UK need to be told anything by you, smart Guy. Leaky Caldron 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. Yes, I am well aware of the details of UK elections. You can twist words all you wish, but the fact are that when certain criteria are met a bunch of UK citizens go to the polls and vote, and as a result (among other results I didn't touch upon) a sequence of events occurs that leads either to the sitting prime minister keeping her job or not keeping her job. I can't cover all of the complexities regarding UK elections in a short talk page post, so you may wish to familiarize yourself with our article on Lascelles Principles, Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom, Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and United Kingdom general election, 2017. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

All of which totally supports what I have said about this so-called "RFA". The references you have provided have solid constitutional backing and are legally rules based. Some guy swinging by after 8 years wanting his ego massaged when there is no possible way of removing the accreditation he was given eons ago is a worthless waste of time (as pointed out by several O and N !votes). He already has the tools, he cannot "request" them to be granted again and would noy have them removed had he been "unsuccessful". He could have pissed off for a couple of years and then applied again. That's about all that the rules currently (regrettably) allow.Leaky Caldron 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Per BU Rob's permission above, I have reverted. It's not an unsuccessful request for adminship, and it should be categorized somewhere. Until we have a category for successful reconfirmation requests, that's the most sensible place for it. If it had been an unsuccessful request, it would definitely have gone in that category, so it makes perfect sense to look at this just like any other RFA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be minded to have Category:Requests for administrator reconfirmation or similar, if only so we can keep track of this and add any others that fit the mold (including reconfirmations where admins resigned the bits for purpose of immediately running a new "reconfirmation" RfA). The category can explain that there is no community consensus for a reconfirmation process, lack of binding nature etc as necessary. But for convenience I can see the value in a category to track these (or indeed a page listing them). WJBscribe (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but if we do this we need to change the "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship." at the top of the RfC as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The closer has already agreed to that on the 'crats. page. I wasn't prepared to suffer the shit storm that would follow from those who are so determined that this was a full RfA, despite no tools being granted and 'crats refusing to touch it. Namely, the likes of you. Leaky Caldron 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You are really starting to annoy me with your snarky comments. Could you please dial down the aggression a bit? This is Wikipedia, not Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Leaky Caldron 22:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This text should be accurate enough: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for appreciation. Please do not modify it. Such RfAs should probably be closed by the applicant once they feel they have enough support votes to keep on going, rather than by a bureaucrat. Κσυπ Cyp   18:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• New proposal: Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)