Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool/Bureaucrat discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Xeno[edit]

If you feel that way ("the user is a little short on content, their clue quotient seems high enough to compensate. If this is closed as 'no consensus', they'll be back in a few months with a successful result - and we'll have deprived ourselves of a few months of free administrative labour."), you should have voted in the RFA. If there were such a thing as Promotion Review as there is Deletion Review, I would vote to overturn your closure simply on the fact that you attempt to be supervoting rather than properly assessing consensus. NW (Talk) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are based on a review of the comments offered in support and in opposition, I've annotated my remark to make that clear. –xenotalk 03:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is the apparent crystal ball, Xeno; if it's closed as 'no consensus', how do you know what will happen in a few months? Your comments give away a bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insert the word 'likely' in the appropriate place, then. This strikes me as a similar situation as Kww 3/Kww 4. I have no bias here; I had never encountered the candidate prior to their coming to RFA. –xenotalk 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the record number of RFAs before being promoted, is that 4? HeyMid (contribs) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no, I think Ironholds just set (or at least tied) the record with 7. I was just pointing out that Kww 3 went to 'crat chat and was ultimately determined unsuccessful, and then Kww 4 passed with relatively flying colours. –xenotalk 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you absolutely sure he had 7 RFAs? As far as I know, Ironholds has had the same username in his entire Wikipedia career, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 is the last one. HeyMid (contribs) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is off-topic, but see here, here. –xenotalk 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. HeyMid (contribs) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@X![edit]

Also troubled that you didn't present the chat neutrally, X! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to move this comment somewhere other than the "@Xeno" section;since moved while we are oft-confused, we really are two different people =) –xenotalk 03:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang it-- well, consider it aimed at both of you, then! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to what was unneutral about it. Please elaborate. (X! · talk)  · @281  ·  05:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd find it preferable to launch a 'crat chat without entering your own opinion at all; when one 'crat takes the first step (of putting it on hold), others may be disinclined to disagree with the first opinion put forward, or predisposed to read the RFA in the context in which the first 'crat framed it. Example-- when I have to punt a FAC up to Raul, I don't put it to him with an opinion of what I would do, which could predispose the way he would read the page-- that's just my approach. You put forward the way you read the RFA, which is very different (for example) from how I see it. I see it as an RFA where the crucial matter of "trust" has been overlooked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some one of the bureaucrats has to offer the first opinion. What's the difference whether it's the one convening the chat or another one? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one who puts it on hold and convenes the chat does so because s/he doesn't feel consensus is clear; by stating their own opinion first, they may predispose others. Safer not to do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for you, personally, but that has not been my experience in the ones in which I've participated as well as those I've reviewed. All the crats seem very willing to offer differing opinions without being swayed by the first to offer one. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples of opening crat offering their opinion: Riana, Nihonjoe, Avi, Remember the dot. (X! · talk)  · @197  ·  03:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some commentary on some supports[edit]

... Stopped there, anyone else can look in between if they're interested, skipping down to final support vote,

This is not about "content contributors" vs "non-content contributors" and framing the discussion in the way that non-content contributors have understood it would be a mistake. It's about a very strange RFA and whether we know enough about the candidate to give him the tools. Archtransit's RFA had unanimous support because he played the game 'til he got the tools. I knew he was a sock well before his RFA, but didn't speak up because I didn't feel it would be right to present "evidence" during an open RFA, considering what happened to Cla68. But now that the "voting" is over, I hope the 'crats will look at the quality of the supports as well as the opposes, FWIW. If the candidate is promoted, I'll be counting on ϢereSpielChequers to keep an eye on his use of the tools, since this is a question of whether we know the candidate, not how much content he has contributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting these opinions may have been canvassed, the editors behind them may be socks, or something else entirely? –xenotalk 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting it's an RFA that felt "off" from the get-go; I'm saying we don't know the candidate, and for a candidate who barely got around the Wiki, these kinds of votes are very strange. IRC canvassing happens all the time; did some of the IRC regulars frame this RFA as a "content" vs. "non-content" contributor issue and canvass for support to make a point? Maybe. Do we know enough about this candidate to judge his preparedness for the tools? That is the question for y'all to decide-- that's why you get paid the big bucks, but I'll still count on WereSpiel to watch over his candidate's use of the tools if he gets them, since the community had ample chance to speak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If I could just make two points. Firstly, if you had concerns about the misuse of multiple accounts during the RfA, I wish you had mentioned them there. Bringing them up here with the intention of affecting the thought process of the crats is fair to neither myself nor the other editors you have mentioned. We should have the opportunity to respond to such concerns in the RfA itself. Secondly, if you mean to suggest that it is possible that I am a sockpuppet or sockmaster, then I invite you to start an SPI. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Please note that I have requested at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard that if the crat-chat leads to a promotion, administrative privileges not be given to this account until this matter is resolved.  -- Lear's Fool 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be reading a lot into my post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, although I think this would be easier if you made your concerns quite explicit. If you are concerned that I might be abusing multiple accounts, please take it to SPI, if not, then I am sorry for misunderstanding you. If you are worried about off-wiki canvassing, then I'm not sure what I can do except to categorically deny it. I don't know how IRC works, but perhaps there are logs somewhere that can be checked?  -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my concerns as clear as I'm able; we have multiple instances of very strange input on this RFA, for a candidate we barely know who barely got around the Wiki. If others canvassed off-Wiki, or turned it into an issue other than scrutiny of the candidate and whether we know enough about a candidate to trust him with the tools, that isn't necessarily something that is attributed to you, nor should you even be expected to be aware. I certainly don't know enough about you to know if you are or are not a sock, and I don't support candidates I don't know well, after watching the Archtransit debacle, when I knew all along he was a sock, yet he got unanimous support at RFA. That is my right, wrt trust; it is not a content vs. non-content contributor issue, and it's unfortunate that we're seeing some 'crats falling for the way that issue has been positioned, mostly off-Wiki, where folks can say anything and not be challenged. In whatever case, I wish you well here, and trust the 'crats to make the right decision. If you're a good guy, turn out to be a great admin, there's no problem here; if you're not, I put it on WereSpiel, who is a bit anxious to beef up the admin corp. My standards are just different than his; I have to know someone very very very well before I nom or support at RFA-- please don't take it personally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not taking it personally. I do understand where you're coming from, and I haven't for a moment thought that you weren't acting in good faith. On the flipside, I'm sure you understand why mentioning Archtransit in the context of this RfA would make me so keen to defend myself.  -- Lear's Fool 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cla68 RFA is more relevant to why I don't raise concerns during an RFA. Apparently the "non-content creator" crowd has decided to turn opposes based on "trust" and do we know the candidate well enough to give 'em the tools, which is what RFA is about, into an issue that entirely misses the point and ignores the fact that many of us labeled as "content contributors" have supported many candidates not viewed as such ... oh, well, you can say anything on IRC. If there was canvassing to that effect here, it's unfortunate if you are innocent and were affected, but nonetheless, it's a very strange RFA, with strange support for a candidate we barely know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology[edit]

I'm not reading the same from this information as Sandy Georgia is. For example, far from turning up specifically at this RFA, Logical premise opposed Ironholds and then !voted for Lear's Fool. I think it would be just as easy to read that as someone who came to RFA to oppose one candidate and whilst they were here assessed the other one. Ironholds RFA attracted a lot of attention, we shouldn't be surprised if some of them then voted in the only other RFA running at the time. As for the idea that this was a split between "content contributors" and "non-content contributors" I think that is a misreading of the discussion. I see it as a disagreement as to the amount of content that an RFA candidate is expected to have contributed. We have had candidates who haven't contributed content, clearly Lear's Fool has not contributed enough to satisfy everyone at this RFA, but he is a content contributor. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Ironholds' RFA would have brought out many old !voters and understand why you might think that was a factor, but an examination of the chronology reveals my problems with your theory:
  1. Lord Roem (talk · contribs) registers account, clearly a user with previous experience. Dec 26 17:44
  2. Lear's Fool RFA goes live: Dec 29 23:59
  3. DC !votes in Lear's Fool RFA: Dec 30 5:18
  4. Lord Roem !votes in Lear's Fool RFA: Dec 30 18:45
  5. SandyGeorgia !votes in Lear's Fool RFA: Dec 30 22:07
  6. Justice America sends profane e-mail to me shortly after my !vote. Dec 31
  7. Within hours, another long-time stalking sockpuppet also e-mails me, and this sock is known for emailing others to solicit support to further past grievances against me. (Those editors, including arbs, who allowed that sock access to e-mail well after multiple issues of socking were known can take the credit for any subsequent issues, including but not limited to likely canvassing at RFA.) Dec 31-- this is when sockpuppet and canvassing concerns begin to merge.
  8. DC Justice America sock farm revealed: Dec 31 thru Jan 1 I am encouraged to submit an SPI, but do not do so because 1) what happened to Cla68 in his RFA was unfair, and 2) I believe we have a deep and wide sockfarm operating, and behavioral evidence will be needed to confirm. Then, and now, it is still not clear to me if Lear's Fool is party or victim.
  9. Ironholds' RFA goes live. Jan 1 23:00
Anyway, this whole mess is not my problem until/unless it affects FAC, and unlike RFA, FAC is not a vote, so it won't. My problem is that Supporters and Opposers are not treated equally at RFA, opposers are badgered, and RFA should be about trust, and 'crats should scrutinize Supports as well as Opposes. The default at FAC is archive unless consensus shows that the article meets criteria. The default at RFA seems to be promote unless Opposers can come up with "acerbic vitriol", which is not a good situation for the Wiki, for the opposers, or for the candidates who must endure the ordeal. An FA can be easily demoted: an admin cannot. RFA should take at least as much care in making sure there is solid consensus to promote as FAC does, and the default should not be to place the burden on Opposers or to promote when there is no consensus. And the issue at hand here is that 'crats must take into account all factors in play, beyond what they see at RFA, just as we do at FAC. I did not raise these issues during the RFA because what happened to Cla68 was more wrong than the possibility of a mistake at RFA, and gathering behavioral evidence for what I believe to be a very deep sock farm, capable of evading CU, is not something I have time to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the Cla68 situation (before my time, probably), so you'll have to forgive my ignorance if this request is off-the-mark - but in future, if you suspect something untoward is going on at an ongoing RFA, please consider contacting the bureaucrat team privately via Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats / [email protected]. –xenotalk 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was also told after the Archtransit situation-- since I most clearly knew he was a sock, I was encouraged to speak up in the future. But the Cla68 situation weighs more heavily on me: he was inaccurately accused of socking when his RFA was passing by a mile, his RFA was extended, and failed due to the unfair socking allegations. I never want to be party to something like that: fact still remains that Lear's Fool could be a victim here. I really don't know. At any rate, I am speaking up now. Something smells wrong here, and I am not taking 'crats to task as others have incorrectly alleged-- I am recognizing the difficulty of the job before the 'crats, and suggesting that if there is a problem here in the future, it darn sure isn't the 'crats fault. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the mailing list should alleviate the concern that a false positive allegation of socking concerns may unfairly influence the candidacy. The earlier we are advised of a potential situation, the better. –xenotalk 14:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, but I've never much cared for backchannel communication on issues like this, that the whole community should be able to scrutinize. Let's also remember !! (talk · contribs) -- another unfair situation that weighs as heavily on me as Cla68, and a situation the likes of which I never want to be part of. I much prefer to keep communication out in the open whenever possible. But I'll keep that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-canvassed supporter, I think it's worth noting that if the votes of 5 albert square, Lord Roem, The Interior, Nick Wilson, Logical Premise, E. Fokker and Deliriousandlost were all excluded (DC's already is excluded), then the candidate's support falls from 75% (95-31) to 74% (88-31), which suggests to me that if there was anything suspect about any of these accounts, the impact to the RfA was insignificant. That's not to say suspect accounts shouldn't be investigated, it's just a data point to consider. 28bytes (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember that I didn't scrutinize any of the !voters between Fokker and Delirious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, looking further down the list, this user came back from a "plagiarism"-related retirement only to place a retirement tag on his talk page and vote in this RFA. That's an example of one I hadn't checked yet, and just another one of the many very strange things cropping up on this RFA. Although that account had a long history of RFA participation, it did not !vote in the Ironholds' RFA. It's the variety of strange issues like this on this RFA that make me wonder what the heck, and are suggestive of a canvassing or IRC effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will admit I was surprised to see that vote as well. An AGF interpretation would be that despite retiring from editing, some folks still follow along but only "pop back in" if they think their vote will make the difference in a close case. I hadn't intended to vote until it appeared that the candidate might fall short due to a couple of opposes that I thought were completely unjustified, so maybe Tommy and Thing felt the same way. Or not, who knows. 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a bit of a catch-22: you don't want to bring it up publicly during the RFA as to not influence it (in case there's nothing to it); but you don't want to bring it up privately because you feel the whole community should be able to scrutinize. Keep in mind that had there been no 'crat chat here, we might be in the awkward situation of reviewing these concerns while the user had already been granted the bit. Had you brought it to the list during the RFA, we could have looked into it (and had we found case for concern, steps could be taken to ensure participation from a representative sample of the community). –xenotalk 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a similar situation in the future, I'll consult more carefully backchannel if necessary, but I am loathe to do that, so let's hope there is never a similar situation. Should Lear's Fool turn out to be a great admin who had no part in any possible irregularities, I'm sorry that his RFA was the one to shine a light on certain issues, but I just don't like backchannel communications, or the effect the IRC crowd has on RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, there are suspicious contrib histories from these voters and, regardless of the outcome of this particular RFA, these accounts should be looked into. Lara 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the community spoke, and it's not the 'crat's problem, but I'll be watching WSC as he watches his RFA candidate learning the admin ropes. I'm curious to understand WSC's criteria for nominating candidates at RFA, and concerned that WSC has many times seemed to be more interested in filling out the admin corp than scrutinizing candidates carefully and making sure we know enough about them to trust them with the tools. And a "content contributor" backlash with possible canvassing and a number of suspicious accounts does seem to be in play here; those who frame this in terms of "content" vs "non-content" contributors miss the point: it's about whether we know a candidate well enough to trust them with the tools, and with serious content contributors, they've usually gotten around the Wiki enough and engaged enough other editors and in enough conflict that we do at least know them. It's also time that Supports were scrutinized as closely as Opposes are, so that absurd ideas like Opposes must be "acerbic and vitriolic" no longer appear at RFA. Just as a Supporter can say, based on nothing, "I trust the candidate", an Opposer should be able to express reservations wrt trust and knowledge of the candidate without it being considerd "acerbic" or incorrectly framed as a content contributor dispute, which we saw plenty of on this RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just don't see any outstanding tangible issues here. None of the supporters "smell like socks" as best I can tell. I really don't see anything inherently suspicious about a !voter who hasn't been a heavy contributor to RfA's in the past — there's no requirement that someone needs to have a long history of !voting at RfA's before his/her opinion should matter. And aside from the extension of the comment period, there doesn't seem to me to be anything more obviously "strange" about this RfA than any other — this is hardly the first RfA with lots of supporting !votes that didn't have detailed justifications. You certainly have the right to your views or feelings — and it's certainly fair for you to simply say (as you did in the RfA) that you oppose this candidate because you don't feel he has enough experience — but in all fairness, I don't believe you should expect the rest of us to give extra weight to elaborate but vague concerns without a concrete basis. And the suggestion that WereSpielChequers may be bringing forth candidates recklessly (at best) is something that should either be backed up with specifics (presumably already available by scrutinizing existing admins) or else completely disregarded by the community. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very presumptuous post; where am I asking anyone to "give extra weight to elaborate but vague concerns"? WSC's record at RFA is available with many tools, and needs no further response; how does he determine candidates to put forward, and how well does he know them? I would appreciate if Supporters would begin to understand that Opposers have the same rights to discuss the issues of trust and whether we know a candidate well enough at RFA and stop badgering the opposers at every RFA, and then claiming that Opposers are "acerbic" because the "trust" theshhold is determined by Supporters who don't need to justify their !votes. All who do that are responsible for any future Archtransits. RFA should be a place for open and frank discussion of all concerns; continue to stifle it, and we'll all probably regret where that ends, hopefully not in an "I told you so". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here with the intention of running checks on the accounts mentioned. Of course, I first decided to look the accounts' contribution history to see if there was a basis for a check. I expected to look at them and see that they had no edits and appeared out of nowhere after a long break simply to vote on RFA. All of the accounts looked fairly innocuous when I looked at their contributions, with the exception of Logical Premise. I ran a check on this account and found nothing suspicious. Based on the evidence listed here, I'm not willing to check the other accounts (and since I contributed indirectly to this discussion as a checkuser, I won't be commenting as a bureaucrat). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Deskana; at least someone listened, and that's all I ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the new evidence you've supplied above, I'm looking into this a bit more. I'll let you know what I find. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At ANI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 was suggested; there seems to be an Irish U2 connection somewhere. Too complex for me to sort, and at FAC, I can make sure uninvolved editors also review any U2 FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Justice America account and found nothing interesting other than a few blocked socks and a lot of unrelated users. Justice America seems to favour using a mobile phone network, which complicates things; in theory he could be operating a sockfarm and I'd not notice it. I also checked Lord Roem as the evidence you provided seemed to indicate possible sockpuppetry and he there's nothing out of the ordinary there. Additionally, I also checked Tommy2010 and found nothing suspicious. As far as the other accounts go, I've still not got enough of a basis to check them. For what it's worth, I can certainly see why you were suspicious about the whole situation. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Deskana; if I had to guess anything, it would be that CU evidence wouldn't work in this case anyway, and behavioral evidence would be needed. Such things have a tendency to eventually come to light. I also suspect that multiple factors may have contributed to the strangeness of this RFA, and they may not all be related. What matters now is that we scrutinize candidates at RFA based on what matters most-- do we know enough about them to trust them with the bit-- and not frame RFA in the context of content vs. non-content contributors. Some of us support heavy content contributors simply because their contributions mean we know them better, not to disregard other types of contributors. But thanks for looking. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of items 6, 7 and 8 in Sandy's chronology, and Sandy I'm sorry to hear that you got abusive emails. But I stand by my reading of Logical Premise. I still believe that they !voted in Ironholds's RFA before !voting in Lear's Fools' RFA, rather than "showed up specifically for this one". As for new faces at RFA. RFA is a constantly changing crowd, it would actually be surprising if there weren't editors like E Fokker, The Interior and Nick Wilson turning up in December and January and starting to vote in RFAs. it isn't every editor who votes in a few RFAs before they run, but it isn't an uncommon pattern. It may not be a reassurance to Sandy, but I take reassurance from two things: Of the admins who voted there was a slightly higher ratio of supports to opposes than among the non-admins (the last time someone looked into this admins tended to have similar support ratios to non admin !voters). Secondly the total !votes cast either as supports or as opposes, was not unusually at the end of the 7 days as compared to other recent RFAs, especially RFAs that like this were the only RFA on the board for some days. If canvassing or undetected sockpuppetry had happened I would expect to see a higher total vote than otherwise, and a smaller proportion of admins on the side where Sockpuppetry was taking place. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's over, and I don't think second-guessing why this RFA was so strange will lend anything useful, reasonable folks will disagree. But this RFA put the 'crats in a tough spot and probably wasn't very pleasant for the candidate either. The bottom line hasn't changed-- you nominated a candidate about whom we know very little, and the community passed the candidate, partly likely because you nommed and your nominations carry weight (TimVickers might give you some advice in that realm, YMMV; I nom only candidates whose character and editing history I know very very very well, and then I'll sink or swim with them). Even Balloonman used to screen his noms very carefully before advising them to run; it's unclear what your criteria is other than concern about the admin shortage-- I hope our admin shortage and the imaginary "content contributor" dispute isn't so serious that we're willing to grant the bit to every editor henceforth about whom we actually know very litte because some group has determined that the imaginary "content contributor" distinction is more important than knowing a candidate well enough to know we can trust them. And I continue to lament that RFA is not set up as FAC is, with criteria that an article must demonstrate if meets before it can be promoted, and where well-placed opposes must be resolved before promotion. RFA is a vote, FAC is not, and that's what keeps up from putting "drive-by" "because I like it" articles on the mainpage. We "vote" on "trust" at RFA, but "I trust 'em" carries weight with no argument, while "I don't know enough to trust 'em" carries no weight without damning evidence and vitriol; that's nonsensical. Considering how RFA is set up (a vote), the 'crats did their job as they are expected to do it, and I appreciate their, and the CU consideration, also, but I hope you plan to mentor your candidate as he learns the ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure WereSpielChequers will take your views in context as much as would all the bureaucrats, who provided superlative unanimous promotion support for Lear's Fool. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you're not a Red Sox fan. Or very wise, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, according to you. Clearly, you could have been maturer in your reply. Hope you one day see the logic in discussing issues by commenting on contents and contributions rather than on your perception of people's characters. Best wishes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, can I ask why it is that you feel WereSpielCheckers is particularly unfamiliar with me? I'm just wondering what could have given you that indication.  -- Lear's Fool 05:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No more unfamiliar with you than with anyone else he noms, so not "particularly" ... I've just not detected that he has a standard as to who he noms, how long he has edited with them, how long he has known them, whether he checks the quality of their work, etc.; if he does, I don't know what it is. Does he edit closely alongside editors in multiple areas of the Wiki, including articles, for a very long time, to observe how they handle conflict, stress, disputes, writing issues, how well they know policy, etc. over time? Or just browse their past contribs? None of that is a requirement, but other successful nominators do such things, and for some reason, his noms carry weight and garner votes at RFA, and I haven't deciphered if there's a reason for that other than the "RFA ingroup" likes him or something intangible. (I generally like him, too; the only area we seem to disagree is standards at RFA.)

While we're here, congratulations on the bit; I'm sorry it was so rough, and troubled that you may have been a victim of a combination of circumstances that you had nothing to do with and no awareness of. I'm also sorry this drug on, but still believe it better to have raised my concerns after the !votes were all in, and not before, which could have prejudiced the candidacy, and made it an even worse ride. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, My RFA criteria are documented here, the talkpage is currently a redlink but I'm more than happy to discuss them. If you read my nomination statements you will see that my knowledge of the candidates I nominate varies, and thus far I've only met one of them in real life. It is probably too early and there is too small a sample size to tell how good my judgement is as a nominator, on the one hand half of my nominees have failed to get the mop, on the other hand I like to think that thus far none of my nominees have turned out to be bad admins, even if they didn't succeed when I nominated them. I have looked through several of the desysopping incidents that we've had, and in some cases read their RFAs to try and see what one could look out for that would predict a bad admin. I've voted in quite a few RFAs, and seem to have opposed more RFAs than you have - though as well as having very different criteria as to who we support, we also have very different views as to the challenging of supporters and opposers. I think that a newish editor who starts giving opinions at RFA should be given the same toleration one gives an opponent making a maiden speech, you might gently have a quiet word if you think they've completely misread a situation, but you try not to scare off a new participant. Regulars like me who frequently oppose should be prepared to explain and justify our reasoning, and willing to amend things if our critique is refuted. I suspect that there are editors who see something of a disconnect between WereSpielChequers the documenter of RFA's 33 month drought, and WereSpielChequers the serial RFA opposer who even opposed a real life drinking chum. I prefer to consider the situation complex, yes I'm concerned that we have a declining number of active admins, but no I'm not yet so concerned as to lower my standards. ϢereSpielChequers 13:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is hard to address, because of the contradictions: your stated criteria seem to be at odds with your practice at RFA (for example, this candidate was active for eight months, and then one month before you nommed him at RFA); no, you don't oppose more than I do, you support 85% of RFAs; and I dispute that there is a drought at RFA-- there is a drought throughout Wiki, and we don't need more admins than content contributors. But that's all your business, I don't need to engage your criteria on your talk; the question is how well you know the candidates you nom, or if you just think we need more admins and if you disregard the validity of the "trust" issue at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight[edit]

"However, there was a relatively substantial number of other opposers who opposed for reasons I wouldn't consider to hold a lot of weight (but I'm not going into detail on that)"

Either substantiate your position or don't, but you can't just paint the opposes with a broad brush like that and expect your comment to have weight. NW (Talk) 03:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to post the exact same thing myself. 'crats are obviously trusted to decide these things, but we like to see your working explicitly - I can think of no valid reason not to include it. If nothing else, it tells people what won't be counted in the future. Trebor (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In my mind, an oppose for an isolated grammatical error holds very little water; opposing solely for automation without appearing to acknowledge that Twinkle is semi-automated isn't all that either. Opposing for lack of content creation is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Sorry if my writing isn't that good at the moment, it's quite late and I'm heading to bed. Useight (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it correct to characterize those Opposes as based on "an isolated grammatical error";[1] they were based on very convoluted writing and then a corection without strikethrough after others had already responded. You may choose to discount those opposes, but please get them right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of semantics. I know what happened in this instance with the lack of strike-though and whatnot, my word choice stands as does my point that I made about it. I'm not going to break it down any further by bringing up every single detail about what happened on the RFA to make those people oppose, everyone already knows what happened (and if they don't, they can look at the RFA itself); my comments do not need to be all-encompassing. Useight (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15[edit]

I read what you wrote to mean that you support promotion. Have I misunderstood that, or are you recusing yourself from the decision? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 07:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You understood correctly. I've added clarification. bibliomaniac15 08:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nihonjoe[edit]

Just to clarify my comment at WP:BN: I am not saying I do not want to be promoted at this time. Rather, if the consensus of the crat chat is for promotion, I would prefer the concerns raised by Sandy above be dealt with before the "formality" of turning on the admin userright.  -- Lear's Fool sock 08:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you go about dealing with my concerns? RFA is about whether we know and trust a candidate with the tools; I don't know you well enough to trust you with the tools, and I don't see how that can be "dealt with before the 'formality' of turning on the admin userright". And how would you deal with concerns about whether there was canvassing or alternate acounts entering Supports? We're not likely to ever know that. No, the way to deal with my concerns now is for WSC to watch that you apply the tools properly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the way to deal with this is for the crats to decide if there is consensus to promote. You may not feel that you know the candidate enough to trust them, but many of us do from looking at their contributions. Your continual 'badgering' of the crats here is beginning to look - to me anyway - as if you have something personal against the candidate. The candidate has offered to wait - if promoted - until your issues are looked into, but personally I don't see the need. If there are any doubts in the crats minds about voting irregularities and they think that the candidate is involved in that, they can decide not to promote, but I see no evidence of such doubts. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should try reading critically so you won't miss the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to wait until after the resolution of any concrete investigation into myself or others before receiving the bit. As it appears that no such steps will be taken, I'm withdrawing the request I made at the crat's noticeboard.  -- Lear's Fool 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the candidate was involved in the very obvious voting irregularities or not is irrelevant. That there were clear voting irregularities is the point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Deskana's review above, "clear" is not the word I would use. Deskana has been quite thorough in previous issues such as this, so I don't doubt he knows whereof he speaks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear" is the word that seems very apposite to me, but obviously your mileage varies. Malleus Fatuorum 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything worth moving to a more general forum?[edit]

Do people feel there is anything here that would be worth moving to WT:RFA? I'm not thinking of concerns relating to specific individuals, but it seems that a few more general issues have come up — such as a possible renewed emphasis on determining whether a candidate can be trusted as the primary goal of the RfA process; the possible importance of content creation experience as a way for the community to evaluate the trustworthiness of a candidate (a different take on the content issue than what I remember seeing in the past); when and how to communicate concerns over possible irregularities during an ongoing RfA; and perhaps other things. Again, I'm not suggesting that the entire current discussion (dealing specifically and pretty much exclusively with this one candidate and his nominator) should simply be moved intact to another forum. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but another concern I have is the increasingly closed shop at RFA, where we find fewer and fewer long-time editors !voting, and more and more new and inexperienced editors, or RFA-hangers-on, determining the outcome. Something needs to be done to get broader input. And my ongoing concern is that Opposes aren't given weight unless they're damning and vitriolic-- that just makes no sense if it's supposed to be about trust. I often read RFAs and wonder, "who are these editors and why are so many of Wiki's most experienced editors missing here"? Have most given up, do they not care, not think it important, what gives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there might be ways to attract long-time editors to RfA, then I think that would be worth exploring. But I do agree that more such people would help - we'd get more experienced real-life issues to discuss rather than the hypothetical ones that often seem so obscure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has long been a goal of mine. --Dweller (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Lear%27s_Fool/Bureaucrat_discussion&oldid=1137440146"