Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nick Moyes

Oppose by Chess: Extended discussion

1. I cannot in good faith support a nomination where the number one reason the nominee will be a good admin is that they have a record of agreeing with others at AfD. The reason why we call it a "!vote" is because AfD is not a vote because we're supposed to base closes on consensus formed from the actual content of the discussion, not a simple numerical up/down tally. Yet the nomination here is based significantly on counting votes and whether or not Nick Moyes conforms to others. Is this really what RfA has come to? Where disagreement with others can be a liability because it'll ruin your AfD percentage? Where the nominee's disagreement with the norm doesn't matter not because they provided well thought out opinions but because there was no norm to conform to?

   Having a "killer AfD percentage" is not a character value. The implicit endorsement that it should be is a disqualifying mark in my book. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   For the record, I'm in complete agreement regarding the way AfD "accuracy" rates are viewed at RfA. It's not only a worthless metric but also a detrimental one, as you note. I won't hold it against the candidate that someone else brought it up – I'll likely support, as I customarily do – but you're absolutely right. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I actually agree in principle, and in particular I should have phrased it better here. I often cite the number to merely get it out of the way; I find it fairly boring but it's nearly always brought up regardless. What is important is understanding of policies and arguments. A sysop should understand policy (and know how to handle situations with unfamiliar policies) and anyone active at AfD should also have a good understanding of what makes a good argument and what doesn't. That's why I specifically said I didn't want to talk about it and linked to four AfDs where Nick made good policy-based arguments, including one where the outcome wasn't what he supported. In fact, my original draft included another where Nick was decidedly incorrect, and even said so, simply because it's a good example of his values and attention to detail. At any rate, AfD percentage isn't a great way of measuring policy understanding, but it can serve as a negative indicator: high numbers don't necessarily mean anything, but low numbers would suggest someone consistently at odds with the community. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   ... low numbers suggest someone consistently at odds with the community with AfD !voters in the particular AfDs that the editor has chosen to !vote in. This is a much smaller subset than "the community". AfD numbers, high or low, would be an indicator of something if and only if we all !voted on random AfDs–then it would be a test of policy knowledge and being "in synch" with the community as a whole. But since we all self-select which AfDs we !vote on, none of us are !voting on anything like a representative sample of AfDs, and so the match statistic is meaningless. I do wish RfAs in general would move away from using statistics as a metric, but I don't see it as a reason to oppose the candidacy. – Levivich 03:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I also agree in principle. AfD statistics can be useful for a number of different reasons, but just looking at an overall percentage and making a determination of "good" or "bad" can actually be hurtful to the project, as it will encourage people who want to be admins but aren't yet admins to vote in specific ways in order to improve their statistics, as opposed to engaging in a consensus-building exercise. However, I'm supporting because there's a lot more to this nomination than AfD statistics. What's much more important is they have a good grasp of AfD and our policies and deletion procedures. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   A high but raw AfD accuracy statistic doesn't tell us much. It doesn't take too much insight to add the tenth rubber-stamp "delete" to a unanimous debate. Look instead for early insightful contributions, accurate and persuasive arguments based on policies and guidelines, and constructive participation in debates where there are good arguments on both sides. Nick passes that test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I certainly agree that AfD percents should not be what we base our adminship on. Numbers do not tell the whole story. However, what we do value admins on: civility, understanding of policy, experience, and maturity, I think Nick has a great deal of. I see no reason that Nick would be a bad admin, or is unready. In fact, I'd say he waited much longer than was necessary to run. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Chess is entitled to their opinion, but there's a couple of points I'd like to make; first, if the implication that a high "success rate" at AfD qualifies someone to be an admin was made at all, it was made by the noms, not the candidate. Second, as Cullen notes, the timing of the !votes is crucial; leaving the final comment at a discussion, in line with developing consensus, doesn't demonstrate much; but leaving insightful comments does. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   When I assess an admin candidate, one of the first things I look at is an AfD debate where the candidate's view didn't match consensus, to see what sort of arguments they bring up. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 11, Nick respected the views of those wanting to delete the article per WP:CRYSTAL, but noted that a new iPhone release was extremely likely to be a major and newsworthy event, and hence draftifying or userfication would have been a better option. A week after the AfD closed as "delete", the article was restored. So even though Nick didn't get the result he wanted at the AfD, he was ultimately proven right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   As noted above, the AfD percentage by itself is not particularly indicative of anything. In this case a closer look at the AfD !votes by the candidate shows that his AfD comments are usually substantive, well-argued, non-perfunctory, and often the longest among all the comments/!votes in a given AfD. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europeana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Goold, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield, Glasgow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beast of Riber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain fennec, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girish Chandra Bose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against women helplines in Pakistan-Free legal aid and helplines, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Lindsay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climacophilia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Business Academy, Bangalore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 11, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental health policy, from his most recent AfD record. These are exactly the kind of AfD comments that are the most useful for determining consensus when an AfD is being closed. Nsk92 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'm with JulianColton on this. I entirely agree with Chess's summary of the AfD vote counting and "conformity enforcement" attitude. In more detail, if I were inclined toward adminship (and if I would not be dogpiled on by MoS gadflies simply for being one of MoS's main shepherds), my XfD record would almost certainly exclude me "automatically", because I frequently list borderline, test-case nominations, with the specific intent of establishing clearer precedents, criteria, and expectations. It's actually rather necessary that some of us do this (not every day, but when iffy stuff pops up on the radar). Similarly, some of us are very good at identifying WP:AADD fallacies in ongoing "popular" XfD listings by others, and countering them. They need to be countered, even if some "deletion brigade" pile of AADDers is already going to guarantee deletion on a faulty basis. The principles of the actual policies and guidelines and community norms really do matter, as does (negatively) the increasing trend of throwing these things to the wind and "just voting" with bullshit, PoV-based pseudo-rationales. Yet RfA as a process, and RfA respondents in the aggregate generally fail to recognize and accept this kind of XfD participation, despite the fact that it demonstrates much more policy understanding and more commitment to WP:Process is important than robotically and "safely" !voting with the flow in XfDs the outcomes of which are already clear, and commenting early and with the obvious in deletion discussions on undeniable trash, the deletion of which is 100% predictable (or going keep against stupendous WP:BEFORE failures that no one sane should have delete-nominated).

   All that said, I cannot fathom why Chess would vote against this candidate on the basis of someone else bringing up their AfD stats being high-percentile. The mention of it is not the candidate's fault, and we have no idea (without a lot of tedious discussion-by-discussion deep review) whether the candidate is simply good at assessing policy rationales for delete/keep, or is intentionally "shaping" their deletion stats (and we're supposed to presume the former, absent strong evidence of the latter).
    — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Well said! - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by GregJackP

1. Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Please explain how having two GAs makes you suitable to be an administrator, while one GA does not.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'll be happy to, right after you explain how a "clear need for tools" and your not seeing any "concerns" make him suitable to be an administrator for life. But until you decide to provide the same type of explanation that you are asking me to provide, I'll decline. I've already provided more information than you have, and I linked to it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Adminship is not for life; any admin can be desysopped. Nick Moyes has explained in what areas he will use the tools to improve the project, and having reviewed his record I see absolutely nothing that would make me think he wouldn't use the tools wisely. Therefore I have no concerns and I believe it will be suitable. I would like to know why you think only GA makes him unsuitable, but two GAs make him suitable.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Oh? What's the term of office for an admin? When is he or she automatically desyopped and replaced? Second, you'll have to do better than that to explain your support besides one line that you think he'll be OK. That's not sufficient grounds to support. GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

   I’m surprised you’re unaware admins do get automatically desysopped. Anyway, per the noms (which of course was implicit in my support) the candidate has extensive work at admin areas like AIV and UAA, has done great work with new users at the Teahouse and has a solid enough record of content creation to adjudicate in editorial disputes. I’ll make a final request for you to answer my question. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'm surprised that you are not aware that they only get "automatically desysopped" when they quit working as an admin. It's under the rules about inactivity, and I noticed that you neglected to mention that they can automatically be resysopped merely by requesting a bureaucrat restore their tools. And I'm only going to answer your question when you satisfactorily answer mine. Thus far, you haven't even addressed it. This is my last response to your badgering until you post something substantial on my question. GregJackP Boomer! 01:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   @GregJackP: Thank you very much for taking the time to comment here, as your opinion at RfA is valued. May I politely enquire as to which of your personal criteria you feel my nomination does not meet? I ask because I note one of them is: "The candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status, or at least two articles to good article status." and so I wonder if that is where you feel I might have failed.

   You may not have spotted it - indeed I forgot about it myself until just now - but back in 2016 I gave a considerable amount of critical input and support at WP:FAC to Nothomyrmecia which I suspect helped a lot in getting that article up to and eventually promoted to FA status. (This was done at around the same time as I was trying unsuccessfully to get my own, much longer GA article through FAC review.) It is easily overlooked because my contributions there are all under my original account name of User:Parkywiki, but you might wish to check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nothomyrmecia/archive1 for details. I apologise for forgetting to mention this in my original statement above. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   I am sorry that my essay was not as clear as I intended, and I have tweaked it somewhat. What I am looking for are individuals who create content that meets the GA or FA standards, and by taking it to those levels, I'm looking at the content creators, not the reviewers. I have no problem stating that reviewers are valuable and needed, but I'm looking for the people that are being reviewed. Those are the people we need to be promoting to admins. I'm sorry that wasn't clear, and if you have done that, please point it out. I'll be happy to look at it and change my !vote if appropriate based on my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   This just highlights the problem with GregJackP's rigid approach. Instead of actually checking your contributions and assessing your overall ability to write content, it's "no FA, one GA, right, oppose."-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   You do realize that I looked as the content that he created, don't you? Why don't you go badger someone else? GregJackP Boomer! 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   +1to the above comment. PLEASE stop badgering GregJackP. he has just as much a right to vote however he wants as you do! If that's what he thinks, so be it! I personally don't agree with the criteria, but I'm not going to badger Greg for having his own opinion! Please, please, please, please do likewise. Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0 19:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah I agree, don't badger Greg, or frankly anyone's oppose vote. I think Greg has a good point: admins should be content creators, as we're here to build an encyclopedia. His firm and unwavering metric is a useful barometer during RfA's, and I find Greg's votes to be principled. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

   What Puddleglum2.0 said, modulo CaptainEek. Even if I find GregJackP unnecessarily stand-offish/dismissive about this stuff, lots of us have have RfA standards of one strictness level or another, and often idiosyncratic to others. Yes, we badly need content-creator admins instead of wannbe-cops who aren't really here for encyclopedia work. While I don't agree with a super rigid "1 FA/2 GAs or else" approach that can't take into account related work like GAN/FAR reviewing, or boatloads of pushing stubs to B class, or whatever, we don't need people hounding RfA voters for having expectations that don't perfectly match our own.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)