Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe

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

Rather than continue discussing issues here which are beyond the scope of this page, please bring up concerns or proposals in the appropriate venue(s) elsewhere. Even without a formal 'crat chat, it is clear there is no disagreement among 'crats as several have commented here (and on WP:BN) in support of the no consensus close and none have expressed concern about the decision or the process. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Crat chat for discretionary range. Maxim(talk) 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Stats[edit]

Brianhe's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 01:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC):[reply] 

User ID:	82697
User groups:	autoreviewer, ipblock-exempt, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed
First edit:	Jun 29, 2004, 12:02 AM
Latest edit:	Jan 30, 2016, 12:54 AM
Live edits:	51,850
Deleted edits:	5,549
Total edits:  	57,399
Edits in the past 24 hours:	22
Edits in the past 7 days:	257
Edits in the past 30 days:	692
Edits in the past 365 days:	13,343
Ø number of edits per day:	13.6

Live edits:
Unique pages edited:	21,166
Pages created:	4,201
Pages moved:	397
Ø edits per page:	2.4
Ø change per page (bytes):	extended
Files uploaded:	44
Files uploaded (Commons):	279
(Semi-)automated edits:	307
Reverted edits:	74
Edits with summary:	50,978
Number of minor edits (tagged):	17,444
Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended
Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended

Actions:
Thank:	164 x
Approve:	0 x
Patrol:	3,379 x
Admin actions
Block:	0 x
Protect:	0 x
Delete:	0 x
Import:	0 x
Article:
(Re)blocked:	0 x
Longest block: –
Current block: –

SUL editcounter
(approximate):	latest
► enwiki 	56,546 	+1 hour
commonswiki 	3,451 	+1 day
wikidatawiki 	100 	> 30 days
dewiki 	25 	> 30 days
metawiki 	14 	+13 days
mediawikiwiki 	7 	> 30 days
enwiktionary 	6 	+10 days
enwikibooks 	5 	> 30 days
enwikivoyage 	3 	> 30 days
simplewiki 	2 	> 30 days
eswiki 	2 	> 30 days
86 others	6	> 30 days
Total edits	60,167

Questionable rationale for oppose[edit]

Would the clerk(s) or crats that are monitoring this RfA please opine on the 2nd oppose which contains the rationale "Plus supported by editors to whom I have limited faith in." Since when is it acceptable to !vote based on who is !voting? Imo, that !vote should be stricken. They were fine with a support until they saw someone they didn't like also support and then moved to oppose.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is not unusual to see Supports which use similar language ("I trust the nominator", for example); i'm not saying i fully agree with this questionable Oppose, but...sauce for the goose...cheers, LindsayHello 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only 'crats are clerking, so we are one and the same for now. As for the opposition, in my opinion, it is reasonable to take into consideration the corpus of existing supports and oppositions when deciding on one's own support of a candidate. Just as actions of people whose judgment is close to yours and whom you trust is a reasonable datum in making a decision, so too are the actions of people whose judgement invariably differs from your own and whom you would not trust in matters of import. It is no less of an opinion than that of the "per X, Y, and Z" type. If this goes to cractchat, we will have to determine how much subjective/discretionary weight it gets, but we are nowhere near there yet. My fellow bureaucrats may have different opinions, though. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Berean Hunter; there is a logical fallacy in that rationale the way it is stated. If a fortune teller tells you to invest in company X, there is no reason to sell your stock in company X. The opinion holds no value and should therefore be fully disregarded and not lead to any action. Taking into consideration the votes of people you trust is an entirely different matter, as their opinion holds value. The only reason to take into account votes by people you don't trust is when you know from experience they consistently vote the opposite way (Avi already pointed that out). But that seems unlikely in something like RfA votes. Gap9551 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True but they may have meant "support is mainly by editors to whom I have limited faith in, therefore I consider the support to be of limited probative value, whereas the opposes.... etc.". Certainly this is a form of "pile-on" vote equivalent to "I trust X's judgement" rather than "I agree with X's arguments". That is something for Crat's to consider in any case.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Whenever a "No RFAs are running for X weeks" thread gets posted[edit]

This RFA should be listed as Exhibit A as to why. I saw one oppose claim they were citing similar problems as when they opposed Hawkeye7's nomination. I'm sorry, but no. Hawkeye7 was once entrusted with the tools, and had them removed for cause. This is not remotely similar to that. This is a good editor, devoted to the betterment of the project, being derailed (basically) because people disagree with his viewpoint regarding COI/paid editing, and his tone in discussing such matters. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One can speculate as to what type of admin Brian will be and, obviously, some well-respect seasoned veteran editors are being blinded by the fear that this candidate will be some kind of a rouge admin laying waste to all his COI enemies. His genuine concern for the well-being of WP should be applauded rather than used against him. As you say, a failed RfA does not bode well for those that follow. I wonder if even User:Malcolm Milquetoast would pass muster. Maybe if "Peace" were a part of his moniker things would be different. Buster Seven Talk 15:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the ones that voted for Hawkeye and have voted against Brianhe. The difference is with Hawkeye is that he messed up, he knows it and he's learned from it and changed. I would hand the tools back to Hawkeye in an instant and feel 100% comfortable doing so, I wouldn't need to keep checking up on Hawkeye. Looking through Brianhe's edits and behaviour, I think if he was put in a confrontational position then he would inflame the situation. Bear in mind that if you're an admin, you deal with seasoned editors as well as newbies and if he was confrontational with a newbie then he may well scare them off. That's not good for the encyclopaedia. To make a suggestion if "Peace" were part of his name is absolutely ludicrous. It's about the editors behaviour and how they present themselves to others.--5 albert square (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you missed the humor (humour) in my little Peace remark. It seemed funny at the time but being misunderstood, especially by an administrator, is a common surprise. Your label of "ludicrous" has put me in my place. Buster Seven Talk 16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I thought it was obviously intended as joke. Gap9551 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye was deadminned for cause. He had the tools, misused them, and had them removed. Brianhe has views on COI/paid editing that differ from yours, is passionate about his work in that area, and wrote an essay that some disagree with as well. I would much rather give a good editor like Brianhe a chance to use the tools than trust the gut instinct of Hawkeye's friends that he won't misuse the tools again. Who knows? You guys might be right. But once the tools have been misused, and a deadmin for cause has happened, for me it will be very hard to recommend that user ever be entrusted with them again. In my view, the admin toolset should be (A) Easier to get a first chance at; (B) Easier to lose if an editor misuses them; and (C) Very hard to regain, once you've misused them and lost them for cause. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye fucked up a few times in quick succession; I've made similar, if not worse fuck-ups (though granted not two of them so close together), but Hawkeye had the misfortune that his were part of lager controversies that ended up a arbitration. Reasonable minds can disagree, and did disagree, about whether that warrants defrocking and whether he should get the it back, but it's of little relevance to Brianhe. What the opposers see in Brian is somebody who has such strong views and expresses them with such stridency that other editors would be put off after dealing with him, whose views stray dangerously close to "outing" (which is fundamentally against policy and against what Wikipedia stands for—and I say that as someone who edits under his real name and who has sent a scan of his passport to the WMF), and who leads us to question whether he could set aside his views and act impartially as an admin, even towards people he despises. Others have used terms like "ideological warrior", which I think is perhaps an accurate description but an unnecessarily derogatory label to apply to a good-faith editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically then, unless the Crats view the opposes as basically all of a single-issue piece, and decide to promote in their discretionary range--that is, if this one even manages to stay in the discretionary range, with all the last-second, me-too opposes coming in--a good-faith editor, who's been here for many years, and was basically drafted by a couple of other editors into even running THIS RFA, will be denied the administrative tools. That makes no sense to me. And the way this relates to Hawkeye is that he had his chance, and was deadminned for misusing the tools. It will take a LOT to overcome that in the mind of the community--and should, I think. But this bashing a good-faith editor as an "ideological warrior", and predicting that such a good-faith editor would likely misuse the tools is just extremely disheartening, and it is a prime example of why there are so few RFAs. Who would want to go through this? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go back a few years and you will find RFA was a much more harsh place, very uncivil. My own RFA is a reasonable example. This RFA is not like those. You may disagree, but the people opposing are doing so in good faith and explaining their concerns. Some of the reasons given I don't agree with, like worrying about articles created, but that is within their rights to express. How the Crats will weigh the votes is up to them, and I'm comfortable living with whatever decision they come up with. COI/Paid Editing is still a very divisive issue at Wikipedia. Not everyone agrees with you, no matter what your view is. When a candidate has extremely strong opinions on it in either direction, it should come as no surprise that it may raise concerns in their ability to be neutral. Expressing those concerns is why RFA exists, else we would just give the bit to anyone that asks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallward's Ghost we all have our own criteria for RfA. Some people's criteria are more reasonable than others. However concerns about how one handles themselves in heated issues where one has a strong opinion are amongst the most reasonable criteria for RfA I have seen in a while.

I have seen some downright stupid opposes in the last 10 years of RfA, in this case the opposition are making valid points. I agree it is a matter of discretion and I don't deny the validity of the supports. However this RfA would be a terrible Exhibit A to explain why we don't have as many candidates as we did.

I think you are misrepresenting people by suggesting they are (basically) opposing because they disagree with the candidate's stance on paid editing. It is how they handled the disagreement that is at issue, and how having powerful tools may have made the situation worse. I personally agree that paid editing should not be allowed, but as an admin I have to accept that it is. HighInBC 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And my major concern is that he's pushed for the deletion of otherwise fine and fixed up articles because of who started them. That shows, IMO, the wrong priorities and perhaps a willingness to bend the rules in a way I'm not comfortable with. Throw in the outing issues, and I've got serious concerns. My hope is that if he does pass this RfA (and I think there is still a decent chance) that he takes all this feedback on board. If he does, I think he'll be a fine admin. If not, we'll have problems, lose some editors in the process, and have to remove the bit down the road. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit Most of the supporters that have not dealt with him directly, but have done research on his long and potentially difficult record and still trust him, are actually not that far from you (take notice that those who have worked with him have supported him in large numbers). I think that one difference with those that oppose him is that we have to trust first. We are also suspecting that the distrust from the opposes is more generated by differences about COI and his passionate approach than from tangible evidence. If he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to listen, take good decisions and to follow consensus regardless of his own position, there is no more to ask. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked was one where he let that passion overcome both good sense and our polices. People make mistakes. But he doesn't seem to see it as a mistake, and that's the problem. It's not his passion, it's how that passion impacts others caught in the crossfire. That said, I'll not be shocked if he turns out to be a good admin. I _hope_ he does, we could use more active admins. But the risk (pushing away good editors, the drama associated with someone pushing their POV over our actual policies) seems too high. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all, folks![edit]

This needs closed, and we'll see what happens I guess. The close should happen sooner rather than later, I think. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallward's Ghost Any idea where the Crat chat is? Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one yet. We only hold them if we think there's a need for it. Not every discussion will require one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently been placed on hold while the community discussion is reviewed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the last !vote?[edit]

I remember that in the Talk Page of the previous RfA Avi said something about being flexible with time. Not applicable here? Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Close[edit]

First, I'm absolutely stunned that Joe didn't let this go to a cratchat, and took it upon himself to close such a contentious RFA on his own. Second, apparently no consideration was even given to the fact that the opposition was almost uniformly in simple disagreement with his stated positions on COI/paid editing. It was more about people who switched from support to oppose, and I've already stated my views on what I think of that kind of switch. As I mentioned above, people should not be shocked when good editors start giving an "Ah, HELL no!" when they're asked if they'd consider standing for adminship. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've nominated someone who got right at 75% and a single Crat closed as unsuccessful. I didn't agree, but I respected the fact that the Crat acted in good faith, within policy, and using his best judgement, so I didn't make a fuss. I think it might have been the same Crat. Crats are not obligated to go to Crat chat. Once a Crat has closed an RFA, there is no venue to appeal to. Short of some kind of abuse, I think you just have to let it go. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There needs to be the equivalent of DRV for contentious closes like this one, and like that which you described. To me, this decision is much more difficult than the Hawkeye7 one, which the crats kept artificially open just so Nihonjoe could opine. Now Joe has closed a closer call without getting any input from his fellow crats. In my opinion, that's not good at all. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since these things are decided by 'crats it would need to be a 'crat that complains and 'crats that decide this "drv". HighInBC 01:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that is your opinion, but the community has uphead the role of Crats as the sole determiner of RFAs. You could propose a change, but I would expect it would be soundly defeated. There comes a time when you just accept the result and move on, and this is never more true than at RFA. Also note, only the candidate could appeal anyway, so this is all academic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I appreciate your feedback. Please note that a bureaucrat chat is never required, and any 'crat can close any RfA, no matter how close it may appear. I thoroughly reviewed the discussions and I clearly indicated why I closed it the way I did. You are welcome to disagree with that closure, but things do not always happen the way everyone would like (yes, not even the way I would like, many times). I stand by the decision. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I fully expected you to "stand by [your] decision", even when it was pointed out what a close call this was, and how it would be best to have at least given your fellow crats the courtesy of allowing them to weigh in, as they did for you on Hawkeye's RFA. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that it was close. That's why I included my rationale instead of just closing it with no comment. Obviously you disagree with it, which makes sencse since you supported the nominee. However, not all close discussions need a crat chat, and this was one of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Please explain why Hawkeye7's RFA needed a cratchat (that was held open even when the result was obvious, so you could post your views on it) but this one needed only your opinion on promotion. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You'll have to ask Avi, as he was the one who opened it and also the one who kept it open. He could have closed it, and I didn't specifically request it stay open. I just posted when I was planning to review it (almost exactly 12 hours before I closed it). If Avi or one of the other crats had decided to close it instead of waiting for my comments, that would have been fine. I'm not such a delicate flower that my feelings would be hurt (despite my weeping). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The question is for you: Why do you think this case wasn't a close enough call to let your fellow crats weigh in. As for Avi, even when I disagree with him, I always respect his decisions. I have no doubt he took Hawkeye's to cratchat because he trusted the collective wisdom of his fellow crats more than his own, though he can correct me if there was some other factor that played in. I simply wish you would've trusted the collective wisdom of your fellow crats as well, instead of taking on such a close and contested RFA call yourself. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I explained my reasoning when I closed the RfA. It's right there at the top of the page, plain as day. I don't see a need to further explain as I have nothing to add to what I wrote there. As for whether I trust the "collective wisdom of your fellow crats", I do. In this case, I didn't see a need to prolong things when I found the discussion results to be very clear. You're welcome to run for 'crat if you think you can handle the job. Just remember, it's painting a huge fluorescent target on your back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't argue the closure and believe that was done in a correct way, but I do have a question on a technical point, Nihonjoe. In your closure you said With the large number of editors who changed from supporting to opposing this candidate [...]. Does this mean that an Oppose vote that moved from original support has more weight than an Oppose vote that had been so all along? I think that both types of Oppose votes should weigh the same (rationale is a different matter). If anything, a switching vote may indicate that insufficient effort was taken to investigate the candidate, or that the vote was made prematurely, and therefore that voting was taken less seriously. Gap9551 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "has" to weigh the same. That is the entire point. !votes are not votes, else we would just have a simple yes or no vote without opinions to weigh. It is the !voters comment that is weighed (hopefully), regardless whether it was switched. Leaky Caldron 19:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's why I mentioned 'rationale'. My question was about something else, i.e., that it appeared as if merely switching itself increases the weight of a vote, all else being equal. Gap9551 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But !votes by themselves weigh nothing. So if it is new or a switch the 'crat will consider the argument. It was, I think, a lazy close statement. Leaky Caldron 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c)@Leaky caldron: Therein lies my concern. Where is it stated that the rationale for the !vote gives credence to the user's decision? That without it, its value is simply conditional? And if this is the case, where is it stated the criteria to produce such statement? That's why I would like to see a discussion on the topic. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it did need 'crat chat? How is this unlike any of the other numerous RfAs closed by a single 'crat?? This is not so different than a lot of closes. HighInBC 02:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently 'crat chat has been an exceptional thing. This was very near the bottom of the discretionary zone, it did not need a committee to decide. I seriously doubt that a 'crat chat would have come to another conclusion.

I guess the one way to find out is to see what the other 'crats think of this closure, unless any of them complain I see no issue. HighInBC 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, I support both Nihonjoe's close and decision to not open a crat chat. Had I gotten to the RfA first, I would have done the same. The combination of a large number of opposes, the final percentage, the amount of supporters switching, and most importantly, the concerns that Brianhe acts and may act with regard to COI, pushes the result firmly into "no consensus" territory. I don't think the outcome is as close as the raw number, accounted for a new discretionary range, would suggest. Hawkeye7 was a crat chat most likely because he is a former admin and there have been cases in the past where former admins got a more lenient close with respect to the number due to a combination of knowing how the candidate would use the admin tools and that a certain amount of opposers disagreeing with appropriate prior admin actions. Maxim(talk) 01:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes no sense to me that an editor who has been deadminned for cause would get a (possibly) more lenient close that an editor in good standing, whose entire Opposition was basically based upon them disagreeing with his (strongly held) views on COI/paid editing, and who has never given the slightest indication he would misuse the tools. I guess I've just not been around the block enough to understand how that is even fair. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally votes that amount to people resenting prior valid admin actions are given less(or no) weight, and thus involved greater evaluation. HighInBC 02:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is sense to make opposes, that arise from a former admin making appropriate actions, weigh less. When the opposes are based on actions that led to the desysop (and if there is nothing that's been done to acknowledge/deal with it, etc.), that becomes much more troubling. As Nihonjoe said, why exactly a crat chat was opened for Hawkeye7 would be better answered by Avi, tomorrow. Maybe it was opened because an RfA for a former admin is as controversial as RfA can get (if not, what could be more so?). The argument that someone has views in area that seem to diverge from existing policies, guidelines or conventions, and they also intend to do administrator work in that area, then that's a cause for concern. I understand you disagree with the decision. But as I outlined previously, I agree with Nihonjoe's decision. I hope that my feedback has allayed at least some of your concerns with the close. Maxim(talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close is within the bounds of bureaucrat discretion; a bureaucrat discussion need only be convened if the closing bureaucrat is unable to settle themselves on what they feel is a defensible result. –xenotalk 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xeno: Perhaps what should be compared by crats here is the responses (if any) to Avraham's approach to Hawkeye's RFA, and how they differed to the responses to the approach taken here. I think it was expected by many (both established users and newer users) that a crat discussion would take place for this one regardless of the outcome. If there was something making it practically difficult or impossible, I might understand the desire to skip that, but that clearly was not the case here. You were all very much around, and there is barely a backlog of RFAs to go through. I originally thought to leave it there given that bringing any further attention to it may be unnecessary if crats are bright enough to take steps to avoid this type of drama repeating itself unnecessarily in future. That is, crats are not in the business of stirring pots to get a rise, or doing something which will attract the wrong kind of attention and feedback, especially when they know how to avoid that with ease. However, seeing the way in which some crats (especially the closing crat) have responded to the concern, I no longer think it's wise to just leave it at that; a proposal along the lines of what DGG suggested may need to be formally made after all. The issue isn't about the outcome or what needed to happen here which I already appreciate; it is about why a more prudent approach needed to be avoided. While I don't know how many crats in total (other than the closing crat) did not see that or simply refuse to accept it, I trust the mere proposal of change will be enough of a warning to all those who need it. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If community consensus is developed for "discretionary zone = automatic bureaucrat discussion", then we will be entirely willing to oblige. That said, I am worried that this would have the effect of an automatic extension of the oftentimes already stressful week that RfA can be for candidates. In the present case, Nihonjoe saw the result as clear-cut and chose not to extend the candidates' stress period with a further bureaucrat chat. Reasonable minds can differ but I think that was a reasonable decision; the previous bureaucrat discussion clearly created additional stress for the candidate. Whose desires should be paramount here, the community's desire to have multiple bureaucrats weighing in on the result, or the candidates' desire for a swift and decisive result so that they may go on with their wiki-life without being held in the balance and the centre of attention for an additional X hours? –xenotalk 11:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Xeno: There is here a type of group mentality that limits the scope of reasonable analysis. Those who defend the status quo are responding with arguments that assume the logic behind the decisions was evident. But guess what. It was not. Yes, this is my second RfA, but I have been through the archives, I read Liz's entire debate, and that of many others, and there is not so much consistency as the one you and others are implying. Apparently, you guys are reading each other's minds, but I can't easily make sense of your actions. Can you imagine what would it be for others with even less experience and who have done less research? If you want more dedicated and skilled people to become involved in the process, you would have to start thinking outside of the box-- perhaps, there is a fear of having them here (WP:OWN of WP); I am not finding it a very welcoming place when new or taciturn !voters find the process/criteria unclear and their voices zipped (they have not edited enough, how would they know better than my buddy who I have followed for a longer time?). So, the more open the process is, the better for the community. You might say, as Joe did, that he went beyond the minimum by posting his own explanation of the process, but to be honest, though I appreciate his time and effort, I found it lacking, I was not convinced (and do you think the candidate was?). And then to argue that it was a good choice to have Joe close the RfA in a hurry to alleviate the candidate's agony is to make two more mistakes. First, it is to assume that the candidate prefer this type of closing, or that this form of conclusion for the process would bring the candidate any type of relief, or that time (rather than words) has anything to do with the candidate's misery, and that the candidate's would have preferred the RfA to end as soon as possible ("please, stop them from calling names") instead of having a more open closure. The second error is to admit that the process is brutal and yet let it continue. Brutal is not the same thing as hard or thorough or drilling. Brutal mingles with the words "savage," "inhumane" and "cruel." Is that what we want for WP? For a while, I have been trying to enlarge the circle of editors and help bring up future leaders, and when they see this, they do not come back. But more telling is when I approach veterans or former (non-desysopped) admins who are somewhat active, they can't even for a second hold the thought of going through this process. I am trying to make this point as loud and as clear as possible: we need a more open and less cruel means for choosing admins. In other words, the reform movement that began last December (2015) should be continued, and I seriously think that when the numbers fall into the discretionary range, it calls for an automatic Crat-chat. Otherwise, what is the meaning of discretionary? It is not self-evident. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 13:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addendum: By asking for a less brutal and more open means for choosing sysops, I am NOT advocating we lower the expectations. I have the sense that if we are clearer, we would be less brutal, and vice versa. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 13:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Xeno: To answer your question, I frankly don't think the candidate's desire is mutually exclusive from the community's desire. I also don't think the act of putting an RFA on hold (so no further votes can be registered) is a real cause of a candidate's misery, particularly if there is no significant backlog and crats are available to provide their comments promptly (which would have been the case of this RFA, had crat discretion been exercised more prudently so that a crat discussion option was opened). And even if as you say the closing crat did things the way he did here so that he would not extend the candidate's stress, perhaps he failed in execution due to the lack of clarity in his rash (if not substandard) wording of the rationale; another editor has reasonably expressed a further concern on the closing crat's talk page that the rationale wording was unnecessarily harsh and seems to intend for the editor to be driven off (incidentally, the editor also seems to suggest here that the crat is evading the concern and misleadingly suggesting the editor is merely whinging about the RFA being unsuccessful - which may have at least prompted this amendment by the crat in question). As to the previous candidate who had the benefit of a crat discussion for his RFA, I'm pretty sure his stress had less to do with the crat discussion itself; his stress was evident from the time he requested a subsequent arbcom to change the remedy which desysopped him (so that his tools can be given back without RFA). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously doubt that a cratchat would affect the result; the only reason to open a cratchat here is to protect this close from any purely procedural bureaucracy. Anway, the administrators or bureaucrats noticeboard is the place to open a closure review. Esquivalience t 03:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I am very disappointed by the outcome, I find the consensus was accurately read by the closer. IMO, this is however a candidacy that should clearly have passed but as is so often with RfA, the result depends not strictly on the merits of the candidate but on who, and how many turn out to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The results also depends upon who yells the loudest about they really really disagree w/X opinion the RFA candidate holds, and how the fact that he holds X opinion means he would misuse the tools should he be granted them. Also, when was the last time a non-resysop RFA that was less than 75% was promoted? If they never are, why not just make below 75% an auto-fail, and be done with it? Then it can just be a contest of who can turn out the most !votes for the nose count, and dispense with the whole "strength of argument" charade. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a discretionary range because it is up to the discretion of the 'crats. If you look through the history you will see RfAs in this range can go either way. HighInBC 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the main difference between the closings of the last two Requests for Adminship is that the present one uses rationales that can be agreed upon (or not), but are in any case receivable arguments. Again in my opinion, the rationales used in the preceding closing were not receivable: discounting the supports that were only supporting, counting the strongs and even arguing the obvious "70% is not unanimity". It would have been a shame to reiterate such a pile of weasel arguments. By the way, the scheduled closing of the !voting period was 22:41, 5 February and the actual hold pending review was 00:39, 6 February 2016. I don't see what can be argued against that. Pldx1 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to say this in principle, not to question the result; I would have said exactly the same if the result had been more aligned with my own vote:
Regardless of whether it would have a different result (and I agree with Kudpung that it would probably not have changed it) , a crat-chat would have increased the confidence that people have in the decision. Its purpose is not to protect the result from procedural objections, but to give wikipedians confidence that it is not an arbitrary decision.It's in line with our general trend towards openness,and procedures that are not only fair, but can be seen to be fair. I shall make a formal proposal tomorrow, that it be required if the results is in the discretionary range. Deciding a discretionary situation on the basis of who gets there first is not a good procedure. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to participating in that discussion. HighInBC 18:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As do I, and several others I am sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: I agree. Do you think that we could include concerns about the way Crats evaluate users' comments and a request to reveal and explain the metrics they used? This could be done at the individual level. These points are, of course, itemized in this same site, but my argument here is to ask Crats to include their summarized interpretation of their criteria/rationale. For me, the main problem in these two RfAs is that the hermeneutics was not transparent and sometimes it seemed even faulty (with a few exceptions). Some of us received the impression that certain aspects of the commentary corpus were valued higher than others. Their clarifications would help ivoters address the issues in the Crats' minds more directly as they offer comments in the forum. In short, we want to know what tools the Crats used to sift through the ivoter's commentaries while attempting to "read" the community's "mind." It would restore confidence in the system, and in turn, it will assist Crats in the following RfA to more easily separate ideological positions (or other issues of personal preference) from, let say, required traits for admins like a record of sound judgement. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a deep dive into the minds of the 'crats is needed. Neither of these decisions reflect a new or different approach in the judgement seen at any time is the last few years. Where I have serious reservations is in the differentiated approach taken in closing 2 similar RfAs. Just because they are appointed bureaucrats does not require a bureaucratic approach to be taken. I have concerns and I am grateful for the discussion which @DGG: plans to start. I prefer their narrow definition of the issue at hand. Leaky Caldron 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it disputed casess it will inevitably be a personal and decision, which cannot necessarily be done in a programmatic way -- all the more reason for more than one person giving a judgment. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • (e/c) First, I'll thank the bureaucrats for what they've being doing on the project. I may disagree with some RfA decisions, but I don't have the sense that the process is unfair or that the bureaucrats are abusing their authority. I certainly do not want to give them a hard time for doing what we've asked them to do. We ask them to make good decisions even if those decisions are unpopular. Sadly, RfAs are contentious, and decisions are unpopular.
The way RfA works is editors !vote. Sometime after the closing time, a bureaucrat comes along and looks at the !votes. We've given that 'crat the authority to count and or discount those !votes. The 'crat can throw out votes that are specious. They do a very reasonable job of that. The 'crat then computes the percentage of the reasonable promote !votes. If the resulting percentage is outside the discretionary range, the 'crats must follow the !vote. If the percentage is within the discretionary range, then the 'crat (any 'crat) has discretion about the promotion. Discretion is a broad and powerful right. The simple view is any !vote in the discretionary range can go either way. The community has turned the entire decision over to that solitary 'crat. That's what discretion is.
Sometimes a 'crat isn't sure about what to do, so he calls a 'crat chat. Convening a 'crat conclave in order to send smoke up the chimney has never been a requirement at RfA. The trust to evaluate and decide an RfA has always been to any 'crat. It's the 'crat's option to go it alone or confer with his colleagues.
I don't know why Avi called a 'crat chat, but it seemed to be a wise move. The discretionary range had changed, so the 'crats were probably a little unsure about what the changes meant. IIRC, the RfA stayed open because no 'crat had stepped in. Finally, Avi stepped in and called a 'crat chat, they puzzled out what they should do, and they came to a unanimous conclusion. I don't know, but I think that also settled how the 'crats would approach the new discretionary range. Yes, some editors can reasonably object to a 'crat discounting bare supports, but the decision was unanimous among all the 'crats, and not all 'crats adopted the bare support rationale.
For this RfA, there were no new RfA changes to ponder. NihonJoe quickly stepped in and closed !voting. He told us he would take some time evaluating the !votes. He determined that the !vote was in the discretionary range. Then he exercised his discretion and declined to promote. He did more than he had to do when he gave his rationale.
We have not told the 'crats that all candidates who have more than 65% of the reasonable !votes must be promoted. We have told the 'crats to use their discretion. I'm not going to tell 'crats how to exercise that discretion. However, if we look at past RfAs, those RfAs near the bottom of the discretionary range tend not to be promoted, and those near the top tend to get promoted. Here, the bare percentage was 67%, 2 points above the bottom.
Yes, you may be disappointed that Brianhe was not promoted. I like to support candidates, and I dislike opposing candidates with solid accomplishments. I'm sure that NihonJoe and the other 'crats would rather promote than decline such candidates, but that is not their task. We ask them to make some unpleasant decisions from time to time, and I applaud them for it.
Glrx (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned with how the vote goes. If there were a group that one could appeal decisions to, I don't think I would be appealing it--it would then, as it is now, be more productive to help Brianhe prepare for the next RfA, especially considering that a number of people whom I really trust here and generally think very similarly to , voted agains her.
I'm not all hat confident about anyone's individual judgements. That includes my own--I sam comfortable being on arb com because it's an open vote, and no one person makes a decision--and everybody knows what each individual arb thinks of. Iwould not be willing to makethe same sort of decisions if it relied only on my judgement. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited uninvolved bureaucrats at WP:BN to take a look at this close. Esquivalience t 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • They have already seen and endorsed. As I've said, there have been others like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theopolisme 2 that failed at 75%, with less enthusiastic opposition, and no Crat chat. I was the nom, I didn't ask for review, I just accepted and moved on, as did Theo. Short of any obvious mistake or abuse, I don't think calling for review is helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, nothing to do here; nothing in prior community consensus ever led to suggesting that RFA in the discretionary range should turn in to: Round 2 - CRAT VOTE!. — xaosflux Talk 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I primarily posted this on BN to finalize this discussion, but I believe that this should be closed. Esquivalience t 23:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the discretionary range has recently been changed I think it would be sensible if the next few RFAs that ended in the revised discretionary range went to crat chats. Crat chats give the crats the opportunity to compare the way they judge consensus and thereby come to consistent results. They also give the community the opportunity to comment on the logic the crats are following. I suppose we could already make an exception for RFAs where the trend is clear and a little extrapolation would take it out of the discretionary range in either direction. ϢereSpielChequers 11:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there should be process uniformity. However, much as I regret the outcome of this one, I don't see anything irregular about it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen any of the complaints referring to irregularity. To take the discussion into a different realm is to risk creating a strawman. Everything was done by the book. The problem is the book. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just saying that it doesn't do the nominee much good to drag this out. I'm upset by his loss as much as you are, but I'd like to see him continue his good work and put this behind him. Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the way it was closed. However, as I said, I agree that in borderline situations all closes should be by chat. So if you had read my remarks more carefully you'd have seen that I'm actually in agreement with you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to complain[edit]

In the Hawkeye RfA people complained that the 'crats put too much time, and waited for other 'crats opinions when there was no need to wait. Now we have people complaining that a 'crat made their decision too fast and did not wait for another 'crat.

I think at this point it is safe to say people are going to complain. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, so 'crats just use your best judgement and don't take the inevitable complaints too personally.

For those complaining, just keep in mind that if you got your way then other people would be complaining about that. HighInBC 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HighInBC, for dismissing my complaints that simply. This is not the way I would treat your complaints even if they would disagree with my views. The key for a successful WP is in listening to the complaints, pondering over them, and recognizing how there are degrees and gray areas, acknowledging them and giving them credit. But dismissing complaints just because people are always going to complain is tantamount to an imperious mentality. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am just pointing out the facts, I am not dismissing anything. If you had gotten your way somebody else would be complaining about that. If I don't agree with your complaints it is because this close was valid and very normal compared to how things have been done here historically. Considering neither Brianhe nor any of the 'crats have a problem with this close then I think the complaints should carry little weight. HighInBC 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the numbers and the outcome, one might imagine that more people are going to complain than not. Possibly 67%. This is sour gripes. The process was followed. There does not seem to have been any grave error. Nor does there seem to be any method of appeal. So what's the point in complaining? Just letting off steam? Go have a coldie. --Pete (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC, you are indeed dismissing my complaints by saying what you said. Look at what I wrote above. And Pete, there is no sour gripes here, at least from me. That's reading something there is not. It is more than that. I think the way these two RfAs were conducted were by the book (I said that above), but I think we can and should do better. Stop diminishing my arguments and take them seriously. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agreeing with your complaint. I am pointing out that other people take directly opposing views and would complain if you got your way. I am not dismissing anything, I am trying to explain to you that the 'crats can't really obey you without annoying somebody else. Do you see the difference? HighInBC 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything was done by the book. The problem is the book." Fair enough. Have you taken your concerns up a notch to a more general forum? --Pete (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. These complaints should be focused on attempts to improve our policies and procedures. I personally would oppose any change that required a 'crat chat when it was not seen as needed by a 'crat, however if the idea gains consensus I will accept that. Complaining that the 'crats did their job as they are expected to is not going to accomplish much. HighInBC 16:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no other way this could have been closed. I know I'm not neutral here because I opposed, but there simply isn't any other decision that a bureaucrat could have reached, and I wish people would stop looking for a controversy where there isn't one to be had. A few weeks ago, this would have been below the discretionary range. Okay, the discretionary range has been lowered, but the Hawkeye 'crat chat established a precedent that substantial and sustained opposition bringing the RfA to the lower end of the discretionary zone meant "no consensus". I was disappointed by that decision, but the bureaucrats correctly evaluated the consensus (or lack thereof). Nihonjoe followed that precedent (stare decisis is the legal principle), undoubtedly aware that a 'crat chat would have reached exactly the same conclusion. I empathise with the supporters, because it's disheartening when your honestly held faith in someone isn't shared, and with Brinahe because I know from personal experience that RfA can be a gruelling experience, but the bureaucrats would have been derelict in their duty if they had closed this as successful. It's time to move on and get back to the business of writing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mitchell, you bring a good point about precedent, which should have been also explained as clearly as you did here. But trying to redirect or silence voices that are not comfortable with the way things were ran are not the best way to build an encyclopedia. It has been exactly here, on this page, where important issues have been raised and some of them have been explained (as you just did), but many others not yet. My concern (and I suspect it is the same with others) is that by reducing the importance of the complaints they would be sidelined. I would not do that to you or any other. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I completely agree. And I think there's a real disconnect between bureaucrats (especially Nihonjoe) and the portion of the community that thinks this was a close done with too much haste. As an example of this, look no further than Joe's attempt to shut down this on-going discussion with an archive box. There is absolutely no need to prevent people from discussing what happened here, and its ramifications moving forward. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a complaint isn't about abuse or a clear mistake in applying policy, then it is just a complaint about the outcome. Every Crat who has opined has said he acted within norms. Most (bordering on all) experienced editors and all admin have said the same. No one has pointed to any specific passage of policy that wasn't followed, probably because the proper process was followed, and this has been explained ad nauseum. So once again, it takes us to complaining about the outcome, which isn't a valid argument for the Crats, they didn't vote. When Brianhe runs again, all this gnashing of teeth isn't going to be beneficial to them and may in fact hurt them. HJ is right, it is past time to move on. If you don't like policy, go to those pages and get it changed, because it was followed in this RFA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not continue here since we have moved to the wp:BN here, but I need to protest the way you simplify my complaints. They are NOT about the outcome. Please, re-read them before trying to judge them. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 21:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Brianhe&oldid=1136420382"