This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
The following threads are preserved as an archive of a inter- bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3. The final decision was no consensus. Please do not modify the text.
I would appreciate input from other bureaucrats in determining whether a consensus for promotion exists in this case. In light of canvassing issues surrounding this discussion, I considered extending it so as to "dilute" the effect of any canvassed participants. In the end I decided not to do this, as:
Looking at the discussion as it stands, I confess that I find myself rather stuck. On the one hand, although a number of opposers allege a lack of improvement since previous RfAs, there is a dearth of links showing problematic behaviour since then. Much of the opposition is based on conduct that was found problematic in previous RfAs, but little is there to rebut those supporters who say that those issues are a thing of the past. There are concerns about how representative of the community as a whole the opposers are, and whether they are dispropotionately those involved in WP:ARS.
On the other hand, those opposing on the whole make rational points about temperament and a perceived likeliness to use sysop tools too readily and too harshly. There is also a suggestion that Kww does not respond well to criticism and may have trouble respecting a consensus he disagrees with. They suggest that more time is needed to develop some of the "softer" skills that administrators may benefit from.
The supporters do acknowledge those concerns to some extent, agreeing that Kww is "abbrasive" but arguing that this is not always a bad thing. They also point out that diffs of problematic behaviour predate the last RfA, something that I have highlighted above.
Numerically, this is at the very low end of the area where bureaucrat discretion lies, though there is evidence to suggest that the discussion was brought to the attention of those like to oppose who would not otherwise have participated (as I indicated above, I do not think this has made a significant difference). I do not think this is a clear-cut case by any means however and, especially as I am now much less involved with the community than I used to be, I would appreciate input from other bureacrats. WJBscribe (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I can get to this discussion in a meaningful manner no sooner than Monday morning. If it's closed by then, so be it. Sorry, but I'm finding my onwiki time extremely limited currently. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I will be very curious to see what Dweller has in store for us, but at the moment, here are my thoughts:
I'm on the fence when it comes to probationary adminship at the moment, but I do feel very uncomfortable about going that route without discussion from the community at large. With regards to this RFA, I don't consider canvassing to be a major issue here, because it appears through discussion that most of those canvassed know what canvassing is, and know not to be swayed by it.
Instead, I consider the main issue to be the mix of different types of opposition we typically see in controversial RFAs. Some of the !votes I perceive to be more about politics and viewpoint more so than actual demonstration of potential misuse, and while they may have generated more substantial discussion than usual, I do not consider them to be particularly worthy of consideration in this RFA. Others, however, have offered valid cause for concern in terms of general attitude, a view that has been accepted in the supports and neutrals. I consider this point to be insuperable, but I noted that there were many diffs cite that dated back over a year. This does not sit very well with me. Certainly the concern that they cause in terms of long-term attitude (which as we know is very difficult to change) is valid, but the magnitude to which they have been used is just as concerning to me. There has been a general agreement that Kww has composed himself well through the course of this RFA and related discussions.
The general vibe I get from the sum of the supports, opposes, and neutrals is one of uneasy acceptance (how else could we have revived the perennial discussion on probationary adminship?), which is perfectly understandable in the midst of our recent admin troubles. Based on these points (I'm definitely still open to outside comment), I would concur with Andrevan to promote. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree in many ways with Will's analysis of the situation above. I find much of the rationale in the oppose opinions to be weaker and based on old information without much evidence of the continuance of those issues. On the other hand the oppose comments cite concerns that are varied and at times well argued and those concerns are echoed in some of the support comments. In the end I don't find the canvassing issue to be a major factor here since even if all of the potential convassed oppose comments were simply thrown out without considering any of the supports it doesn't bring the end result into a clear consensus area. Weighing all of the arguments, I feel that the level of opposition is too high to consider this a consensus to promote. Even if it isn't as well argued, there is simply too much opposition to ignore enough of it to consider this a consensus to promote. I also nod my hat to Matt for bringing up ideas that have been tried elsewhere so that they can be considered here, but will note that the conversations on that idea have been generally negative here on en.wiki and even if they weren't a single contested RfA would not be the best time to try it out. The community generally doesn't give us that remit. - Taxman Talk 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not overwhelmed by the idea of another level of bureaucracy here, i.e. a probationary period for admins. Either the community trusts them or they don't and the WP:RFA mechanism, while a continual source of "is broken" commentary, does allow the community a good chance to air their opinions, and in cases like this, a good chance for bureaucrats to show it's not just a number-crunching exercise, actually reading the nature of support, oppose and neutral opinions.. As for the canvassing, per Anonymous Dissident, attempting to quantify the effect of it is problematic and, at best, a guess. I would also concur with the general view that Kww has conducted himself well throughout all of this and while the % is just below the "usual range", I would support the idea that this is an "uneasy promotion". The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It is my interpretation that prior to the canvassing there was not sufficient support to promote and that !votes cast after that did not have a significant impact on the final results. The criticisms in opposition were legitimate and substantial (excluding a few that were petty and knitpicky), and cannot be ignored. As bureaucrats, we need not only to assess the strength of those supporting, but also the strength of those in opposition. Yes, some criticisms involved events that took place over a year ago, but there is no let-bygones-be-bygones RfA policy. Unfortunately, if events from long ago still bother a lot of editors, we need to respect that. As for the more recent Meursault2004 / Bambifan101 incident, it deserved a better, healthier approach from Kww. In this particular RfA there simply is not enough support to offset the concerns of the legitimate opposition.
I must also add that I am a disappointed in the amount of tit-for-tat puerility that took place in this RfA, along with the amount of baiting and the difficulty people had in ignoring the laid bait. Please stop using RfAs as your battleground. Please end the side conversations and the unfolding of personal agendas. We should consider limiting each editor to only ten posts per RfA. Anything more than that should fire up some major red flags. This is not elementary school playgrounds. This arena deserves the mature sides of all of us. The point of RfAs is not only to determine if a candidate is ready to be an administrator, but also to provide constructive criticism so the candidate can grow from the experience. Failing an RfA is not the end of an effort, but part of a process. We want people to learn from this feedback, then (if they so choose) put this advice into action so that they may someday become an admin. This is a healthy way to proceed. If the candidate grows, Wikipedia benefits. For those of you who feel Kww should never become an admin, I hope you re-assess your position - because in my book such notions show a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic philosophy.
Lastly, I am opposed to probationary or conditional adminships. It would send a message that we don't fully trust new admins. New admins would then be less likely to take difficult actions, thereby harming Wikipedia through admin inaction and hindering their ability to learn. Probationary adminships could also cause candidates to be promoted who aren't ready to be admins. It's okay to say no to candidates with gray-area results.
Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Taxman, I removed the petty and vendetta-style oppositional arguments from my assessment, but even with that, I still conclude that the other concerns raised were reasonable, fair-minded and in sufficient numbers to negate consensus. Kingturtle ( talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
My take on this: this is a finely-balanced decision, as can be seen by the current split in Crat opinions. I thank you for your patience - and apologise to the candidate who's having a long wait for a decision, which cannot be comfortable. First, I'll add my voice to the "no probationary admins" camp - there's simply no consensus currently for this and I think it'd need to come from the community, rather than us. I can't be bothered to look, but it's probably a WP:PEREN - it's certainly been discussed to death at WT:RFA on any number of occasions without consensus.
Taking into account everything I've read, I find the level of support toward the lower end of discretionary range. So I'm looking for additional reason to promote. I like TRM's comments about the candidate's behaviour during the affair, and indeed see it as admirable and adminlike, but I sadly can't see that as being reflective of community consensus, which is what I'm here to assess, rather than handing out a deserved barnstar, which would be appropriate.
The opposes are mostly relevant and fairly strong in nature. So, I'm leaning toward no consensus. What tips me over the edge, perhaps controversially, but this is a controversial RfA, is the "3" at the end of the RfA name. I cannot overlook the fact that twice already the community has deemed this candidate not worthy of the tools at that time. That to me speaks of some extra tiny element that a very close call here should not overturn that existing consensus. I hesitate to bring this up, because I can imagine I'll get stick for it, but I'm afraid that's how it is. I therefore opt for "no consensus" with a heavy heart.
The only comfort I can offer is that based on a continuation of the kind of attitude shown by the candidate at this RfA alone, I'd support a future RfA for them and I'd encourage contact with me if/when ready to run again. If a thorough trawl through their recent edits at that time makes me really like what I see, I'd consider nominating. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hrrm, I really would have preferred we simply discuss to see if we can come to a decision we can all stand by rather than polling, but I put my position where it would go. To help reach a decision I'd like more specifics on why those that see consensus feel there is enough support to overcome the substantial opposition. I think I know some of the reasons as stated, but I'd like to hear what people think now that many of us have weighed in. - Taxman Talk 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm still thinking on this. I can honestly see merit to both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I've added my opinion to the chart, based on my comments in the section above. For clarity, I'll be trying to keep an eye on this page and I'm open to being persuaded to change my mind by good argument, but I do think (as others have said) we have a duty to call this sooner, rather than later, so I'm also happy for one of us to close the discussion at any time from, say, a few hours from now. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It's close, that's undeniable. What swayed me towards promoting was reading the oppose votes in detail. A sizable minority of them concern themselves with things said up to a year and half ago. I understand that issues such as notability are a core part of Wikipedia, and that the exact implementation of the policies and guidelines is a topic of hot debate, so it's easy for people to get worked up about it when people say (what might seem to them as) stupid things. Bear in mind that this was well over a year and a half ago. I've know for a fact that I've changed a great deal since a year and a half ago, for example. People change, as evidenced by the amount of support the candidate has. Taking that into account, as well as the fact that there were issues with cavnassing to oppose mentioned above, I am inclined to promote this candidate. -- Deskana (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies for the delay in my coming back to this discussion - one of the problems with it continuing into the week is that my time is more limited. I have no great objection to the close, though I think it would have been preferable for Andre to confirm that others were happy for this discussion to be brought to a end. It is not entirely clear to me that everyone had settled on final views. That said, this discussion has inevitably drawn out the process and that puts additional hardship on the candidate.
Whilst I had not come to a final view, a was leaning towards finding a lack of consensus in the end. I found Taxman and Avi's arguments in particular persuasive. Whilst TRM's reasoning was inviting to some extent, I think that although giving the candidate credit for their conduct under pressure during a tense RFA is commendable, I agree with others that this is not something that bureaucrats can do in assessing consensus (though it may be something the community may take into account should Kww choose to submit his candidacy for adminship again in the future). I think this was an RfA very much on the balance.
I would like to thank everyone for responding to my request for further input and for the thoughtful comments you made above. WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
The following threads are preserved as an archive of a inter- bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3. The final decision was no consensus. Please do not modify the text.
I would appreciate input from other bureaucrats in determining whether a consensus for promotion exists in this case. In light of canvassing issues surrounding this discussion, I considered extending it so as to "dilute" the effect of any canvassed participants. In the end I decided not to do this, as:
Looking at the discussion as it stands, I confess that I find myself rather stuck. On the one hand, although a number of opposers allege a lack of improvement since previous RfAs, there is a dearth of links showing problematic behaviour since then. Much of the opposition is based on conduct that was found problematic in previous RfAs, but little is there to rebut those supporters who say that those issues are a thing of the past. There are concerns about how representative of the community as a whole the opposers are, and whether they are dispropotionately those involved in WP:ARS.
On the other hand, those opposing on the whole make rational points about temperament and a perceived likeliness to use sysop tools too readily and too harshly. There is also a suggestion that Kww does not respond well to criticism and may have trouble respecting a consensus he disagrees with. They suggest that more time is needed to develop some of the "softer" skills that administrators may benefit from.
The supporters do acknowledge those concerns to some extent, agreeing that Kww is "abbrasive" but arguing that this is not always a bad thing. They also point out that diffs of problematic behaviour predate the last RfA, something that I have highlighted above.
Numerically, this is at the very low end of the area where bureaucrat discretion lies, though there is evidence to suggest that the discussion was brought to the attention of those like to oppose who would not otherwise have participated (as I indicated above, I do not think this has made a significant difference). I do not think this is a clear-cut case by any means however and, especially as I am now much less involved with the community than I used to be, I would appreciate input from other bureacrats. WJBscribe (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I can get to this discussion in a meaningful manner no sooner than Monday morning. If it's closed by then, so be it. Sorry, but I'm finding my onwiki time extremely limited currently. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I will be very curious to see what Dweller has in store for us, but at the moment, here are my thoughts:
I'm on the fence when it comes to probationary adminship at the moment, but I do feel very uncomfortable about going that route without discussion from the community at large. With regards to this RFA, I don't consider canvassing to be a major issue here, because it appears through discussion that most of those canvassed know what canvassing is, and know not to be swayed by it.
Instead, I consider the main issue to be the mix of different types of opposition we typically see in controversial RFAs. Some of the !votes I perceive to be more about politics and viewpoint more so than actual demonstration of potential misuse, and while they may have generated more substantial discussion than usual, I do not consider them to be particularly worthy of consideration in this RFA. Others, however, have offered valid cause for concern in terms of general attitude, a view that has been accepted in the supports and neutrals. I consider this point to be insuperable, but I noted that there were many diffs cite that dated back over a year. This does not sit very well with me. Certainly the concern that they cause in terms of long-term attitude (which as we know is very difficult to change) is valid, but the magnitude to which they have been used is just as concerning to me. There has been a general agreement that Kww has composed himself well through the course of this RFA and related discussions.
The general vibe I get from the sum of the supports, opposes, and neutrals is one of uneasy acceptance (how else could we have revived the perennial discussion on probationary adminship?), which is perfectly understandable in the midst of our recent admin troubles. Based on these points (I'm definitely still open to outside comment), I would concur with Andrevan to promote. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree in many ways with Will's analysis of the situation above. I find much of the rationale in the oppose opinions to be weaker and based on old information without much evidence of the continuance of those issues. On the other hand the oppose comments cite concerns that are varied and at times well argued and those concerns are echoed in some of the support comments. In the end I don't find the canvassing issue to be a major factor here since even if all of the potential convassed oppose comments were simply thrown out without considering any of the supports it doesn't bring the end result into a clear consensus area. Weighing all of the arguments, I feel that the level of opposition is too high to consider this a consensus to promote. Even if it isn't as well argued, there is simply too much opposition to ignore enough of it to consider this a consensus to promote. I also nod my hat to Matt for bringing up ideas that have been tried elsewhere so that they can be considered here, but will note that the conversations on that idea have been generally negative here on en.wiki and even if they weren't a single contested RfA would not be the best time to try it out. The community generally doesn't give us that remit. - Taxman Talk 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not overwhelmed by the idea of another level of bureaucracy here, i.e. a probationary period for admins. Either the community trusts them or they don't and the WP:RFA mechanism, while a continual source of "is broken" commentary, does allow the community a good chance to air their opinions, and in cases like this, a good chance for bureaucrats to show it's not just a number-crunching exercise, actually reading the nature of support, oppose and neutral opinions.. As for the canvassing, per Anonymous Dissident, attempting to quantify the effect of it is problematic and, at best, a guess. I would also concur with the general view that Kww has conducted himself well throughout all of this and while the % is just below the "usual range", I would support the idea that this is an "uneasy promotion". The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It is my interpretation that prior to the canvassing there was not sufficient support to promote and that !votes cast after that did not have a significant impact on the final results. The criticisms in opposition were legitimate and substantial (excluding a few that were petty and knitpicky), and cannot be ignored. As bureaucrats, we need not only to assess the strength of those supporting, but also the strength of those in opposition. Yes, some criticisms involved events that took place over a year ago, but there is no let-bygones-be-bygones RfA policy. Unfortunately, if events from long ago still bother a lot of editors, we need to respect that. As for the more recent Meursault2004 / Bambifan101 incident, it deserved a better, healthier approach from Kww. In this particular RfA there simply is not enough support to offset the concerns of the legitimate opposition.
I must also add that I am a disappointed in the amount of tit-for-tat puerility that took place in this RfA, along with the amount of baiting and the difficulty people had in ignoring the laid bait. Please stop using RfAs as your battleground. Please end the side conversations and the unfolding of personal agendas. We should consider limiting each editor to only ten posts per RfA. Anything more than that should fire up some major red flags. This is not elementary school playgrounds. This arena deserves the mature sides of all of us. The point of RfAs is not only to determine if a candidate is ready to be an administrator, but also to provide constructive criticism so the candidate can grow from the experience. Failing an RfA is not the end of an effort, but part of a process. We want people to learn from this feedback, then (if they so choose) put this advice into action so that they may someday become an admin. This is a healthy way to proceed. If the candidate grows, Wikipedia benefits. For those of you who feel Kww should never become an admin, I hope you re-assess your position - because in my book such notions show a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic philosophy.
Lastly, I am opposed to probationary or conditional adminships. It would send a message that we don't fully trust new admins. New admins would then be less likely to take difficult actions, thereby harming Wikipedia through admin inaction and hindering their ability to learn. Probationary adminships could also cause candidates to be promoted who aren't ready to be admins. It's okay to say no to candidates with gray-area results.
Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Taxman, I removed the petty and vendetta-style oppositional arguments from my assessment, but even with that, I still conclude that the other concerns raised were reasonable, fair-minded and in sufficient numbers to negate consensus. Kingturtle ( talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
My take on this: this is a finely-balanced decision, as can be seen by the current split in Crat opinions. I thank you for your patience - and apologise to the candidate who's having a long wait for a decision, which cannot be comfortable. First, I'll add my voice to the "no probationary admins" camp - there's simply no consensus currently for this and I think it'd need to come from the community, rather than us. I can't be bothered to look, but it's probably a WP:PEREN - it's certainly been discussed to death at WT:RFA on any number of occasions without consensus.
Taking into account everything I've read, I find the level of support toward the lower end of discretionary range. So I'm looking for additional reason to promote. I like TRM's comments about the candidate's behaviour during the affair, and indeed see it as admirable and adminlike, but I sadly can't see that as being reflective of community consensus, which is what I'm here to assess, rather than handing out a deserved barnstar, which would be appropriate.
The opposes are mostly relevant and fairly strong in nature. So, I'm leaning toward no consensus. What tips me over the edge, perhaps controversially, but this is a controversial RfA, is the "3" at the end of the RfA name. I cannot overlook the fact that twice already the community has deemed this candidate not worthy of the tools at that time. That to me speaks of some extra tiny element that a very close call here should not overturn that existing consensus. I hesitate to bring this up, because I can imagine I'll get stick for it, but I'm afraid that's how it is. I therefore opt for "no consensus" with a heavy heart.
The only comfort I can offer is that based on a continuation of the kind of attitude shown by the candidate at this RfA alone, I'd support a future RfA for them and I'd encourage contact with me if/when ready to run again. If a thorough trawl through their recent edits at that time makes me really like what I see, I'd consider nominating. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hrrm, I really would have preferred we simply discuss to see if we can come to a decision we can all stand by rather than polling, but I put my position where it would go. To help reach a decision I'd like more specifics on why those that see consensus feel there is enough support to overcome the substantial opposition. I think I know some of the reasons as stated, but I'd like to hear what people think now that many of us have weighed in. - Taxman Talk 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm still thinking on this. I can honestly see merit to both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I've added my opinion to the chart, based on my comments in the section above. For clarity, I'll be trying to keep an eye on this page and I'm open to being persuaded to change my mind by good argument, but I do think (as others have said) we have a duty to call this sooner, rather than later, so I'm also happy for one of us to close the discussion at any time from, say, a few hours from now. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It's close, that's undeniable. What swayed me towards promoting was reading the oppose votes in detail. A sizable minority of them concern themselves with things said up to a year and half ago. I understand that issues such as notability are a core part of Wikipedia, and that the exact implementation of the policies and guidelines is a topic of hot debate, so it's easy for people to get worked up about it when people say (what might seem to them as) stupid things. Bear in mind that this was well over a year and a half ago. I've know for a fact that I've changed a great deal since a year and a half ago, for example. People change, as evidenced by the amount of support the candidate has. Taking that into account, as well as the fact that there were issues with cavnassing to oppose mentioned above, I am inclined to promote this candidate. -- Deskana (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies for the delay in my coming back to this discussion - one of the problems with it continuing into the week is that my time is more limited. I have no great objection to the close, though I think it would have been preferable for Andre to confirm that others were happy for this discussion to be brought to a end. It is not entirely clear to me that everyone had settled on final views. That said, this discussion has inevitably drawn out the process and that puts additional hardship on the candidate.
Whilst I had not come to a final view, a was leaning towards finding a lack of consensus in the end. I found Taxman and Avi's arguments in particular persuasive. Whilst TRM's reasoning was inviting to some extent, I think that although giving the candidate credit for their conduct under pressure during a tense RFA is commendable, I agree with others that this is not something that bureaucrats can do in assessing consensus (though it may be something the community may take into account should Kww choose to submit his candidacy for adminship again in the future). I think this was an RfA very much on the balance.
I would like to thank everyone for responding to my request for further input and for the thoughtful comments you made above. WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply