Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3

Editing stats for Ironholds at 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC):

General user info
Username: Ironholds
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Apr 02, 2008 19:46:10
Unique articles edited: 10,806
Average edits per page: 2.21
Total edits (including deleted): 23,830
Deleted edits: 4,818
Live edits: 19,012

Namespace totals
Article	6501	34.19%
Talk	653	3.43%
User	1810	9.52%
User talk	7088	37.28%
Wikipedia	2411	12.68%
Wikipedia talk	323	1.70%
File	27	0.14%
File talk	1	0.01%
Template	43	0.23%
Template talk	104	0.55%
Category	46	0.24%
Category talk	1	0.01%
Portal	3	0.02%
Portal talk	1	0.01%

Month counts
2008/04	1415	
2008/05	1984	
2008/06	2385	
2008/07	1866	
2008/08	1440	
2008/09	804	
2008/10	1318	
2008/11	1734	
2008/12	2109	
2009/01	1905	
2009/02	1451	
2009/03	601	

Logs
Pages moved: 103
Pages patrolled: 3741
Files uploaded: 18

Top edited articles
Article

    * 155 - Norman_Birkett,_1st_Baron_Birkett
    * 58 - List_of_Stewards_of_the_Manor_of_Northstead
    * 53 - Chief_Justice_of_the_Common_Pleas
    * 40 - Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning
    * 36 - Court_of_Common_Pleas_(England)
    * 32 - Buchanan_Medal
    * 32 - Copley_Medal
    * 28 - Pure_Reason_Revolution
    * 25 - List_of_Justices_of_the_Court_of_Common_Pleas
    * 24 - Rumford_Medal


Talk

    * 10 - Pure_Reason_Revolution
    * 8 - Cardiacs
    * 8 - Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning
    * 8 - Antichrist
    * 8 - Ancient_Olympic_Games
    * 7 - Naturalism_(philosophy)
    * 6 - Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning/GA1
    * 5 - Richard_Stover
    * 5 - Norman_Birkett,_1st_Baron_Birkett
    * 5 - Dan_Seals_(Illinois_politician)


User

    * 470 - Ironholds/Sandbox3
    * 451 - Ironholds/Sandbox
    * 188 - Ironholds/Sandbox2
    * 188 - Ironholds/CP
    * 68 - Ironholds/header
    * 66 - Ironholds/page
    * 59 - Ironholds
    * 39 - Ironholds/DYK
    * 25 - Ironholds/monobook.js
    * 21 - Ironholds/Awards


User talk

    * 91 - Ironholds
    * 67 - Choess/Archive4
    * 41 - Ecoleetage
    * 26 - CultureDrone
    * 25 - Bbadree
    * 25 - Red_Thunder
    * 25 - PMDrive1061
    * 20 - Rjecina/Archive4
    * 20 - Hellboy2hell
    * 20 - Shappy


Wikipedia

    * 221 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    * 143 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 85 - Miscellany_for_deletion
    * 52 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 35 - Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_2
    * 32 - Featured_article_candidates/Norman_Birkett,_1st_Ba...
    * 31 - WikiProject_Awards_and_prizes
    * 24 - Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds
    * 22 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Stewards_of_the_M...
    * 22 - Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Spiritus_Nirin


Wikipedia talk

    * 147 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 48 - WikiProject_Awards_and_prizes
    * 20 - Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_2
    * 13 - WikiProject_Mammals
    * 8 - WikiUpdate
    * 6 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
    * 5 - Meetup/London_13
    * 5 - Meetup/London_12
    * 5 - Meetup/London_11
    * 4 - Meetup/Manchester_4


File

    * 3 - Birkett.jpg
    * 3 - Nuremberg_judges.jpg
    * 3 - Ramsay_MacDonald_rightfacing.29588.jpg
    * 1 - Pure_Reason-Apprentice.jpg
    * 1 - Lepreumap.jpg
    * 1 - Wiki_Update_Episode_3.ogg
    * 1 - 276826063_m.jpg
    * 1 - Intention-craft.jpg
    * 1 - Cautionarytalesforthebrave.jpg
    * 1 - Bright-ambassadors.jpg


File talk

    * 1 - Muslim_distribution.png


Template

    * 10 - Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons
    * 4 - PRRevolution
    * 4 - RoySoc
    * 3 - Shell_Professors_of_Chemical_Engineering
    * 2 - KidsTVBlocksUS
    * 2 - Announcements/Community_bulletin_board
    * 2 - The_Groove_(band)
    * 1 - Non-free
    * 1 - Sexual_orientation
    * 1 - Infobox_British_Bangladeshis


Template talk

    * 104 - Did_you_know


Category

    * 2 - Pure_Reason_Revolution
    * 2 - Surgical_organizations
    * 2 - High_Sheriffs_of_Buckinghamshire
    * 2 - British_surgical_organisations
    * 2 - Royal_Medal_winners
    * 2 - High_Sheriffs_of_Sussex
    * 2 - High_Sheriffs_of_Anglesey
    * 1 - American_surgical_organizations
    * 1 - WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles_particip...
    * 1 - People_from_Fall_River,_Massachusetts


Category talk

    * 1 - Musicians


Portal

    * 1 - Contents/Overviews
    * 1 - Geography
    * 1 - Contents/Categorical_index/Philosophy_and_thinking


Portal talk

    * 1 - Contents

Caspian blue's Oppose

moved from RfA page ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Care to expand on why you believe that users are not allowed to reapply for adminship after a certain point? — neuro^(talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just a pointer: five, not six. Ironholds (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I counted the experimental case too, so "six" is correct. My reasoning is well, I remind of a catchpraise used by some user; prima facie power hunger". --Caspian blue 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   No, counting the experimental case, five is correct. There are six links, yes; one of them is oh-so-subtly marked "post-mortem" and refers to Ironholds 2. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's patronising. I don't recommend that behaviour on your own RfA, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Then allow me to be patronising instead. There are clearly only 4 previous RfA's. One was oh so subtley marked "post-mortem" and the other is even subtely called Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 which unless I am very much mistaken is very same title of this page. Counting the experimental is somewhat of a bad faith move by the voter. So its nine months since the last run of the mill RfA? So whats the expected time at RfA now? Do ask candidates not to run for 12 months? 18? Seddσn ^talk 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   (If I may interject here, my suggestion would be to ask failed candidates to demonstrate their willingness to be helpful and non-self-interested by spending, say, six months focusing on other users' requests for help, for example by answering questions on the Help desk and our other help pages. This is also a great way to learn more about Wikipedia, by learning how to look up answers to questions that other people come up with, and to see the answers that other experienced Wikipedians provide. Some questioners on the Help desk arrive in a state of agitation and frustration, so this is also good practice at learning to deal with upset people.) --Teratornis (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   You're the one assuming "bad faith" as coming out of nowhere. for I consider the way you push me to count is wrong and weird. When the "experimental RfA" was held, I had to visit the page several times for unexpected circumstance. It took a quite time as contrasted to the claim to discount the RFA as "null". After the "experimental RfA" was over, I decided not vote at that time because I had no time to read through the drama case.--Caspian blue 14:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Your statement 6 times running for adminship (and failed) implies that there were 6 rfa previously and all failed. That is incorrect, there are clearly only four. Being corrected is not weird but simply a fact of life. I do concede that my comment is simply my own opinion. I cannot be bothered however to argue with regards to the accusations of bad faith and counter accusations as we have both been around to know that its a cyclic argument so we can just leave those be for know :) Seddσn ^talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Again, I clearly said I count the experiment case (now the link was gone for whatever obvious reason), so this is his 6th running for RfA. The previous ones are all not successful; that is a fact. Why don't you stop falsely accusing me? I only said the "fact". Your poor reading is not my responsibility. I'm not gonna waste my time dealing with your badgering. You've already bothered me enough.--Caspian blue 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I did not dispute the fact you count his experimental RFA. That RFA was ironholds 2. What you include is the discussion and opinions about the experiment. It was not and never has been another of his RFA's. So he has previously had 4 failed rfa's and his current rfa. I will say it again. Your statement 6 times running for adminship (and failed) is incorrect. Hes failed four rfa's and this is his fifth. Seddσn ^talk 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Ignoring the remark about the number of RfAs, Caspian's other concern was the recent incivility; I don't see anyone defending that much more important point here, do I? And you can be patronising all you wish, Seddon, but it doesn't reflect well on Ironholds' defense and just seems like an immature response. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed scarian, noone is defending those and I will be honest and say that I am neither defending nor supporting ironholds at this time whilst I mull over the very diffs you have provided scarian and believe that your oppose is not unfounded. I see incivility issues to be a cause for concern and see this as a valid arguement. However comments made on flawed understanding or inconsistent information clearly should be brought up. RfA should be based on facts and I am sure you will agree that it would not be fair for a failing candidate nor a successful candidate to have thier RfA pass or fail with voters swayed by information that was not correct due to an accicental misundertanding. Seddσn ^talk 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hear hear. My sentiments exactly. I wouldn't condone anything less. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things - generally best to include the text of the original comment (in this case, Caspian blue's oppose) when moving something. Helps with context. Second point is that its simply obvious that there have been 5 requests, and no sense in further discussion on the topic. There was some confusion, now corrected (it was caused by subpaging a discussion beneath the request, instead of the talkpage of the request) and anyone should be able to judge for themselves. Caspian blue still doesn't understand, but oh well. Avruch ^T 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand my answer at all, so no thanks for your preach.[1]--Caspian blue 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I did misunderstand the second part of your comment, I admit it reads a little garbled to me. If you were to perhaps restate it in different words, maybe that would help my understanding of your position. That isn't necessary, however; there truly is no point to further debate on something as minor as the correct count. Avruch ^T 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I love it when Caspian Blue goes off about people not reading correctly. Caspian, you have a very poor grasp of the English language, and most of your comments contain fairly problematic grammatical errors. By now, one would think you'd be used to being misunderstood, but apparently it's still everyone else's problem. Tan | 39 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tan, find an amusement here? (how typical) I had always wondered how come rude and bitey editors who do not care about incivility at all past their RFA, but somewhat my long-term mystery is solved.--Caspian blue 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only time you find me incivil is when I'm pointing out obvious idiocy. That being the case, I couldn't care less what you think about me. Tan | 39 23:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious idiocy", wonderful. I praise your hard work for being in the position. You can successfully hide your true color if you want to, so I want you to keep doing so. That would be beneficial for both the community and yourself.--Caspian blue 23:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tanthalas39, comments like this do not help situations. Seddσn ^talk 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• [OD] Enough at this thread already folks. Let's take any further personal issues, naught to do with Ironholds to other talk space please.--VS ^talk 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, please take this elsewhere Caspian blue!--VS ^talk 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the somewhat practical advice, VirtualSteve. However, I'd appreciate if you note Tan's trolling and personal attacks. His comment here is unrelated to the topic at all. I might've refrained from getting in his baiting thought.--Caspian blue 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Appreciate your return Caspian blue and your final personal reflection. To be clear my first request to take it elsewhere was to both of you. I only put the second one in directly to you because you had returned with another comment. That said - please walk away from this talk space and if necessary take it elsewhere. Please?--VS ^talk 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Caucus

... on the general issue of "too many RFAs". Context first ... this is basic, but if anyone disagrees, then we're probably not going to see eye to eye on the rest of it. Skip this if it bores you:

• Wikipedia is important, it needs a functioning police force, RfA is the gatekeeper for that, so RfA has to work
• The fact that Wikipedia is the highest-traffic non-portal website in the world, and the fact that RfA has worked so far to help get it there, is no guarantee that if we just leave everything alone, everything will keep running smoothly. Vigilance is always required to stay on top, of anything.
• Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. On the other hand, we have to give hope to potential candidates; if they start feeling like Sisyphus, if we tell them what to do at RFAs, and they do it, and it doesn't do them any good, then the candidates we want will stop coming to RfA (and if they're just the type we want ... the type that aspires to adminship ... then they might leave Wikipedia out of frustration, and that would be our fault, not theirs).

Okay, so bottom line: we can't badger opposition unnecessarily because we need them, and we have to give people the mop (usually) if they do everything we told them they needed to do to get the mop. Otherwise they'll stop believing our advice 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC). So ... how do those realities apply in this particular RfA? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• IMO you put the above points well. To start the responses to your thread - I personally do not care if an applicant at RfA has had 3, 6, or for that matter 30 previous attempts. I do care if they come too close to each other because such applications do not allow the commentators to distinguish the previous "why not" edits from those that explain "why now". Along that line then, RfA is in part a test, failing that test on the first, second and even subsequent attempts should provide the repeating applicant with very good notes on what they should be doing; or not doing. Along that line it is somewhat inexcusable that a repeating applicant can not show restraints in the most basic of our tenets - in this case being the ability to act, or at least appear to act civilly. It is that failure after so many RfA attempts that I think many commentators would have concern with... --VS ^talk 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a comment on this particular Request, but I disagree with the spirit of both your bottom lines. Opposes should be respectfully discussed as much as possible (per WP:VOTE), and adminship should not be granted as an award for hoop-jumping or recognition for a job well-done, but to those who would benefit the encyclopaedia by having it. The main problem I find with Rfa is that opposers find it all too easy to latch on to one issue and judge a candidate on that instead of reviewing their entire contributions and seeing things in context.

On the issue of multiple RfAs, I think the concerns are that the candidate has not changed enough to address concerns since their previous request, and that repeated requests lead one to question the editor's motivations. Skomorokh 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We might be able to agree, Skomorokh, let me add a couple of things and see if we can get there. To stay true to my values, that last point is something opposes often say, and I want to give us/them some support for that. You often see opposes saying "not enough edits", "too many RFAs", etc, and then they get badgered for being shallow. I wonder if people who badger them have actually ever been turned down when they applied to a school or for a job. You don't see "We didn't like the following 26 items" in the turn-down letter, you see "not enough prior experience", if they even are willing to tell you that much. That doesn't mean they didn't check you out thoroughly; that means they saw no benefit in going into detail. We shouldn't be shocked that opposes at RFA see things more or less the same way.

The other side of the coin is that, if candidates do what we tell them to do, and we turn them down anyway, then regardless of what reason we give, RFA loses credibility, and the candidates will stop showing up. I haven't seen anyone take a hard look yet in this RFA at whether Ironholds did what he was told to do in previous RFAs; I hope someone does, because it's important. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, when a candidate has failed multiple RfA's for common reasons, you tend to weigh current examples of those reasons more heavily. Just because someone constantly runs does not mean we should pass them out of pity (or, for that matter, fail them out of spite). So long as the reasoning behind the opposition is sound, and current examples exist, then remaining opposed to a candidate is entirely legitimate, even if the behavior is improved (which is the case for this RfA). Hiberniantears (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall "enforcement"

In response to some of the questioning on this RFA: I would be willing (as an en.wiki bureaucrat, not as a steward) to be responsible for closing a request to recall a user from adminship, so long as that user specified the terms of the recall procedure clearly, and explicitly authorized me (or the bureaucrats in general) to close the discussion, during his or her RFA. If necessary, I would then make a request at Meta, on that user's behalf, that his or her sysop flag be removed. This would have the effect of making the user's promise to be "open to recall" binding, which such promises presently are not. And my task as a bureaucrat in "closing" a recall discussion would be entirely analogous to the current role of bureaucrats in closing RFA discussions.

(This is not an appropriate role for a steward to take, at the moment at least, because it involves a higher degree of "judgment" than is usually accorded to stewards, who are expected mostly to be implementing decisions made by others.)

This is an innovation of sorts, though not, I think, a very substantial one. I take this to be a matter of agreement between an individual RFA candidate and one or several bureaucrats -- certainly I am not proposing somehow to make everybody's recall promises binding retroactively.

What I am interested in doing here is giving the recall procedure "teeth," its present lack of which is widely lamented, in the hope of encouraging the promotion of more administrators. If it turns out there is wide opposition to the very idea of the bureaucrats taking this role, then naturally I'll stand aside (and anyway in that situation I would have no standing to make vicarious desysopping requests at Meta).

But I hope that does not happen, since it would put RFA candidates like Ironholds, who are genuinely interested in being answerable to the community as administrators, in an impossible predicament -- leaving them with no way to assure prospective voters that they really will be open to recall. It is because of contradictions like these that RFA is increasingly crippled by skepticism, to the extreme detriment of the project. — Dan | talk 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I'm aware of at Meta would authorize a steward to desysop based on a third-party request, even if a chain of prior authorization could be brought as evidence. In the case of a disputed action, the intent of the requestor (in this case, an en.wp bureaucrat) to make a request "in place of" a recalled administrator would be subject to a great deal of controversy if that administrator revoked the agreement after the fact. Steward policy has seemed to constrain them to acting in emergencies, upon request by a rights holder or at the behest of the arbitration committee. I don't think that en.wp bureaucrats, or stewards for that matter, can unilaterally add a fourth option. Similarly, it doesn't seem like a consensus on such a process at en.wp would be sufficient either; whatever steps necessary to significantly alter the steward policy would need to be followed on meta. So, to sum... Your statement above shouldn't be seen as making any recall pledges binding, in the absence of the authority for you to make such an offer. Avruch ^T 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to declare anybody's recall pledges binding -- I only mean to observe that I am willing to participate in making them so, and that I think it would be a healthy thing to do. If you agree with me that this is a goal worth pursuing, then I hope you'll join me in thinking of ways to make it possible.

Also, the stewards regularly honor requests made by trusted users from local wikis for the removal of other users' rights. The steward policy in no way excludes such a practice. My suggestion is in that spirit. — Dan | talk 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that ArbCom does a sufficient job in removing the administrators whose work is so particularly bad that they ought to be forcibly desysopped. There are corner cases that escape them, of course; administrators whose work is borderline, or perhaps unhelpful and occassionally disruptive but not so seriously problematic that any action could be taken by the committee. Right now our practice requires that these folks be convinced to resign, through the use of various voluntary processes. By and large recall has been an unsuccessful experiment, so in theory it makes sense to try somthing else. My feeling is that only a universal policy that alows for the recall of administrators will work; I'm convinced, however, that any such process would require such a high bar for removal (say, consensus) that it will never be more likely to work than an ArbCom case.

To return to stewards and desysopping - I wasn't aware that stewards allowed for requests "on behalf of" rights holders, where the (in this case) administrators are themselves still available. Even so, how would such a situation play out if both the requestor (the bureaucrat) and the administrator in question came to the rights' page to argue about the outcome? Whose interpretation of events would control in that case, with no Wikipedia policy to provide guidance? If the continued voluntary participation of the administrator is required, then your proposed involvement would not alter the fundamental nature of the process. While the imprimatur of a bureaucrat might make both administrators and participants more trusting in the outcome, I doubt it would much allay the concerns of those who use the process to oppose RfAs. Avruch ^T 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether the ArbCom actually does a sufficient job desysopping people, but I do know for sure that a lot of people think they don't, and that this belief leads them to oppose far more RFA candidates than they otherwise would. I am trying to do something about that belief. I'm starting small. I don't know how to create a universal recall policy, but a user-by-user system sounds a bit more manageable.

The stewards haven't yet seen any system exactly like this one, but certainly they (we) are not rule-bound automatons -- they're aware that the English Wikipedia is unique, has unusual problems, and often leads the Wikimedia projects in coming up with innovative solutions to them. I see no reason they would not cooperate.

In the imaginable "disaster situation" in which a user protests the bureaucrat's decision, the bureaucrat's decision is the one that counts, of course; that's the way in which this system makes recall truly binding. But I suspect fit-throwing will be extremely rare, since the user will have only himself to blame for having agreed to be open to recall. — Dan | talk 03:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The only form of recall I would support would work like this: recall is completely off the table until after an RFA has failed with something like 60% or 65% of the vote. For those RFAs, there would be a second vote, only by the neutrals and opposition, and I think it would have to be by secret ballot while the voting was going on (with the votes probably revealed after the balloting is over), because otherwise, you'd have an entirely new round of discussion, and I think most RFA regulars would say that we simply don't have time to do everything twice. The second vote would be on the following point: the candidate didn't succeed, but that may have been because some of you felt you couldn't predict how they would turn out. If the candidate submits to mandatory recall criteria of some kind (perhaps even making a recall RFA mandatory no matter what) that will be in effect for 3 months (maybe 6 months) after this RFA, would that lower the risk of making a bad choice for you? Would you be willing to change your vote?

I know that sounds awfully specific for so early in the conversation ... I try to be flexible, but if recall isn't handled very narrowly, it will be an enormous waste of RFA resources that we don't have available to waste, and also probably an instance of the Peter Principle ... that is, RFA has been successful at what it was designed for, which gives people the idea that it therefore deserves a "promotion" to do something it was never designed for and wouldn't be good at. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It would be fine with me if we didn't do that; I'm saying that's the most I could support in the way of a recall procedure. If we did decide to do it, the outcome that I would expect and hope for is that a candidate who got 65% because they had done something recently that some people interpreted as "drama" might squeak through with some kind of recall provision, while someone who got 65% because of long-standing and solid concerns about communication, competence or dedication probably wouldn't get a different result in the second vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is this being discussed? We're meant to be giving reasons to support the user keeping admin, not giving reasons to ensure they'll be removed. It is unacceptable to imply the candidate is lying when they say they are open to recall, without any evidence or reasoning to suggest this. It is also unacceptable to copy and paste rationales from one RFA to the other, and to vote without bothering to look at a candidate's contributions, as several people have here. Please people, get a grip, and stop making this worse than it is. IH is already failing for reasons unrelated to recall - no need to rub it in. Majorly talk 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm hearing from that, Majorly, is that CIVILITY is policy and AGF is a damn important guideline, and if someone aggressively and repeatedly asserts that someone is lying and that they don't need to offer any evidence, then the exit is thataway. I'm with you all the way there. But I hope that we'll pay attention at the same time to one extra constraint: RFA is about making a judgment on people, so it's bureaucratic and political in some ways, and it will inevitably degenerate into a gentleman's club where no one is willing to speak the truth unless we nurture the people who do a good job of opposing. Another constraint I mentioned in a thread above: the day RFA becomes a "nice" place, the day that people with things to hide don't feel any hesitation about jumping into RFA because the opposition has become watered down, that's the day that our workload will climb to about 5 times what it is now, and RFA will be swamped. So I always try to give the opposition a little patience and a little slack. And ... per Twain, rumors of this RFAs death are greatly exaggerated. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And btw, I think the history of RFA backs me up ... we've had a long list of opposers who seemed off-base at first, but when treated patiently, they eventually got a firmer grip on what it was that was pissing them off, and got better at expressing it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever mistakes I may be making, I don't think a lack of "grip" is one of them; I'm thinking as carefully and dispassionately as I can. I'd rather discuss substantive issues than be admonished to "get a grip".

I don't know if this helps, but I definitely didn't hear Majorly's "get a grip" (and my "firmer grip") as applying to you Dan; I believe he was talking (and I was definitely talking) about the argument Majorly was having over Skinwalker's oppose in the RFA. Your grip is not in doubt :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan is one of the wiser voices around here. He's only trying to do his job - determining community consensus. It's the people on the RFA I'm bothered by. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Majorly talk 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the issues. First, Ironholds: I came up with this suggestion at his prompting -- I'm not gate-crashing. Also, I see nothing to suggest that his RFA is "failing"; it could easily go either way.

Second, the validity of questions and votes: I certainly agree with your judgments there. But my sense is that we are forever coming up with stricter ways to judge RFA candidates at least in part because we are afraid that mistaken promotions are nearly irreversible. We have not so far been successful in getting voters to stop thinking that way, and bureaucrats have only limited freedom to ignore symptomatic votes. So I am suggesting a way in which recall could optionally be made enforceable, one user at a time, in the hope of making voters more willing to support RFA candidates.

A common objection to these suggestions, here and elsewhere, has been that some kind of comprehensive recall system (such as Dank55's) would be preferable. Maybe so, but it's also not accomplishable, or at least I don't know how to do it. Our community's skepticism of candidates at RFA is matched by our skepticism of the unintended consequences of new policies and procedures. So I would like, as I've said, to start small, with only a minor innovation. Does this make sense? — Dan | talk 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, and I support it wholeheartedly. OTOH ... if I ask some of the people who have grumbled about recall recently on their talk pages some questions to see if we're closer to consensus for a very limited form of recall, such as the one I suggested, at the same time as you're pursuing something more targeted, would that undercut what you're doing, or can we both proceed at the same time? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of automated reconfirmation RfAs in any form. Voluntary "open to recall" is very different from that, and I support people who want to do that. Whether it is bureaucrats or stewards who should oversee such things, I'm really not sure about yet. Having Bureaucrats oversee it and then refer it to a steward seems bureaucratic - one too many steps. Why not have the people with the power to remove rights be the ones to assess the consensus? That's one less step. Kingturtle (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks KT. Another thread on this subject is at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Recall blanket voting ... I'll watch both places. Are we agreed that the history of RFA strongly suggests that bringing up recall questions during the RFA tends to produce drama without a lot of light? If so, that only leaves bringing them up before (the candidate walks in the door saying "here are my criteria", maybe because that's their preference, or maybe because they're concerned they won't pass without it), or bringing them up after (if the candidate fails, allowing some possibility that the candidate will instead succeed if recall is thrown into the mix ... I suggest by polling the opposition and neutrals by secret ballot and asking them if that's enough to swing their vote). The first way is cleaner ... no extra voting process ... but meaner ... the candidate has to decide themselves whether they're going to be a near-failure, and punish themselves ahead of time if they expect so (and if it's seen as punishment, this would probably draw extra scrutiny and make them appear unsure of themselves). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are such promises made during RfA even valid?

The problem is that this question has already been debated back in August and at Ani Wherein the community loudly decried the practice of asking this question, to quote Dragons Flight, It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. The only good that came out of that discussion was how unpopular the question in question is and a general consensus that it should not be asked at RfA's. The question creates a lot of drama because it is unenforceable, and even if it were, is it proper to ask people to commit to a campaign promise during an RfA? Admin recall doesn't work, it is a toothless tiger, and demanding that somebody submit themself to a toothless tiger is a joke. As for the offer above, I don't know what the current attitude of Stewarts would be to the request, but about 6 or 7 months ago one of the Stewarts came to WT:RFA and explicitly said that a similar promise would not be honored---even if the request was made by a 'crat with supporting documentation from an RfA. (That Stewart might have been responding to the case that went to ANI, but I can't remember the exact thread.) IMHO this question does no good except to garner opposes. "I oppose he said he won't subject himself to a failed system without any teeth" or "I oppose, he made an empty campaign promise that has no means to enforce."

Now, I'm all for admin accountability and finding ways to move people in and out of adminship. I think it should be easier (along the lines of how people can get and lose rollback.) But I do not think this strong arm technique is the way to do it... and that was the conclusion last year when the person who asked the question on every RfA even admitted that he was wrong.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, and I support that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that to stop people demanding it/including it would be impossible at this point (Difficult to get ideas back in metaphorical cans, you'd need some kind of metaphorical idea-ladel and we all know they just don't exist, let alone the metaphorical lid you'd have to get back on the metaphorical can!), so it must be dealt with as a fait accompli. That said, I don't understand why you'd oppose someone for having recall criteria even if you think recall doesn't work. If you think it doesn't work then all he gave you was a statement of ideals that you wouldn't have got anyway. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign promises that cannot, by definition, be kept if they would be useful (abusive admins do not accept recall, so anyone who accepts recall never should have) are worse than valueless - they demonstrate an appeal to ignorance (or ignorance themselves) that makes someone unfit. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think I am not "ignorant". The entire reason I tried so hard to make it something other people would enforce is because I know that if I become enough of an arsehole to require recall I'm going to be enough of an arsehole to tell you where to shove that recall request. A system of recall that only works if the administrator doesn't need to be recalled is no system whatsoever. It would be like making a gun that works perfectly as long as you don't try and fire it; completely pointless. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I should note that given your expansive and unique attempts to "commit" to recall I did change my !vote to neutral. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle suggests above that recall criteria always need to be voluntary and never imposed. If talking about recall during an RFA tends to turn up the flames, then that only leaves 3 options: same rule applies to everyone (with or without recall), or the candidate chooses recall or not before the RFA (and we find a way to make it binding ... and I take the optimistic view that getting consensus is not impossible, we just have to keep responding to people's legitimate concerns until most people are on board), or talk about recall only comes after RFA (and why would a candidate do that unless they had failed and a revote of some kind offered hope to pass?) KT's option sounds like the nice option: never force or impose it, but consider what Hipocrite just said at WT:RFA: "I have opposed other candidates that used recall as a crutch to get over the fact that they had other issues in their RFA". Can't we expect other opposers to do that, too? If people choose recall or not before the RFA, won't choosing recall come to be seen as an admission the RFA may not go so smoothly, and draw attention? The other problem with giving people the option to choose recall or not before their RFA is that I have a strong sense that candidates are going to make the wrong call. I wouldn't mind a little experimentation, but I think eventually, people are going to decide it's not workable for candidates to declare their recall preferences to try to help themselves get over the hump; it just sends the wrong signal and won't help them. That doesn't mean we give up and walk away from the issue, I think; I think it means choosing between modest, short-term recall criteria for every candidate, or not even thinking about recall until someone has narrowly failed and recall criteria might make a difference. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In my RfB, I managed to answer that question (#15) without saying "yes" and without (it seems) incurring substantial wrath from the community. I would guess that it might have been because my answer was honest, but I'm unsure. Point is, it can be done. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the only successful way to answer the question is not to answer the question? You played politics (and did so very well) but you begged the question. Most people are not going to be going to deft enough to do that nor will the community accept everybody giving your answer---and if they did, it would be a clear sign supporting my comments above---that the question is a bad question that poisons the pot.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)(copy edited per comment below---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

I think you've got a typo somewhere there, Spartacus, but that's just what I was going to say. In the hands of a master, like Dweller, these questions can be finessed without calling up a firestorm. For day-to-day RFAs, the question just seems to set things on fire. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sparticus - It's not clear yet that saying "No, I will not set up a non-binding recall process. If I am a bad admin and you can convince me of that, I'll resign," would garner oppose votes. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a given. As you said elsewhere, the key to AOR is convincing the person in question to step down. Majorly was not on AOR (as far as I know) but when the community spoke, he stepped down. *I* personally think AOR is a waste of time because IMO it is slower than other methods and AOR already exists---without people making campaign promises or what have you. I mean, I've seen several admins step down after an incident comes up at ANI... I've also seen admins step down for bad reasons when somebody criticized them.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Appreciate the compliments (guys, "master"? I'm honoured!) but on further reflection, I think it also helped that I'd gone into some detail about my problems with XOR in the RfA Review. I'd suggest any candidate not wishing to commit to XOR should post their thoughts about it somewhere in their userspace in longhand, or point to someone else's thoughts and say "I agree with xxxxxx". As is often the case, Hipocrite makes some good points. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Placing on hold

I am not a crat, but I placed this RfA on hold as it was due to close nine hours ago. If I was wrong to do so, the river is filled with trout and I'll be outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no real need to place it on hold, but it didn't do any harm, either. I've now closed it.

A brief explanation of my reasoning: the level of support seen in this RfA was a little below that the usual level required to show consensus has been reached. While some opposes used idiosyncratic reasoning, the majority of comments in opposition had a common theme of questioning whether the candidate will be reliably able to calm down disputes, or may on occasion stoke them up. This same theme was taken up by many of the supports; some stated that they did not share the concern, while others felt that while they shared this concern, they wished to support the RfA. Given that this appears to be a concern genuinely shared by a significant number of editors, of whom most who commented were sufficiently concerned to oppose the RfA, I concluded that a consensus did not exist and therefore the candidate should not be made an administrator at this time. Warofdreams talk 11:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)