Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing. The final decision was that consensus exists to allow GoldenRing access to the administrative toolkit. Please do not modify the text.

---

Discussion

This RfA falls towards the lower end of the "new" discretionary range. I am minded to close it as successful, but wanted to gain input from other bureaucrats before doing so as I anticipate that such an outcome may be controversial (and I can sometimes be something of an outlier in bureaucrat opinion). The community clearly expects, in setting the discretionary range where it has, that some RfAs with the level of support that GoldenRing has will succeed. If an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion, then I have difficulty imagining the sort of discussion that could succeed at the low end of the discretionary range.
The opposition is based almost exclusively on concerns about the candidate's activity levels and numbers of edits. That is usually regarded as weaker opposition than concerns (backed up with diffs) showing issues with temperament, or lack of understanding of key policies. The one ground of opposition that falls within the latter category - mistakes in CSD tagging identified by SoWhy - is mentioned by only a tiny number of opposers. The candidate's answers to questions (which allow those participating in an RfA to test a candidates' knowledge of policy where not obvious from their editing background) appear to have been found satisfactory. It seems to me that the number of edits, combined with the opportunity to ask questions, is sufficient for an assessment of GoldenRing's suitability to be an administrator. There is a narrow consensus that GoldenRing should be an administrator, and I would close this RfA as successful accordingly. That said, I am interested to know whether other bureaucrats would reach the same conclusion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with WJBScribe's points and would also close the RfA as successful. While the opposition is mostly predicated on low activity levels, there is consensus that the answers to the questions were very much satisfactory, and a lot of supporters don't view the activity levels as a problem, which overall, yields consensus to promote. Maxim_(talk) 16:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I can look in about 6 hours. –xeno^talk 16:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I can look at this in about 3 hours or so. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing things, I concur with WJBscribe that there is a narrow margin to twiddle the bit. Therefore, successful. He really said it better than I could, so I won't add more. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is at the low end of the "new" admin standards and I'll make two points: (1) I understand the POV of those users who find a low edit count to be upsetting; it can seem like "hiring from outside" for an honorable title and toolkit; and (2) in my own active bureaucracy I strove to try to let the community make the decision, only intervening if I saw no other way.

However, I've looked over the answers and discussion from the candidate and the many reasoned opinions expressed by Supporters and Opposers and I can't miss the opinion of WJBScribe, a bureaucrat I have long known and highly esteem (and who asked me to take a look at this); and it appears to be that in this specific case of GoldenRing the candidate appears to have the temperament and the means to become a valuable admin. We highly prize, and rightly so, prolific editors and contributors, but I am inclined to agree with WJBScribe's reasoning that points to the fact that we also need accomplished and willing mop-handlers. Add to that the reluctance of some of the opposition causes me to ask the question: "Would Wikipedia be better served if the candidate were denied the bit?"

So, I am included to agree that this merits being closed as successful with the one caution that this should not be taken as a change of standards, but as a significant exception that sets out a precedent to consider other truly exceptional and unusual candidacies. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a pretty clear no consensus. I read over the discussion, and it feels like people are letting personal opinions get in the way. If this is seriously successful then we need to revisit all the other bureaucrat chats we've had recently since the arguments in favor are the same arguments where people went the other way in previous instances. All I'm getting from this is "do some work = not qualified. don't do any = plenty qualified". Wizardman 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you've reached that conclusion. This editor has made thousands of edits but - other than the CSD issue - nothing has been found to show any issues. He's been questioned extensively - and could have been questioned more if that had been desired - regarding his knowledge of policy. His answers have been widely praised and (unusually) have not drawn opposition. We're left with almost exclusively experience concerns, which (whilst valid - I do not dismiss those concerns) has always been regarded as less weighty than evidence of misunderstanding policy / temperament etc. I don't see a successful outcome to this RfA as inconsistent with past cratchat outcomes, save in relation to the adjusted discretionary zone. WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't remember any time where I've had any interaction with GoldenRing, so there are no "personal opinions" getting in the way of my views. I will say this is the only RfA for quite a while where so many people have expressed actual opinions in the Support section. Usually, around half are just generic "Support" opinons, so it seems people are actually spending a lot more time thinking about this one. I also agree with WJBscribe's comment: "His answers have been widely praised and (unusually) have not drawn opposition." This is quite unusual, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• No consensus. From the discussion there appeared to be a general sentiment that the user in question has good, sensible character (or at the very least, an absence of bad temperament). The main divergence between support and oppose as I see it is whether that good sense must be paired with sufficient experience. Without commenting on where that subjective threshold lies, it seemed to me that a good number of the opposition believed that more experience was necessary for the candidate to demonstrate that admin readiness, and I would not characterize this opposition as trivial or insubstantial. This RFA had a WP:NOTQUITEYET vibe to it; it's just that the candidate seemed to be on the very borderline of that, which brings it up to crat chat levels of uncertainty. bibliomaniac15 00:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The community advises us to closely review the discussions that obtain at least 65% support and promote candidates where consensus exists so that more administrators can be brought on board to bolster the declining attention available to administrative tasks. I note concerns on the talk page about the weighting discussion above, but feel that promotion is a defensible position here given the community expectations - as even without applying any strong weighting to the main opposition point, there still was strong support for the candidate from wide and varying segments of the community. To prevent the candidate from taking up the administrative toolset would be obstructing the community's will to appoint more candidates. Controls are in place if any particular administrator starts behaving poorly. I believe there exists consensus to promote the user to administrator. –xeno^talk 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly in the discretionary zone and I can see exactly why it's been brought to chat. The large majority of opposes are around the experience issue, which is also addressed by many of the supports; there are various other points made in support and a relatively low number with minimal comments. Some editors mention the number of weak supports as something to note, but a similar proportion of opposes are listed as weak. Some movement towards support as the discussion went on, but no sudden change so I also agree with not extending the period. Overall, given the discussion, I conclude that it just meets our standards for consensus to be successful. Warofdreams talk 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading it over, I am going with no consensus. Even accounting for the expanded discretionary zone, a number of the oppose comments raised strong points about experience. In contrast, many of the support comments seemed more like neutral than support (maybe weak support is a better way to characterize them). MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I read and considered each of the support and oppose comments, and came to a conclusion about whether there was consensus to promote. I then read the talk page of this 'crat chat, and the snide comments about "supervotes" and other nonsense directed at the bureaucrats who took the time to weigh in so far put me in such a bad mood that I'm no longer 100% sure that I can be objective enough about whether this RfA should pass. I will therefore take the unusual step of recusing from this discussion. Perhaps next time I will take the wise advice to "never read the comments" before weighing in. Or alternatively, perhaps the people making such hostile and unwarranted jabs could consider taking a few empathy pills before hitting that "save changes" button. 28bytes (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have some sympathy, but I think we also need to recognise that people who feel strongly about an issue are likely to express themselves in trenchant terms. WJBscribe (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reflecting on some of the talk page commemts, I thought I should address a couple of points by way of clarification of my approach:
  1. The point about most RFAs failing due to experience issues seems to miss the point that they fail for that reason, they don't end up in the discretionary zone. If the community agrees that someone lacks experience, the requests are usually withdrawn, closed early, or end in an obvious no consensus. In this case over 2/3 of participants formed the view that the candidate did have sufficient experience, which is why we're here.
  2. If anyone was concermed that they couldn't tell if the candidate understood policy X from his contributions, they could ask a question about topic X and judge on the basis of the answer. In this instance, people seem to have judged that the answers showed a good understanding of the relevant policies. WJBscribe (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

After looking over this RFA, it is a very interesting case. A lot of strong support, much of which is based on the answers the candidate gave to the questions (though also some about temperament, etc). Also a lot of opposition, much of which is based on edit count, activity rate, and/or (lack of) content creation. I, like WJBScribe above, am not sure what kind of RFA could pass in the mid-60% range if this one can't. That being said, I personally put very little stock in edit count and content creation - though I don't discount !votes based on that criteria, as I find them to be valid (yet can border on absurdity, in my mind, when taken too far). Because of that, I find myself in a situation where I feel it difficult assess consensus in a completely neutral manner. I do not wish to tip the scales one way or the other in an atypical situation where I don't feel comfortable with myself. Yes, I have an opinion on whether or not consensus exists to promote. But unless I'm certain I completely trust myself on a particular RFA I would rather abstain. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Recusals

• Recuse per my comments on BN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Seeing as I supported this candidacy, my recusal is appropriate here. Acalamari 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Recuse as I participated in the RfA. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I supported but I am happy to see this heading towards a promotion and support WJBScribe and Cecropia above, two of our longest-serving, most visible bureaucrats. Andrevan@ 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Recuse per my comments above. 28bytes (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary

Consensus to promote

WJBscribe, Maxim, Nihonjoe, Cecropia, Xeno, Warofdreams

No consensus to promote

Wizardman, Bibliomaniac15, MBisanz

Abstain

- Useight

Recuse

Dweller, Acalamari, Xaosflux, Andrevan, 28bytes

Outcome

I think we should allow the rest of the day so that crats who are mostly available at weekends have a chance to comment but, absent a shift in views, we seem to leaning fairly heavily in favour of a successful outcome. WJBscribe (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been about 24 hour since a bureaucrat weighed in with an opinion not including an abstention or recusal, I think we can close now. –xeno^talk 03:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing as successful. Maxim_(talk) 04:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this discussion, the related nomination, or that of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.