The following thread is preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MB. The final decision was that consensus does not exist to make MB an administrator. Please do not modify the text.

---

• We have reached the end of the 168 hours and the percentage support stands at 68%. There have been some swings in both directions so I think it behoves us to discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Primefac if you are on, I think there is sufficient response below to move this towards closure now. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies that everyone seems to want me to close this during the three hours I'm not at my computer today... Primefac (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Primefac for opening this discussion. I will read over the RfA and offer my thoughts within the next couple of hours. 28bytes (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read through the RfA as well as many (though not all) of the linked discussions to understand where the participants are coming from. I'm forced to come to the conclusion that there is no consensus to promote, which saddens me a bit as the candidate is obviously a hard-working, dedicated editor with a substantial body of positive contributions. The supporters make persuasive arguments both in the support section and in response to some oppose arguments (though there was a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive badgering as well), but the opposers' arguments cannot be dismissed or minimized. Regardless of the status of WP:BEFORE and WP:DRAFTOBJECT as "less than policies," it is perfectly legitimate for editors to object that a candidate is taking insufficient care when doing new page patrol (as many of the opposers have suggested), just as it's legitimate for supporters to argue that sufficient care is being taken and that the opposers have unrealistic expectations. It's not for us as 'crats to determine who's right, merely to determine whether one or the other viewpoint has consensus in the discussion, and I don't see that either does. Nor do I see the other concerns raised in the oppose section – right or wrong – to be frivolous or unreasonable. I just don't see a consensus here. 28bytes (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm away from my computer at the moment, but I intend to have comment within the next 24 hours. If the crats form consensus before tomorrow morning, feel free to proceed without me. Worm^TT(talk) 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for waiting for me - looks like all 'crats are a bit slow on a Sunday. I'd like to express my appreciation for MB for their patience and apologise that the whole process is quite so unpleasant and extended.

  I am afraid that I see no consensus to promote by a narrow margin. Numerically, we've dropped below the 70% mark, and were trending strongly downwards firmly towards the end. Noting that 70% is my rule of thumb starting point in my head as "confidence of the community". The entire discussion does appear to have split the community, with those early supports who reconsidered their votes split fairly evenly between those who reaffirmed and those who moved to neutral / oppose.

  The biggest early disagreement between supporters and opposition is regarding WP:BEFORE, with the opposers complaining it was not followed, and supporters pointing out that the link is not to a policy. I also note that SoWhy has reasonably stated that BEFORE is a synthesis of policies. In my view "it's not policy" is not a strong argument - policy is descriptive not prescriptive, and it is quite clear from the sentiment within the RfA and elsewhere that WP:BEFORE should be followed as a "best practise" at least, a point that most agreed upon, including MB themselves. Noting their counterargument that "NPP has too many rejections to maintain best practise" is a question that the community should handle outside of this RfA.

  Beyond the BEFORE disagreement, opposers raised concerns regarding the candidates conflict resolution, which I can see is entrenched in their opinion regarding BEFORE, but also clearly how passionate about they are about NPP and procedures that go along side it. Again, I felt that these votes should not be discounted.

  Overall, as I say, this is narrow - MB is clearly a massive boon to Wikipedia, and I fully expect them to become an administrator in the future, if they take on the feedback from the community. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial thoughts are that two areas of concern were raised: 1) The candidate has a strict/harsh approach to new page patrolling, and doesn't consider WP:Before; and 2) The candidate has an inappropriate or inflexible/unreflective attitude which would be unsuitable for an admin. I also noted that when these concerns were raised, the RfA started to move away from the candidate, and the opposes steadily grew, with the percentage counter moving down. The community has made clear that they prefer discussions regarding admin requests to finish exactly on seven days, even when - like now - the consensus is not clear, and having Crats decide the consensus rather than extending the discussion to see if consensus becomes clearer. Personally I would rather, in cases like this where discussion has not stalled, that we had an extension, as I do feel that in few days - the way the discussion and !voting was heading, that consensus would likely have become more certain. It appears to me that this was headed to there being no consensus to promote. On the initial concern of being harsh, and not doing enough Before, it looks to me that there are opinions on both sides, and that the candidate has explained their approach, and this is generally regarded as being within standard practise. On the concern regarding number of unsuccessful AfDs started, it was pointed out that many highly respected users have worse statistics in that area. The second concern of attitude is rather more concerning, and I think I will spend a little more time looking at that. Impressions are that those supporting (and the candidate themself) either did not counter the concerns or they agreed with them, and that the concerns regarding attitude were growing as the RfA developed. I'm inclined toward no consensus to promote at the moment because 1) That was the way the RfA was heading, and 2) There are largely unaddressed concerns regarding temperament. I intend to have a more definite response later today. SilkTork (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially thinking that the arguments about WP:Before were not policy based, and were just about a different point of view ("I don't like the candidate because they are deletionist/inclusionist ... right wing/left wing ... pro/anti infoboxes...."), and so carried less weight than the concerns about attitude. However, User:SoWhy's comment on 3rd Jan ([1]) caught my eye as they reference two polices - WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, one of which is linked to from WP:Before. This links into the candidate's response to Question 12: [2], which caused a number of opposers some concern. I agree with the candidate that WP:Before is not in itself a policy; however, SoWhy's comment suggests that it is based on policy, and is explaining the policy; as such, concerns by opposers that a candidate is not paying due attention to it, especially when it is drawn to their attention in their RfA, carry some weight for me, and are not quite the "baseless accusations" the candidate suggests. I am currently working my way through the RfA, and have still not quite made up my mind, though I am leaning more and more towards no consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerns regarding WP:Before, that at first I felt were differences of opinion, start to develop after MB's answer to Q12, where MB dismisses the concerns as "baseless accusations". This coupled with Extraordinary Writ's oppose, drawing attention to MB's attitude, start a distinct trend, in which the two concerns become related, with opposers feeling that MB was showing the wrong attitude for an admin, and some supporters switched to oppose. The switching was balanced by a number of supporters reaffirming their support - on a quick thumb count (up for reaffirm, down for withdrawn) that evens out, though I put a little more weight on the switching as that seemed to be a more significant action. Given the coalescing of the Before and attitude concerns, the trend toward oppose, and that this is in the lower half of the discretionary zone, my view is that there is no consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe much of the opposition lacks basis in policy and is instead based on policy drift in areas that never have had clear consensus support. I will write up my views at greater length later today. UninvitedCompany 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the earliest days of Wikipedia, the criteria, policy, and processes for deletion of articles have been controversial. Throughout the history of the project there has been a tension between editors characterized as inclusionists and deletionists, reflecting a difference in approach to dealing with content that is of marginal value. For historical perspective, see the early essay m:Wikipedia is not paper. Deletion policy, deletion procedure, special deletion policies for biographies of living people, the notability policy (particularly subject-area specific guidelines), and the etiquette surrounding the use of PROD and SPEEDY, have all been areas where there has been both substantial ongoing evolution of policy and significant minority views among project participants, including admins. Most of these changes to policies and guidelines have been made on the basis of talk page discussions that have not enjoyed widespread participation.

  In particular, the sourcing search recommended in WP:BEFORE has expanded significantly over the last ten years. While these changes have been well-meaning and have been discussed to some degree, there has been little broader discussion of the greater overall burden imposed upon editors making a good-faith effort to list pages for deletion.

  RFA is not a forum for resolving unsettled policy matters. It would be unfair to MB to allow their RFA to serve as a referendum on policy that is far from settled, particularly given their extensive involvement at NPP. It is not possible to participate in a meaningful way at NPP without listing pages for deletion and therefore having to make some sort of personal interpretation of the best way forward in this difficult area.

  Accordingly, I believe that the oppose !votes based primarily on a strict reading of WP:BEFORE are out of order and should be given minimal weight in determining how to proceed with the nomination. In that light, I see a consensus to promote. UninvitedCompany 23:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the delay. Will read and give my comments within 24 hours. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I do think the majority of the oppose is not to do with WP:BEFORE searches specifically, but rather how the user expressed themselves during the questions. I didn't see anyone actually mention WP:ADMINCONDUCT, but my impression is that is where a lot of the issues with the candidate lie (in that they would expect better conduct in a potential admin). There's also some issues regarding the deletion logs, but some have also pointed out that their "hit rate" is higher than some other admins who nominate a lot for deletion. Overall, I don't see that this discussion has reached the point where there is a general consensus for promotion. The discussion comes down (in my eyes) to a fundamental question on if the patterns of behaviour meet that of an admin candidate, to which the supporters don't adequately revoke (despite their number). I do hope the candidate doesn't lose faith, as RfAs can be very daunting, and they clearly do great work on the encylopedia. Cleaning up the items raised by opposers might make this a WP:NOTQUITEYET deal. However, there's no consensus to promote at this time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Acknowledged, reviewing. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon review, I am seeing no consensus to promote from the discussion. I see little weight in the arguments that BEFORE is or isn't a policy, the opposition's recurring argument is that the communication/behavioral patterns of the candidate are not what they are expecting of a new admin, not a strict argument that the candidate won't follow policies. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had a look through the RfA and agree wholly with SilkTork; they express my thoughts clearly and I don't have anything of value to add beyond them. There is no consensus to promote at present. Warofdreams talk 01:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve seen this and will be reviewing it tomorrow morning. I won’t be able to do anything before then (in about 13-14 hours). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've had a chance to read through things and I agree with the majority about there being no consensus t promote in this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not as concerned about the policy or not-policy distinction for WP:BEFORE, but that reasonable concerns about article deletion (in a broad sense) have been brought up for someone who would specialize primarily in article deletion as an administrator. The issues brought up are not only to do with previous edits or actions by themselves, but also cover concerns with answers to RfA questions on the matter. Accordingly, given the nature of main reasons for opposition, and the numerical position of the RfA, I find no consensus to promote. Maxim (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While I can see which way this is turning, please allow me a short time to look it over so I can make a somewhat knowledgeable comment. Cecropia (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see merit in UninvitedCompany's analysis, and appreciate it. But adding the borderline support and the evident preponderance of 'crat analysis against the RfA, I can't help but notice that while MB has impressive and valuable skills, he evidently has some rough edges in dealing with users that could well be polished, and that this knowledge would do him well in approaching his next RfA; so I find no consensus to promote. Cecropia (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether WP:BEFORE is a policy, a guideline, or an essay has no bearing on how I gauge consensus. Conceptually, it is the same as any other argument based on the candidate's (in)action. And, in this case, it's about that (in)action on a general level, rather than a one-off instance. There are also concerns expressed regarding the candidate's temperament/attitude. A lot of supporters reaffirmed their support, which I appreciate. I did find it interesting that the phrase "strong support" only exists once in the RFA and "strong oppose" is also only in there once (and even then, it's watered down to a "fairly strong oppose"). These adjectives matter a little (but not a ton), but I was surprised to see that there wasn't much of that in either direction in an RFA with this much participation. Maybe those adjectives are falling out of favor or maybe people are a little more ambivalent about this particular candidate, I don't know. Just thought it was an interesting point. But I digress. MB appears to be an incredibly hard-working editor and I would like to personally thank him/her for the tireless work at NPP (and elsewhere). Regarding this RFA, I find no consensus. Useight (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have voted, and will therefore be recusing. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I also voted. ϢereSpielChequers 20:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm travelling this week and will probably not have the time needed to give the discussion the attention it deserves. Should I find the time, I will strike this out. -- Avi (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Under some RL pressures and my cursory reading of the RfA tells me I don't have enough head space to give this the time and attention it deserves. Apologies. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to promote

UninvitedCompany

No consensus to promote

SilkTork, Warofdreams, 28bytes, Worm That Turned, Xaosflux, Lee Vilenski, Maxim, Cecropia, Useight, Nihonjoe

Recuse/Abstain

AmandaNP, WereSpielChequers, Dweller, Avraham

Other

There is an absolute majority of bureaucrats that find there is no consensus to promote MB at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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