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

This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page.

Discussion[edit]

Starting a chat as we're in discretionary territory. I'm leaning towards promotion, mostly given we're in the upper range of the discretionary zone, but I want to review the RfA at least once more. Maxim (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons for opposing, in rough order of importance, are a lack of content creation, a lack of edit summaries, and the style and substance of the answers to questions (particularly Q7). That said, there are numerous support !votes that mention these concerns and do not find them to be sufficient cause to oppose. As I hinted at in my initial statement, what makes the difference to me in this RfA are the numbers. The arguments in opposition are reasonable, and if we were two percentage points above the floor of the discretionary zone, I would expect to be a solid "no consensus", but as we are in the upper range of the zone, at 73%, to me that pushes it into having sufficient consensus to promote. Maxim (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, will be at least 6 hours before I can read though it. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only early note: I see no immediate reason to give more time on this, so do not extend. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be cheeky - if you're going to bold something, don't bold the only word that makes it sound like you do want to do something when you really don't ;-) Primefac (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
some ins magic to clean that up. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my colleagues have covered the analysis with the same results I'm seeing. The largest opposition camp is concern that the candidate may pursue technical or administrative activities that are at odds with content contributors; though the supporters counter that the candidate will be able to appropriately use the toolset. Overall I read that a sufficient consensus to promote has emerged here. @Pppery: I ask that you carefully read through the entire RfA, especially the oppose section, and use it to help guide you in your adminship. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Maxim for getting this discussion started. I will read through it and offer my thoughts within the next couple of hours. 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the RfA as well as many of the diffs cited by editors in all three sections, I find a consensus to promote, albeit not an extremely strong consensus. It's disheartening that in 2023, the back-and-forth battles about user categories that have been going on over for well over a decade show no sign of abating. Indeed, there is a current ArbCom case analyzing exactly the sort of stridency that long has fueled, and continues to fuel, these discussions. And since the candidate has been a vocal participant in some of these discussions, I understand why Floquenbeam's concerns were posted in the neutral section, and why over a dozen people in the oppose section and another handful in the support section cited those concerns as giving them pause. After all, I doubt anyone wants to grant adminship to a candidate only to have them desysopped and potentially banned over excessive stridency in niche category discussions, with all the drama and time wasting that entails. The candidate, however, pledged to avoid closing such discussions, which eased those concerns (at least for the person who first brought them up), and those concerns were mentioned less frequently in the later oppose comments, suggesting that was less of a concern (at least in respect to other concerns) than it had been prior to the candidate making that pledge.

Similarly, there were concerns about edit summary usage, which is another thing that surprised me to see in 2023, since there has long been an option to prompt editors to leave one if they forget. As with the previous concern, though, the candidate acknowledged the concern and turned the edit summary prompt on.

But the biggest concern I saw was the candidate's record of (and commentary about) content creation. There too the candidate acknowledged their initial answer to a question about content creation was not phrased ideally, and rephrased it. Both supporters and some opposers have noted that the candidate has been willing to address concerns and has behaved responsively in the RfA itself. The question of how much content experience an RfA candidate needs has long been a contentious one, and there is no bright-line rule about how much content creation is enough; it's entirely subjective and different participants will have different requirements. There's no reason for a 'crat to discount the views of people who think the candidate has an insufficient content creation record or appreciation of what content creators face, any more than we would discount the views of people who think that either the candidate's record is sufficient or that it's not a key factor in determining whether a "technical admin" can succeed in the technical areas they wish to focus in.

Ultimately I see reasonable arguments being made on all sides, and with the hybrid strength-of-arguments/raw-percentage system that's in place now and the fact that this RfA came in very close to the high end of the bureaucrat discretionary range, I think that promotion is the right call here. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank Maxim for starting the cratchat, I had read much of the RFA in the last couple of days, but will need some time this evening, and possibly tomorrow morning before I'm ready to comment. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a consensus to promote. The RFA ended at the upper end of the discretionary zone, if there was any trend at the end it was slightly upwards. Which says much for the candidate and their conduct in this RFA. With a few exceptions, such as the oppose that assumed an overly optimistic overlap between the tens of millions of potentially notable articles that could be written and the millions of articles we delete on bands that will play their first gig next Tuesday if they can recruit a drummer; this was well argued on both sides. But I'm not seeing the large number of weak supports that would justify a no consensus result on a candidate with this level of support. There are supporters who argue that content contributions are not needed for adminship, and opposers who don't accept that technical contributors can be given a pass on the contributions front; But this RFA on my reading revolved on the issues of whether the candidate's technical contributions were an acceptable alternative, and whether they could be trusted not to use the mop against the people who write the pedia. I think that the consensus is for this RFA to pass, though this does not take us back to the pre 2008 era where "good vandalfighter" was sufficient qualification for the mop. Rather that contributions are needed, and the community will sometimes accept non content ones, even if some of us don't understand Lua well enough to understand them. Oh and yes we expect admins to have good communication skills and show this by nearly always leaving an edit summary. But most will accept a candidate who fixes this at the start of their RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification, but I'm away and unable to participate right now. Warofdreams talk 20:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting reasonably late here, and I'd like to give the RfA a suitable read. I am more likely to get a response tomorrow morning than tonight. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd first like to say that this RfA was great in the lack of major fights, and that disagreements took place on another place. The issue we have to address is if there was a consensus to promote this candidate from the discussion. I tend to think that these discussions come down to whether or not there is community trust in the user. The oppose !votes centered around this users perceived lack of content experience, their choice of "best content" and also their demeanour answering question(s) about the subject. !support votes stated that the user was more technical, and would use those tools for that purpose. I think this discussion hangs on if we believe that technical experience is a suitable alternative to content creation, and I think the quality of the support !votes suggest that as a community we believe so. I see a consensus to promote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished work and am brain fried. Could be up to 10 hours for a preliminary response as there are so many walls of text on this one. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see a very different divide in the oppose section of this RfA than I have been in previous ones. There is the GA/FA requirement votes, but then there is a new one. This new one stems from the Q7 and suitability, not nitpicking quality, of the best article presented in the questions. Back when I first RfA'd I had a similar incorrect viewpoint on how much content mattered. Now content is not the be all end all, but neither is the technical work on Wikipedia. I grew from that viewpoint with some very good feedback, but there is definitely something to be said about making the best of both worlds when it comes to expirience. I saw that some opposes even went as far as saying that they aren't expecting GA/FA status, but an attempt to make a significant lasting contribution to an article. That was refreshing.

To move on to the actual RfA, the user's disposition is what most strongly comes into question with this RfA. I'll be the first to admit that the blinders viewpoint of Q7, if left unchecked and not addressed, is a future Arb case walking. Areas you focus on are specialties, but the generalities still matter. Attitudes towards content contribution vs actual content contribution are different. But the supporters significantly and in a well-rounded manner address that they can see Pppery growing on that.

I do have to note here that my review of the oppose section returned the concern of generalities/hand waves to not take the time and spell a proper argument. Don't get me wrong, per x still matters, I'm talking about a minority that didn't justify their !vote. It's a discussion, not a vote. This was my last push into my decision.

At this point, there is without a doubt, consensus to promote in this case. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond at an opportune time. Uninvited Company 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will likely respond in about 12-15 hours. I will not be able to review things until then. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now had a chance to review the discussion. I agree with the analysis provided by several of the other 'crats. As others have noted, the amount of support, and the fact that the amount of support was trending upward as the discussion came to a close, leads me to conclude that there is consenses to promote in this discussion. I would also strongly encourage Pppery to carefully review the comments in the Oppose and Neutral section and apply that as feedback with an eye toward improvement. I did notice that some of this feedback was already applied by Pppery in a few cases during this discussion, so that's a good trend already. Keep it up! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sould note that my comments were in the middle of being written when Primefac closed the discussion. I've left them here because of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this as it has looked like going to a Chat for a while. There have been a number of reasons given for not supporting, such as temperament, being too rigid, poor choice of best work, not using edit summaries, etc; however, the main objection has revolved around attitude toward and lack of content creation which was particularly sparked by a clumsy response to question 7, and the opposes started to gather quite quickly in a manner in which it seemed the RfA would not recover. However, support still came in, and the supports started to reverse the downward trend, so the RfA began to climb toward the conventional promotion boundary of 75%, though has fallen a little short at time of close. I have been impressed by the quality of comments on both sides. There have been few casual or short comments either for oppose or support since the RfA really got underway, and while that has increased the Crat work, it is helpful to see exactly why people are supporting or opposing - helpful to everyone, not just the Crats. I also note that the discussion has been sober and polite, even when people are disagreeing; and I particularly like the exchange between Daniel Case and SandyGeorgia, both of whom gave illuminating rationales for supporting and opposing, and both of whom show respect for each other and appreciation of the thought and care that went into their rationales. Also notable has been Pppery's calm and reflective conduct during the RfA, which was remarked upon as a factor in some support comments. The main point of contention is the lack of content work, and that is understandable as content work is why we are here. However, I find the support arguments that skill at creating content work is not necessary for an admin who wishes to focus on the technical areas, and that we need admins skilled in those areas, quite convincing, and outweigh the concerns of those opposed. As such I find there is consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, I look at the opposition first. It's a pretty passionate oppose section. Much of it is about Pppery's (lack of) content creation and attitude towards it. It would take a substantial and substantive support section in order to achieve consensus. Like Amanda mentioned, there are any number of editors that had a lot of thoughts, feelings, insights, opinions, and what-have-you about the candidacy and I'd like to thank them for taking the time to write it. I would also like to take a moment to thank all participants for remaining as cordial as they did in an RFA with this much participation. It really hearkened back to what Wikipedia can be. Thank you. Back to the RFA, though, reading through the support section, I particularly took note that many of the supporters spoke of the concerns the opposers have and didn't summarily dismiss them. They discussed why those reasons weren't something they personally found oppose-worthy and explained their own position on the candidate. As it happens, the phrase "per nom" only exists once in the RFA - a fact that blew me away. And even that one case was followed by a paragraph of text providing further detail. Was there substantial and substantive support in this RFA? Yes, I believe there was. I find consensus to promote. Useight (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's in another cratchat, I'm not sure how I come into play on this... -- Amanda (she/her) 03:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was this one. I was referring to your comment here where you noted that there many walls of text. Useight (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, ok, I reread, thanks for the clarification. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RFA's hot-topic issue is content creation. Pppery does not have a lot of it, does not seem to care much about that fact, and those opposed are understandably concerned. Like Maxim, I believe if we were towards the lower end of the discretionary zone this might be enough to result in a lack of consensus, but the RFA has hovered right around the 75% mark almost since the beginning (barring a brief flirt with 80% for a day or so) indicating that while it is "an issue" it is not an insurmountable one. There were, of course, other opinions expressed about pppery's lack of suitability for adminship, but I did not see any of them (other than the now-sorted CfD concern) being enough to put a roadblock to this process. That being said, of course, the criticisms should be taken as feedback on what to potentially avoid going forward. The other 'crats have written plenty and similar enough to anything else I would write that I will just end this noting I see a consensus to promote.
As a minor note, this is the first RFA I have seen (or at least remember) in a long time where there was not a long and off-topic set of oppose !votes that ended on the talk page; on the whole just about everyone in this RFA handled themselves with composure and decorum, and for that I would like to thank the participants. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see a consensus to promote. There is a lot of concern about content creation - some of which the wider community does not agree with in the last RfC I read, some of which it does. My understanding of community consensus is that administrator's should have some content creation and especially some interaction with peer review systems so that they can appreciate what our content creators go through and empathise with it. There is no requirement for actual quality content to be provided by administrators, just an preference that the candidate has engaged. This doesn't quite tally with what is being shown in this RfA, but I think that's largely due to Q7. At any rate - my read of the RfA, and the strong swell of support is sufficient to confirm the consensus. Worm^TT(talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also see consensus to promote and won't rehash the well-expressed comments of others (I'm late to this, having been on a trip). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC) On a less formal basis, I'd like to say to the candidate that the neutral opinion cited by Floquenbeam can lead to unpleasant interaction for regular users. For admins, they are excellent fodder for dramafests and ArbCom cases and I urge the candidate not to only to hold back from using tools in such cases, but more fundamentally to really think about the issues. You seem like a good chap, or you wouldn't have secured so much support, so I hope you'll take this to heart. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals[edit]

Summary[edit]

Consensus to promote: Maxim, SilkTork, Useight, 28bytes, AmandaNP, WereSpielChequers, Primefac, Lee Vilenski, Xaosflux, Worm That Turned, Dweller, Nihonjoe
No consensus to promote
Intend to Respond: UninvitedCompany, Cecropia
Recused
Abstain: WarofDreams

Given we're at 10–0 in favour of promotion at this point, I think we should be aiming towards closing the chat and RfA. Of those intending to respond, Nihonjoe is the only who's given some time estimate, so perhaps we could wait for a few hours? Provided nothing earth-shattering comes up, I think any of us who have a bit of time can close up. Maxim (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with a little more time for comments, let's try to otherwise wrap this up perhaps after 17:00UTC if no more responses. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close[edit]

Unanimous consensus. No point in keeping this open any longer, ~~even though I know Nihonjoe said he would comment~~. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Strike, he managed to sneak it in. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 8 August 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.