Uptick[edit]

I hope the job of the 'crats is made easier by analyzing the uptick in support after I pointed out that the difficulty in coming to a conclusion expressed by many !voters and many of the early issues in this particular RFA were not necessarily problems with the candidate, rather a less-than-optimal presentation of the nomination which didn't focus enough on the candidate with specific examples of their work. I suspect clearer sailing at RFA would have been facilitated with a nomination statement that focused more on the candidate's strengths, while addressing known weaknesses, and the RFA would not have racked up so many opposes earlier on if that had been done.

While I'm here, I also commend Pppery on their conduct during the RFA, and wish them a speedy outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to rebut the vast majority of this message, I do have to note that the fundamental point of it shouldn't have any weight, regarding any upticks, downticks, trends etc. With the exception of a last minute huge change from newly revealed info (which should be handled by an extension, and obviously not the case here), crats shouldn't consider any trend-flows. There's no way to know who came back, reviewed, and decided the retain their original (!)vote and didn't chose to append a comment saying so. We also don't want to encourage individuals to (!)vote at specific times in an RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Nose said. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not for anything, but I admit that I was happy to see that late uptick. So I think it's natural to look for ups and downs in this type of situation. Hopeful, hopeful, hopeful in my case. This candidate, Pppery, deserves every consideration and will be a good admin! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed the uptick, not sure yet how much of it was because the candidate responded to the edit summary issue by changing their preferences to prompt if the edit summary was blank and how much was from other factors. I don't totally discount trends, especially if they clearly haven't played out. I don't think we should worry about people voting late to influence a trend, a cogent diff supported !vote relatively early in an RFA will likely have more influence than the same vote later in the week. Now off to reread the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) OK that was just over four hours into the RFA so a quick response. ϢereSpielChequers 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my nomination statement[edit]

Re: "less-than-optimal presentation of the nomination which didn't focus enough on the candidate with specific examples of their work"

My general philosophy in reviewing candidates is to look for reasons for rejecting their request, and then if I can't find any reason for disqualifying them, then they get my support. That is, they only need to meet minimal criteria. With the pipeline of candidates having dropped off to a trickle, we can't afford to be too choosy. The criteria I focused on in my statement:

wbm1058 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I for one found your nomination statement to be completely reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as someone who opposed, I too thought both nominators did just fine, for whatever that's worth. I wouldn't want either nominator to beat themselves up worrying about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I opposed in the face of a good nomination, not because there was any issue at all with the nomination itself. — Trey Maturin™ 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The calls for promotion of administrators who lack a strong content background have been around for a long while. If Pppery gets promoted, those who like to watch trends might see that as a sign that those calls are being heeded. ~TPW 01:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm, I think if some version of this had been your nomination statement it would have been more helpful and would have meant that you wouldn't have come in for any criticism. Though also it maybe only effects a handful of votes (perhaps enough to go from 73 -> 75 but probably not). In my mind the real value nominators add is before the RfA in helping prepare the candidate and behind the scenes during the RfA as they serve as a trusted sounding board and commiserator. I know some people don't like this last piece, but I don't think there's anything wrong with admins getting advice from fellow admins during a tough situation, including in private, and many do so and so I also don't think there's anything wrong in doing it during the RfA. So long story short, I'm sure when you nominate your next candidate you will learn things about how to do better (I know I learn things from many of my RfAs, even the ones that pass without issue) but also don't beat yourself (or the people who participated) up about what happened here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not beating myself up over this. Rather, reading 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. made me chuckle. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my previous nomination only had two "per nom"s, and that one passed too. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"per nom" appears twice in my own (self-nominated) RfA, one more time than this one! ROFL wbm1058 (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we'd stop maligning "per X" !votes. RfAs are massive discussions which we'd ideally like everyone to read before !voting but where in practicality that will never happen, creating a risk that pertinent info is missed. "Per X" !votes help mitigate that in two different ways. First, they limit the amount of redundancy. Second, they provide pointers that help highlight the most insightful comments, which otherwise have no intrinsic way to stand out given our lack of a like/upvote mechanic. Overall, if someone else has already made a point perfectly well, then it's a benefit to other !voters to just say "per X" rather than rewriting everything they said. AmandaNP/Useight, we shouldn't be penalizing that. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 17:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Sorry for the lack of clarity in the wording, but I treat them with the same weight, not less than regular votes. I'm talking about those that say "just doesn't feel right" w/o justifying or referencing someone else and that's it. That or not putting anything. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made no comment regarding maligning, penalizing, or otherwise considering "per nom" !votes and did not intend to imply anything of the sort. My comment was to be interpreted as surprise that so many people opted to write something other than "per nom", as "per nom" is a common convention, for the reasons you state. No comment on the value of "per nom" versus not. Useight (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with my colleagues above I found your nomination statement strong, and indeed it was a non-trivial factor in keeping me from opposing. It covered the main points; and from my perspective the personal touch you gave it strengthened, rather than weakened it. I'll also go on the record to say that I find opposing based on the nomination statement to be perverse unless the noms are engaging in active deception. RFA is for evaluating the candidate's suitability for adminship, not their skill at a game of wikipolitics with unwritten rules. If we deny the tools to an otherwise suitable candidate because someone felt the nom statement was sub-par, we have done actual harm to the encyclopedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise my own nomination criteria didn't mention edit summary usage.Though they do now ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good outcome[edit]

I'm happy to see the 'crats aligning themselves to the community mandate (?) of >=75% as an acceptance criteria (not saying it applies here) but that there is an inherent implication to falling between the lower and higher values on the discretionary range, I wonder if 'crat chats carry over as precedence for future determinations, it implicitly does ofc, curious about explicit assumptions. qedk (t 愛 c) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this need a crat chat?[edit]

There was a fairly clear consensus to promote, and I say that as one of the opposers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the policy In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Discussion,_decision,_and_closing_procedures KylieTastic (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the operative word there is 'discretion'; they don't have to stick rigidly to that because it's not a rigid rule. So, of course, Maxim could have promoted. but this is an interesting point: it kind of leaves crats in a philosophical bind, as, on the one hand, we elect them to office precisely because we don't expect them to do anything surprising or particularly radical. Conversely, you can guarantee that if a crat did close a RfA when it's in the discretionary zone without a cratchat, all hell would break loose from which ever side the close was not in favor of. (Not everyone being able to raise it so sensibly—I include myself!—as Reaper.) The path of least resistance/least annoyance I guess. SN54129 16:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent RfA in the discretionary range closed without a cratchat I could find is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2 from 2016. And, oddly, such instances seem to have been fairly regular prior to that point - did some undocumented drama occur in 2016 that made the crats more cautious, or am I just extrapolating from too little data? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I for one was annoyed to see that the suspense was extended by the opening of a totally unnecessary crat chat. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't mind, oddly enough. RfA is a seven-day process determining things that will last for the rest of my career as a Wikipedian, there's no harm in adding an extra day or two to it. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally not a fan of crat chats. —Kusma (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why they exist—for cases where consensus is difficult to ascertain—but I'd generally expect to see discussion about why or why not there is consensus. A crat chat like this one where every single crat is in agreement (whether positively or negatively) seems pointless. That just means that consensus is clear and the original bureaucrat should have simply closed the RFA. In this case, that would be with a clear consensus to promote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor on the Oppose side, I agree with Reaper that this was a relatively easy call to promote and I personally would not have had any problem with any crat making that close at their individual discretion. Don't object to a crat chat though since at the cost of some extra work for the crats and added suspense for the candidate, it preempts any spoken/unspoken objections. RFAs in general and ones in the discretionary zone are (unfortunately) infrequent enough nowadays that it may not be worth worrying too much about the norm of "crat-chat for anything in the discretionary zone" that seems to have been established. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Abecedare wrt to "the cost of some extra work ... and added suspense". This particular crat chat added almost exactly (only) 24 hours to the candidate's "suspense", and considering the information offered by the crats, those 24 hours do the candidate and the community more good than harm. Waiting that small amount of tme for endorsement within the discretionary zone seems worthwhile in this case, and provided additional helpful information which should be useful for Pppery going forward. Congratulations, Pppery; go forward and don't disappoint! Maybe now some of us will get to know you and your work better :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most people who are not fans of "crat chats" are not fans of Bureaucrats so surely having a single Bureaucrat make a unilateral call would be worse? The outcome is clear so the pressure is off Pppery who again has shown a good attitude to these proceedings by declaring they are not bothered by the wait. Having the chat with all agreeing will give a solid rubber-stamp to their adminship and should stop anyone claiming consensus was not clear. A solid footing is a good stance for mop use :) KylieTastic (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, crat chats have never been mandatory in the discretionary zone, though as Pppery notes, that has become the practice in recent years. Tamzin might know more about the history here; I believe xe commented on it during xyr RfA. 174.242.142.211 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How I spent the first day of my 'crat chat. There were dolphins!
Back when there were more RfAs, it was more common to have a unilateral close within the discretionary zone, IIRC. Note that the original version of WP:BN had a "Close-call RFAs" section, the first entry in which was an unlinked, abbreviated reference to the no-consensus close of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gkhan 2, with explanation "under 70%, Ithink". (N.B.: Discretionary range was 70–75% at the time.)
One thing 'crats can do, and in the past have, but I haven't seen in a long time, is close unilaterally but with a detailed explanation of how they read consensus. I'd venture that the main reasons 'crats prefer 'crat chats now is that there's fewer cases where it's necessary, so less drain on editor-hours, and that if a unilateral close goes wrong, there's no procedural mechanism to reverse it, short of some IAR consensus at BN, which would be an absolute nightmare. If we consider that even veteran XfD and RfC closers completely misread consensus from time to time, that's a concern that can't be discounted in the RfA context.
So then there's the question of the downside. There's definitely the argument of added stress for the candidate. If anyone's in a position to be bitter about a 'crat chat, I guess it would be me—'crat-chatted 0.3 points above the range, 1.4 points above the highest failing RfA, and pretty openly not having a great time by that point. To be candid, I think my initial response aloud was "Oh, bullshit", but I quickly changed my mind. Instead of a contentious RfA being closed by one bureaucrat, probably with a subsequent fight at BN, I get to say I got the endorsement of 9 out of 11 'crats, with 1 of the other 2 two later offering to flip the bit himself. Plus at that point there was nothing much to respond to. I spent day 1 of the 'crat chat dolphin-watching on the beach. I highly recommend this strategy (or suitable replacement—sunny places are best, both for mood and for difficulty in seeing your phone screen) for anyone else whose RfA goes to a 'crat chat. Anyways, I can't speak for Pppery or other recent 'crat-chattee ScottishFinnishRadish as to whether they feel they benefited from their 'crat chats, but I definitely feel I did. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel I benefited from it per se, but it didn't really harm me anyway - I was in no rush to use the tools, although there was a request for an admin to take action in my areas of interest on AN during its pendency. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oooooo dolphins! SWinxy (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DOLPHINS!!! So much envy, Tamzin! — Trey Maturin™ 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a fascinating change of the idea that are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats means a crat chat rather than the crats as a group. Despite this, when I floated the idea last year of enshrining that, the reaction was not positive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep49; "subject to the discretion of bureaucrats" was interpreted at the time and since as emphasizing that decisions can reasonably be interpreted either way by a specific bureaucrat. (This remains theoretically true outside of the specified range, but it's a lot trickier to establish a rationale.) Only one bureaucrat needs to feel sufficiently confident with determining the consensus viewpoint in order to decide the outcome. But as they are a collaborative team, they are open for opportunities to establish a broader consensus within the bureaucrats. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that discussion (I think that's the section Barkeep49 intended to link) is interesting to read. Cecropia's comment that If every dodgy nomination goes to a 'crat chat, then the community will start expect a chat as a matter of course seems somewhat ironic now, since—even though there was no official change in policy to require a crat chat in the discretionary zone—it seems that is what multiple editors here expect or consider to be the normal process.
If the community does want to retain the ability of individual crats to close this sort of RfA on their own, but generally expects them to go to a crat chat, perhaps language like RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are usually sent to a bureaucrat discussion, though they may still be closed by an individual bureaucrat if the closing bureaucrat is confident in their analysis, (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail) would be more appropriate. 129.170.195.78 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention, crat chats also provide an opportunity for the usual suspects to come out of retirement once a year and make the couple of occasional crat comments that allow them to keep the flag until next time... SN54129 — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12 of our 20 crats made this decision, I've just had a quick look to test your theory, and I couldn't spot any of those 12 in that retired category. Half of us made our last 500 edits this year, and unless I missed one, the rest only go back to 2022. Some of the other 8 are likely to hit the inactivity criteria soon, so now might be a good time for new candidates to submit RFBs. But I couldn't spot any crats coming out of inactivity to vote in this one, though it may have happened in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I very nearly wrote something similarly cynical, but - unusually for me - double-checked the letter of policy first. Turns out all they have to do beyond the normal admin activity minimums is "signal... that they remain actively engaged" once every three years. I read that as responding, "Hey, no, I'm still an active crat!" on their talk page in response to one of the two required notifications that they're about to be debureaucratized. —Cryptic 23:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just responding on their talkpage was enough for the old test, though a posting on the bureaucrats noticeboard or in a crat chat was. However the new criteria also include 100 edits in the last 60 months so a couple of comments every year are no longer sufficient, though only by one order of magnitude. I suspect that if there are a number of admins and or crats who just achieve the new criteria then the community might want to revisit that. But as I said, the 12 of us who made this decision are all way above that level of activity. ϢereSpielChequers 07:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen the statistics, but it seems to me like a unanimous decision in a ’crat chat is pretty rare. If they were frequently unanimous I think a good argument could be made that they were superfluous, but usually at least a couple of us read the consensus differently and I don’t think it’s a bad thing to see the ’crat corps explain why they are making the decisions they make. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for opening a crat chat is that most, if not all, recent discretionary zone RfAs seem to go that way. I find that it feels mildly expected that a discretionary zone RfA goes to a chat. Quickly reviewing chats since 2015 inclusive, it seems that bureaucrats are usually fairly split on the outcome; the main exceptions are that the Hawkeye7 and Rich Farmborough chats went unanimously, and MB had one dissenting bureaucrat. I haven't done a careful comparison of timestamps, so this is anecdotal more than anything, but it seems that on the obvious RfAs, we're almost lining up for a chance to close, but on the controversial ones, it's the opposite where the RfA will stay open a while longer before a chat is opened. Maxim (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was an opposer, I think it going to ‘crat chat as a check-and-balance thing was right, and I think the decision to promote was entirely correct. I’m sorry that this was extra stress on the candidate, but I hope they take it as an extra vote of confidence. — Trey Maturin™ 21:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have respected a crat principled enough to promote without a crat chat and ignore the attempted chilling effect from anyone who badgered them about having the decision overturned. Crat chats should be rare, for contentious cases where some crats will disagree. Easy to say in hindsight that this was an uncontroversial decision, I'll accept that, but once it was 5-0 to promote it should have been closed immediately. The right of the candidate to not be put under undue stress (however calm this candidate was during this process) outweighs the right of a crat to participate once they've announced intention to. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree, this entire ordeal is a consensus-finding process, and consensus takes time, there's nothing to prevent a scenario where crat 6 steps in with argument XYZ along the lines of "no consensus to promote", that the remaining crats also generally agree with, this is not a point-in-time process, otherwise we could simply have rules such as >100 votes, >75% supports and close it at the threshold. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing consensus requires patience, particularly with a global, online community. The first five viewpoints were expressed after about 14 hours of the page being created. The community should be understanding of the need to let everyone have time to examine the discussion and formulate their thoughts. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have respected a crat principled enough to promote without a crat chat. 70%ish RFAs are big discussions with many supporters and many opposers. For someone to come in and go "even though this is in the discretionary range, this is obvious to me, let's skip our normal process"... in my opinion would be quite disrespectful to the other "side", since skipping the crat chat would result in that "side" not receiving proper, thoughtful, un-rushed consideration of their comments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect is the enemy of the adequate. The system we have now of the Elders of the admin corp weighing in at the end is merely adequate. But every other suggestion I’ve ever seen requires perfection. This will mean stress upon stress for our candidates, and that’s awful in all ways. But if someone volunteers for this terrible process without realising that, then they’re not suitable for being a sysop anyway. I’m aware that’s harsh, but that doesn’t make it untrue. — Trey Maturin™ 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More