Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat

I calculated, and it seems as though Tamzin is just ever-so-slightly out of the discretionary range—75.27%. Of course, a bureaucrat already opened this. Just wanted to confirm, though… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Maxim explains it in their opening statement. Sorry about that. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything above 75%, even 75%+1 vote, is above the traditional discretionary zone. If Maxim as a crat wants to open a chat to determine consensus that's of course his prerogative as a crat and supported by our closing procedure which reads in part In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass which means it's theoretically possible for an RfA above 75% to fail. But I don't want to set a precedent that the next RfA that finishes at 75% and a decimal must go to crat chat because it's in the discretionary zone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was not an ordinary process, and I see Maxim's actions as clearly intended to protect the pedia. While the discussion is over, I suspect folks outside the community may have something to say. A cratchat costs our community little, but may have the effect of smoothing rough waters. BusterD (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the last person to go through a crat chat, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. My RfA ended up lasting 275 hours and was the longest one that ever passed. What led to this 'crat chat is very different from what happened in my Rfa, so I will not be commenting on that, but I would like to say two things. For any potential commenters: put yourself in the candidate's shoes, and be mindful of what you say, whether it is in support or not. Even if you are trying to help out the candidate, you may end up making things even more stressful. To the 'crats: please, please don't take as long as you took with mine. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof! My apologies to the community that I have to recuse this time, too! Acalamari 03:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acalamari Your recusal is welcome. But, your comment on the candidate "Tamzin, don't let the alt-right / far-right defeat you in the long run" was perhaps the most accusatory of all 400 plus comments. I voted no, and I'm not a member of the far right or alt-right -- not even close -- and I don't appreciate my opposition being characterized as such. Especially by someone in a position of authority. Smallchief (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. There were 112 people who dropped an opinion in the oppose section, I don't think it's fair or accurate to lump all those people together with a broader "alt-right/far-right" enemy. Endwise (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Calling me alt-right is almost an insult. I consider myself socially progressive, in some aspects even radically on the left. I switched to Oppose, objecting to the Trumpian demonisation and disenfranchisement of a large part of Wikipedia editor population. It's beyond me when someone calling themselves progressive engages in such behaviour on a project that has WP:AGF and WP:NPOV among its core tenets. I can't, in all my honesty, support such a shamelessly partisan admin. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was a nasty comment, dismissive of the RfA process and the motives of the people who opposed. Coming from a 'crat makes it worse. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Kashmiri. - hako9 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Acalamari intended to imply that opposition to Tamzin's RfA was motivated by alt-right bigotry. Look: Tamzin identified herself as transgender. In the US, the Republican Party is actively demonizing trans people and legitimizing them as targets of hatred as it attempts to literally legislate them out of existence. Transgender people already face extreme (and worsening) risks of violence and suicide. In that context, I read Acalamari's comment as a simple statement of support from one human being to another—an act of basic human decency toward someone being targeted by the state simply for who they are. Put more directly: not everything is about you. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Legislate out of existence"? Really? Do you actually know what it means, to be legislated out of existence? To be deprived of all social and citizen rights? Heard of the Rohingya ethnic group, who are allowed nothing in Myanmar? No passports, no identity documents, no land ownership, no home ownership, no electoral rights, no access to justice, education or public healthcare. Are you saying that this is what's happening to transgender people in the US? Or see what happens to some of the poorest tribes in India or Pakistan.

I understand that myopia is not limited to the US, but this is a global encyclopaedia with an enormous wealth of information available at a click of a mouse. It would be fantastic if some Americans here, for once, stopped reliving a hopeless protest of a few hundred supporters of an incompetent former US President – all the while thousands and millions are getting killed (mostly by US/UK/EU/Russia-made bombs and missiles) in Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Somalia, and so on. When millions are ruled by ruthless dictators and true villains, like in North Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, and so on. When 10 million children, in Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are facing starvation.[1]

To rephrase the advice: many people "out there" are fed up with really trivial US problems dominating the news. Frankly, not everything should be about you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to pick one thing in the world, be outraged about that, and not be outraged by anything else. In the grand scheme of things, votes on adminship on a random website aren't as important as all those deaths you mention either... but you still managed to be outraged about Tamzin's comments (well, your mistaken interpretation of them). It's kind of cowardly - or stupid - to belittle MastCell's comments about a real world human rights issue by comparing them to tragedy elsewhere in the world, but then give yourself a pass when doing something even more worthy of belittling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think, Floq, that putting local US debates in the right perspective from the beginning would have saved us from all this AfD drama? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about RFA drama when there are 10 million children starving in Yemen and Afghanistan? See how I can do it too? You're choosing to frame the question one way for me, and another way for you. It is impossible to talk to someone playing this game. Don't you think, Kashmiri, that putting local WP adminship in the right perspective from the beginning would have saved you from minimizing Tamzin's real-world concerns about her life and death? You're intentionally or unintentionally being dishonest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this RfA was quite literally all about Tamzin. Politanvm ^talk 21:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put the best possible light on User:Acalamari's comment it is unbecoming for a Wikipedia functionary to make inflammatory remarks. Acalamari has a responsibility to be judicious and fair minded. Acalamari failed. Smallchief (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, to put the best light on Acalamari's comments, he was offering words of support and encouragement to someone who's a member of a persecuted minority demographic. The fact that so many people perceive this as "inflammatory" or choose to interpret it as a personal insult is interesting, though. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that MastCell has said is the basis behind that sentence of mine; it was a statement of support for Tazmin because of the demographic groups they're in, seeing as I regularly see people like them being abused across the Internet and hurt in real life. If you're not the sort of person who causes harm to people like Tamzin, then it didn't apply to you. If it does apply to someone, then the problem isn't with my statement but with the behavior of those it applies to.

As for my being an administrator and bureaucrat, I don't go around blocking Trump supporters and my record shows me keeping away from the closures of RfAs in which I know I'm biased, like this one. That is "judicious" and "fair-minded". Acalamari 01:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To rebut the assertion that the oppose votes since Hammersoft's initial (since rescinded) vote is damning, I would note that in the same timeframe, there were 121 additional votes of support, and around 45 reaffirmations of pre-Hammersoft support. Zaathras (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is going to point out that Hammersoft's vote was rescinded, let's also remember that it was done so after some heavy badgering. Hammersoft was, ironically, called a bully. GrammarDamner how are things? 06:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who believed, and still believes that Hammersoft's conduct amounted to bullying, I disagree wholeheartedly that asking Hammersoft to withdraw those remarks amounted to badgering.

Consider the words that Hammersoft wrote:

• This lock-step belief that a person can't be trusted if they have political views opposing the candidate's isn't just troubling, it's disgusting in the extreme. - Hammersoft calls Tamzin's beliefs "disgusting in the extreme". A personal attack.
• That we would embolden a member of this community with such despicable views is horrifying - Hammersoft calls Tamzin's views "despicable" and "horrifying." Another personal attack.
• @Tamzin: I noted above that I would prefer you to withdraw this candidacy. - Hammersoft pings Tamzin, to ensure that they have seen this and the prior replies
• If this RfA were to start over with this revelation in place, I dare say it's clear it would not pass. Hammersoft predicts an alternate future that is detremental to Tamzin
• But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you? Hammersoft opines that the community as a whole is not supporting Tamzin, in an attempt to pressure them to withdraw.

Next, consider our no personal attacks policy. Right there in the lead it says Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Emphasis from the original text. Hammersoft's first two comments are in a strict violation of that. They are describing a contributors beliefs as "despicable", "horrifying", and "disgusting in the extreme". Given the egregiousness of these attacks, in any other context one editor saying this about another would be grounds for a warning at best, and a block at worst. However, Hammersoft is not just a run of the mill editor, they are an administrator. As such, they are held to a higher standard of conduct.

Next, take a look at Hammersoft's user page. It lists 10 principles that Hammersoft believes should be applied to all editors. Now look at principle 9, which states civility is One of the least enforced but most critical policies on the project. You cannot be civil when engaging in a personal attack against another editor.

Finally, please look at Hammersoft's recall page. It lists five criteria. Number 1 is Communication is key; if you feel that I have acted inappropriately, discuss the issue with me first. As with all things, I will be responsive. When I and other editors challenged what Hammersoft had said, particularly subsequent to the reply where Tamzin was pinged and pressured into withdrawing, we were fulfilling step 1 of their recall criteria. I was not satisfied with the response, in particular I was aghast by Hammersoft's suggestion that what was written was not bullying. It is calling it what it is. I have seen, and been subject to that specific terminology "I am just calling it like it is" by many bullies in my life. To see an administrator use it unironically was beyond the pale for me. So I did what step 2 of Hammersoft's recall criteria states If that does not resolve the issue, elevate the issue to WP:AN/I. I will participate in the discussion. citing WP:ADMINCOND, as this was a conduct issue and not an accountability one. The difference between WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT is that ACCT involves use of the administrator toolset, whereas COND refers to all conduct.

When all of this is considered as a whole; the personal attacks, pressuring an RfA candidate to withdraw, and downplaying the severity of what was written, it was and remains in my opinion nothing short of bullying. While each individual constituent part is bad, it is only when the three are combined that I would describe it as such. If you remove any one of the three parts, be it the personal attacks, the downplaying of the personal attacks, or the pressuring on the candidate to withdraw, it would cease to be bullying, and be something more specific to what exactly was said. But as a whole, it is bullying.

While Hammersoft did not have a chance to respond to the ANI thread before it was closed, they did withdraw the remarks and apologise to Tamzin. As I said on Hammersoft's talk page last night, while I am grateful for the withdrawal of the remarks, I am still very concerned at the impact Hammersoft's choice of words has had, both physically and emotionally on Tamzin. In Tamzin's own words 1) The initial characterizations of my views as "despicable" and "disgusting" hurt me. 2) I was upset by the decision to ping me while I was already under a good deal of stress, especially since it served to call attention back to that initial statement.

I am not alone in thinking that the words that Hammersoft wrote are far below the standards expected of an administrator. We all need to remember that there is another person at the end of every username and IP address. Words have power, particularly so when someone is under a great deal of stress, like in an RfA. We all should consider what impact the words we chose will have upon the recipients after we click the publish button. And when any of us says something that is hurtful to another, regardless of whether it was deliberate or unintended, having someone say "Hey, those words are inappropriate. They are a personal attack. Would you please strike them?" is not badgering. It is accountability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, and I thank you for your input. Everything written at WP:BADGER accurately describes the response to Hammersoft's vote, and Tamzin's own statements (multiple statements she doubled down on) could just as easily be labeled personal attacks. Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. This type of open and proud intolerance is not conducive to a collaborative project, especially one that champions neutrality. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which statement that Tamzin made could be labeled a personal attack? Her statements were in the general and not referring to any editor, nor did she ever bring up politics to discredit or dismiss someone. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She used politics to discredit and dismiss a very large number of people. Just because her statements were more general does not mean that they were not personal attacks. She said we should be judging and intolerant of editors based on their personal political views. If she had said something like, "Editors who display a pattern of ________________...", that would have been a constructive discussion on editing behavior. Anyway, she is an admin now. As many others have said, I hope she reads all the comments and takes them to heart, because this kind of attitude is most likely part of the reason we recently had a survey asking Wikipedia editors if we ever feel uncomfortable editing. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope she takes the successful outcome as an affirmation of her opinions on the matter. Zaathras (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as at least one bureaucrat noted, There's little support for Tamzin's opinion. And just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I have almost no support for anything Trump did/does. GrammarDamner how are things? 02:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annnd, everyone had a chance to review and decide on changing to oppose. Some did. Some did not. RfA's can go from mostly support to mostly oppose, so I have to agree with Zaathras. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here, if it’s acceptable for non-bureaucrats to weight in (if not, an admin/bureaucrat can revert this). I hope the bureaucrats aren’t just seeing a policy mentioned in a support/oppose and taking it for face value. For example, WP:NPOV has come up (which states that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic., emphasis mine), but there haven’t been any diffs shared of Tamzin violating that policy. Politanvm ^talk 05:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. NPOV applies to content, not editors' interactions (WP:5P4). feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 05:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the important part is the lack of diffs. Everyone is relying on hypotheticals, and no one has presented any evidence of a tangible policy violation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV becomes important when you combine it with all the weighty opposition based on "other foundational principles". Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, vague gibberish becomes meaningful when paired with other vague gibberish? -- JBL (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny; you'd think we the peanut gallery would love the opinion of someone named "UninvitedCompany", since that's exactly what we are. In all seriousness, CaptainEek's RfA took an early, serious hit, but it didn't prove to be fatal to their admin prospects. There's precedent for the idea that an issue like this isn't necessarily more impactful if written earlier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politanvm And repeatedly, some of us who reaffirmed our vote raised that counter point. And as Hammersoft struck their vote, I think that aspect is being given too much weight. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, ~110 opposes to ~165 supports and re-affirmations is a 60% approval which is below the discretionary range [65-75%]. If that's all bureaucrats were to take into account there'd be no need for a crat chat. To be clear the bureaucrats are going to consider the whole discussion. I just don't see how the post-Hammersoft trends rebuke UC's assessment. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid you can't just throw away the !votes of those who did not reaffirm. As they did not switch, their supports stand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wished to change their opinion had ample opportunity, discounting people's opinions on the basis of when they made that point of view is arbitrary in the least. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you'd both read the whole thing I wrote. Not just the first half. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of your statement to endorse UC's assessment? UC appears in my reading to gives greater weight to !votes which appeared after HS's intervention. Or are you suggesting that irrespective of UC's justification, you endorse their proposed outcome? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of the statement was to question a seemingly weak rebuttal. I did not participate in the RfA and do not have an opinion on the appropriate outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find your statement difficult to discern; it appears to me to endorse UC's assessment. However, and of course, if you do not wish to express further an opinion either way, I perfectly understand. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try this exercise: quote the passage in which I endorsed (your claim) UC's assessment. I stated that Zaarthar's assessment doesn't rebuke it. Not that I endorse it. These are dissimilar claims. I am not required to agree with x to disagree with y. That's a false dilemma. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In context a statement which omits to comment on the issue at hand can, quoting myself, "appear" as endorsement. "Something you fail to mention..." etc. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, FWIW, apologies, but it was not clear to me to who your original reply was directed. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original reply (I assume you mean 05:21) was directed at you and DFO as you both claimed that I was discounting the !votes that came before Hammersoft's oppose. I was not, as I noted that the bureaucrats would consider the whole discussion, not just the post-Hammersoft trends. I restricted the first half of my comment to those trends, because they were the basis of Zaarthar's comment: [t]o rebut the assertion that the oppose votes since Hammersoft's initial (since rescinded) vote is damning. Which is why I said I wished you'd both read the second half, where I account for those pre-Hammersoft !votes in support.

Additionally, both Wugapodes and Bibliomaniac give substantially different numbers to Zaarthar which raise the post-Hammersoft approval rating to 65% (150/160 supports + 60 affirmations). That's then within discretionary range and even considered alone do not 'damn' this RfA. As I noted elsewhere Roxy RexxS passed RfA with an approval rating of 64%, which is even less than just the post-Hammersoft trend of Tamzin's RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comment of 05:09. I doubt there is more to add. Heat, light etc. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ok. It was directed at the OP. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the sort of thing bureaucrats are actually considering, advice on reaffirming your support should be added to the instructions page for RFAs. I didn't bother going back and doing so because I (naively!) assumed the strange hypothetical of "well you voted support, but would you have, really?" would be dismissed outright. Kinda disappointing to know I should have. Parabolist (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there's a strong possibility that many voters don't bother to come back to see how an RfA is evolving. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If I'd known the bureaucrats were going to consider reaffirmations important I would have submitted one. I thought they'd assume the voting crowd to be competent enough to know what they're voting for. I also disagree with such a decision on procedural grounds: to consider reaffirmations important effectively requires every voter to watch the RfA and reaffirm after every significant piece of discussion. This would be onerous. – Anon423 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely arbitrary to discount people on the whole if they made their !votes before the cited oppose !vote made. The only somewhat coherent thing I could think of would be to discount people who !voted prior to the comment and subsequently did not edit Wikipedia, but this also feels rather arbitrary. The answer to Q14 was posted with several days left in the RFA. Maybe in the case where something like this happened on the final day it would be reasonable to use caution (or even extend the RFA), but a timetable-based rationale for finding a lack of consensus doesn’t really fit here—especially when the RfA didn’t drop below 75% support even with several days for editors to reflect on this. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that this RfA is on the line of the discretionary range and there is already precedent for bureaucrats to consider such situations in a crat chat. This happened with Roxy the Dog's RexxS' RfA which was below the 65% threshold at the time it was closed. Roxy RexxS was subsequently sysopped. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something very different along the lines of the X-rays bringing someone up from below the minimum threshold and saying “no” to someone marginally above the threshold. And in terms of desysopping risk, I'm not really sure that there's an all-that real relation between support at 75-80% and being more likely to be desysopped for malfeasance than someone who got 95%-100% support. I could be wrong, and it's a quantitative question with respect to risk (so it should be easy to point this out if I am), but I don’t think that the comparison to the 64.1% case actually supports the “no consensus” case at 75.3%. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was that there's a precedent to hold a crat chat in this sort of situation. And, as I said, Roxy RexxS got the bit. They passed that RfA with 64% approval. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude do you mean RexxS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. It's RexxS. My apologies. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Also to clarify—I don't think that the comment in support of no consensus is “dour” (I.e. obstinate). The argument seems to be reasonable under certain circumstances, but I just don't think that Q14 was answered so late in the process where we could assume the RfA would have been much more muddled if we were to add a day or two more onto the length of it—especially given the enormous quantity of participants that eclipsed even the most contentious of the post-WP:FRAM RFAs.— Mhawk10 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'''My view''': I saw the "reaffirmations" as equivalent to trying to !vote twice and simply ignored them. – Athaenara ✉ 05:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-unbolded above in deference to the offense BusterD took, I just didn't want to indent at the time.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify this, Athaenara? I read it as an assumption that reaffirmers were acting in bad faith, but I assume that’s not what was intended. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate clarification. Because if this means what I think it means then we have a problem. If we have one fraction who considers votes given before a certain event as less valid unless they are reaffirmed, and another fraction who wants to ignore reaffirmed votes altogether, then what do we do? There is no way to vote on anything if it isn't transparent what votes will be counted. That's deeply unfair, and a user should not have to do that kind of "guess work". UC may intend to protect Wikipedia from damage, but if we go down that route then the result may be the exact opposite, possibly leading to a divide in the user base. Again, maybe I misinterpret Althaenara's comment. Renerpho (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume bad faith on anyone's part, just perceived something more along the lines of passionate intensity perhaps getting the better of a few people, and I wasn't considering anything that Hammersoft was doing, that wasn't on my radar at all. – Athaenara ✉ 06:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. BusterD (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Athaenara. I am sorry to be hammering on this, but I am still confused (maybe more so than before). I assume that, when you say that Hammersoft's comments were not on your radar at all, that means you were (consciously?) ignoring everything they wrote, not that you didn't read the RfA? Or are you just referring to their oppose vote, which they struck near the end of the voting period? I've had a hard time reading some of what Hammersoft wrote (I am referring to what some have described as "bullying"). I would have been incapable of ignoring it. Renerpho (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: My way of reading the wrangling in contentious discussions is a little different. When I see people figuratively running around screaming with their hair on fire, I don't have a hard time reading it because I deliberately discount and skip over their harangues. To me, it's simply not worth my time to indulge them with my attention. Yes, in your words, consciously ignoring nearly everything they wrote: clearly this one had plenty of other participants reacting to it and combatting it. – Athaenara ✉ 08:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara: Thank you, that clarifies that comment for me. Still not sure if I would support the original comment, but that's a matter of opinion. Maybe I just found the words "equivalent" and "simply" too strong; I could support your statement if you meant that "reaffirmations" can indicate attempts to !vote twice, and may be ignored accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara - just to give you my thinking on why I reaffirmed, since you're someone I respect, and whose opinion I value. My initial support was fairly trivially worded, because I thought the RfA would be a shoo-in easy pass. When I saw numerous opposes, I considered my position ans found I still supported, so I wanted to put some meat on the bones of my original comment to indicate that. I didn't want extra weight or a second voice, I just didn't want my vote to be discounted by the closer(s) for having little substance. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I was simply acknowledging that I had seen the new developments (opposes due to political comments) in the RFA and that they did not significantly affect my position, which was neutral leaning oppose for other reasons. I was in no way attempting to double-vote, and it would be completely nonsensical for me to double-vote in the neutral camp anyway. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, let's not start bolding. No offense, Athaenara. Things seem to go quickly downhill when bolded assertions are commenced. Statistical post-Hammersoft trends are central to UninvitedCompany's initial assessment so a discussion on the statistical merits from our peanut gallery is well within bounds. A cratchat was inevitable; any reasonable closer would have hesitated before they snap-judged this situation. When we view consensus as a strictly mathematical process, we do the concept of "rough consensus and running code" a great disservice. RfA is one of the rare Wikipedia venues where numbers are necessarily impactful. Reaffirmations (of such scale) may affect the closer's view as to whether pre-Hammersoft trends (apologies for using such a formulation) remained involved in the discussion, which continues to be a discussion and not an election. BusterD (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to separately consider votes that were made after Hammersoft struck their oppose vote? Renerpho (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a statistical perspective, the best evidence we have as to the disposition of the pre-Hammersoft support voters is the actions taken by them post Hammersoft. In order to determine this, I reviewed each changed or reaffirmed support vote. This is maximally conservative, because to change your support vote to neutral or oppose requires action, while "passive affirmation" by doing nothing is invisible and possible - unlike passive rejection or passive neutrality. Of the support voters pre Hammersoft: 70 reaffirm, 10 oppose, 6 neutral, 135 no comment. I analyzed supports, by hand, through PhilKnight, who was the last support voter prior to Hammersoft. I did not comb through the history, instead relying on strikeouts and indented comments. Applying the ratios determined from the 86 clear statements to 135 un-affirmed supports results in a net change of +16 oppose, +9 neutral -26 support (fractional people rounded so totals will not match), for a new aggregate, maximally conservative total of (314/128/25), or a %age of 71.04%. Again, I argue this is the maximally conservative analysis - it assumes that the people who did not reaffirm are as likely to move to oppose as the people did comment, which is clearly fallacious - again - if you saw "'reaffirmations' as equivalent to trying to !vote twice," in the words of 14 year admin and oppose voter Athaenara, you would certainly not reaffirm, but you would move your vote if you felt it should be moved, meaning that assuming the ratio remains constant is undercounting support substantially. As such, I suggest that anyone that argues this would fall into clear failure based on an argument from incredulity is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an editor who has made three mainspace edits in the past year and who refers to something that occurred before some Wikipedians were born can be trusted to be in touch with current trends. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Brutal! :D SN54129 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a discussion about the required activity level for admins and crats and UninvitedCompany satisfies both of those (and would have even satisfied the stricter standard I suggested and which almost had consensus). So as much as I would like the standard to be higher, UninvitedCompany is clearly with-in (recently) established community norms. So it might be "brutal" but I'm not sure it's fair. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: As you know, numerically passing activity levels != au courant with community norms. SN54129 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE? (Nothing at all to do with Tamzin, but three mainspace edits in a year???? sheesh)

I fully regret saying this casualdejekyll 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there seriously people trying to argue that a reaffirm counts as an attempt to double-vote? Even Stretch Armstrong would say "whoah!" Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who are trying to argue that failure to reaffirm somehow negates their original. I did not reaffirm my support. Rest assured, I'll not make that mistake again. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  01:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a crat, and I supported the RfA, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I saw UninvitedCompany's comment in the crat chat and wanted to voice my disagreement with their analysis. Firstly, UC's rationale relies on a change in voting patterns following Hammersoft's oppose (an oppose which was struck by the author after multiple editors raised concerns about WP:CIVIL). UC doesn't expand on how they analyzed voting patterns, but if you simply look at the percentage-over-time graph you will get a deeply flawed understanding of the discussion. By the time Hammersoft posted his oppose, Tamzin had over two hundred supports; after and despite Hammersoft's oppose, Tamzin proceeded to garner an additional one hundred and fourty supports. Now those additional 140 supports are tempered by the 110-odd opposes that came in, which I presume is what UC refers to, but this neglects that sixty-some supporters (including me) came back to reaffirm their support following Hammersoft's oppose. If we count only the comments and reaffirmations which came after Hammersoft's oppose, the ratio is not "stark", 200-odd supports out of 300-odd comments is precisely the 2/3 majority the community has identified as suitable for a rough consensus at RfA. And that neglects the 100 other supports we ignored for the sake of argument. On the numbers alone, and even on UC's own terms of "after Hammersoft's (now struck) oppose", there is a stronger case for consensus than not.

This case is strengthened by an aspect of the discussion not covered by UC: strength of arguments as weighed by participants. As previously pointed out, the opposition rationales were rejected by a margin of at least 2-to-1, and that is without considering the actual substance of various oppose voters. One editor's oppose rationale was based on their recent lost friendship with someone who is not Tamzin; should this be given equal weight to an editor analyzing Tamzin's technical contributions? Another editor's rationale rests partly on their desire to see the discussion go to a crat chat; should a procedural gambit be given equal weight to an editor who pays attention to the discussion and comes back to reaffirm their position in light of more recent arguments? Relying on the numbers without regard for the actual content is not how to determine consensus (especially since, given our policies, this is in the "usually pass" range on the numbers alone).

Leaving aside my hand-picked examples (I'm sure similarly poor examples can be picked for the support side), the opposition did not adequately respond to much of the rebuttal by supporters. Aquillion pointed out in their support that the opposition is largely self-defeating: if it is inappropriate for Tamzin to abstain from an RfA when the candidate's politics are at odds with hers, then by the opposer's own logic it should be inappropriate to oppose an RfA when the candidate's politics are at odds with yours (or your "absence" of politics). The other facet of opposition is that the incident described demonstrates a lack of judgement or inability to use the tools correctly. Amakuru, in reaffirming their support, points out that the incident pointed to by opposers reflects on a narrow aspect of adminship and generally does not speak to her abilities or competence. That's worth emphasizing: supporters point to demonstrated proficiency in multiple venues such as technical, administrative, and behavioral while opposers focus on (fears of in)competence specifically in post-1992 American Politics. In weighing competence arguments, that is worth bearing in mind. Particularly because, even among those supporters who changed to "weak support" they did not find the narrow incident sufficient to outweigh the competence in all other areas.

Lastly, UC argues that the opposition is supported by the WP:NPOV, but if this is the policy backing for opposers, then the opposition is weak. NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy, and unless opposers have presented evidence that Tamzin has edited articles improperly, NPOV is not an appropriate policy-based justification for any comment at RfA. Similarly, a consensus on userboxes from 2006 is of dubious utility when assessing consensus in an RfA 15 years later, especially considering that we had a discussion on political userboxes in a 2018 RfC which, ignoring the marginal relevance of a userbox consensus here, would at least be more relevant than a 2006 consensus.

While I attempted to keep as objective a lens as I could reading this discussion, as I said at the beginning, I am probably biased. That said, I find it hard to support a "no consensus" result here: numerically it is in the consensus range, the late-breaking oppose did not sway a supermajority of editors, and the weight of arguments and evidence is not sufficient to overturn what by our policies would be considered a consensus to promote. I would urge bureaucrats to look more closely at the discussion and not fall for the trend-line fallacy I wrote an essay about in 2020 when we last had a crat chat. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if the 'crats finding the opposing arguments strong enough to desysop would essentially create RfA policy. Since none of the opposes produced evidence to back up their fears of Tamzin's misconduct in the topic area, even though they had many days and motivation to do so, by finding their opposition stronger they would find that opposing someone's RfX voting criteria is a very strong rationale for not giving them administrative tools. In other words, a super-minority (< 33%) of voters may determine what voting criteria an editor may or may not use even if the majority of the community does not agree with that view, and refuse to give them the tools based on their voting criteria. It may well be that this line of reasoning goes against RfA voters may also use standards that may seem perverse or irrational. [...] But while each RfA contributor may use whatever criteria they wish, you can ask them why they think a criterion is important. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone else could do an infinitelt better job at laying out my argument here, as I've worded it quite poorly lol. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Came here to say pretty much this, but wouldn’t have said it as eloquently. firefly ( t · c ) 06:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. See also this late vote (too late by the "rules", comparable to how the voting percentage is above bureaucrat discretion territory by the "rules"): no evidence for NPOV issues in the candidate's Wikipedia work has been presented. That doesn't mean these oppose votes shouldn't count, just that "strength of the argument", which usually favours oppose votes as many supporters do not give new arguments, is not a clear win for the opposers. Perhaps the whole thing is another data point in favour of the idea that maybe, maybe, voting could be an easier and less contentious process than whatever this is. —Kusma (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another +1 from me and very well said by Wugapodes. The community has spoken in favor of Tamzin being given access to the tools and that statement should be honored. There are no super-votes and overriding the consensus of the community is not what we are all here for. Promote. Operator873 ^connect 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wugapodes. My analysis of UninvitedCompany's comment was similar. Indeed, I wrote at the RfA, the people who came to vote after the first day or two are not a representative sample; nor even are those who have edited the RfA since Q14 was answered (this includes public reaffirmations of support, but omits silent ones). Any conclusions based on "trajectory" are predicated on some such falsehood. Your essay, however, goes further in showing that even an assumption of representative sample does not justify the conclusions being made. It is important that crats read the entire RfA, not just enough to understand the situation, as UninvitedCompany would have then seen that their claim has been roundly rebutted in the RfA itself. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though their conclusion is different, Xaosflux also makes a faulty opening comment based on this statistical misapprehension. The comment I think this RfA could benefit from additional running time to allow the earlier participants to reevaluate their positions is rather confusing given that answer #14 was written around 2 days into a 7-day RfA and a perhaps unprecedented number of supporters came back to reaffirm support explicitly; an unknown number that includes Parabolist above did so silently and are now having their support devalued because of a protocol ("reevaluating position") that is not part of any RfA rule or guidance. — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv one of the factors I will certainly be looking at is any reevaluations (both changes or reaffimations) that did occur and possibly if the earlier participants were otherwise active on the project after their initial feedback. We do give RfA's a minimum of one week as some editors do not participate in Wikipedia daily. I do not anticpate using any lower weighting for any participants simply because they did not reaffirm their prior position. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat although not wholly reassuring, Xaosflux, but thank you for taking the time to respond. — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate arriving to 'crat chats with a 'crat that has already taken a snapshot of a curve and determined it as the truth, I have long tried to explain how momentum does not fit into the grand scheme of determining consensus... but here we are. The job of a 'crat is to understand and reaffirm consensus that is already there (or identify the lack thereof), not to put your feet on the ground and make a call because there needs to be one. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, but I'd argue that the striking of an oppose over semantics should not detract from the merit it and any related votes hold within the discussion; Hammersoft struck his vote on the basis of language, not a change in opinion. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Wugapodes analysis. Trend lines don't matter; it's the final tally that matters. This RfA has set a record for participation, and has had numerous examples of people carefully reviewing their initial position, and reaffirming. I see no reason for continuing this one past the initial week. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes has put together here ^ a fairly comprehensive and mathematically supported analysis of why judging the momentum of rfas or trying to anaylze what could/would have happened is counterintuitive and tricky. I am curious for User:Avraham's thoughts on it. I would also offer that the bounds of the bureaucrat discretionary range is (almost) precisely between a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio of support to oppose (66.6 percent and 75 percent respectively). I am confused by the statement that a 3:1 ratio is in and of itself borderline, because that corresponds to the top of the discretionary range, 75 percent. I'd also offer for consideration that our most recent crat chat, for money, passed despite near 2:1 final support to oppose ratio, on top of a downward trend of support for the entire duration, with comparable slope to Tamzin's. Leijurv (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant borderline discretionary, in that it does not represent what Wikipedians view as a clear consensus. If the final count was 4:1, it is much less likely that we would be having this discussion. I did not take part in Money's discussion, and thus it would be inappropriate to make comparisons. I'm glad you showed this graph though, as to me, it visually demonstrates the effect of Q14 more clearly than I was able to express verbally. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wugapodes' argument that precisely this graph is misleading and shouldn't be taken at face value? Even in simple terms, such as the fact that it doesn't show reaffirms, should point in that direction. Leijurv (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The probability of the sample mean reflecting the population increases as the sample size increases, of course, This is the main thrust of the Law of Large Numbers. The Central Limit Theorem even gives us a description of the behavior of the sample mean so long as the second moment is finite, which it is in a binomial distribution. That trends can be misleading in any one case is of course true, depending on the heterogeneity of the initial samples. If you want to talk a combination of psychology and probability, we can probably do studies about the long-term behavior of RfA. One theory is that all RfA's start out as improper representations as an argument can be made that it is the candidates "friends" who know of the RfA earliest and respond en masse early. Another argument can be made that later RfAs (second/third attempts) start out penalizing the candidate as those bookmarking the pages may do so out of worry. What I'm driving at is that I agree that general trends, especially "soft slope" are probably be indicative of homogenization of the sample size and thus looking at the final result is reasonable (there are always exceptions or course). Here, though, we have a regime shift; a marked change in slope tied directly to the issue. Therefore, arguments about convergence in distribution are less important. Rather, I think your graph of the voting pattern here supports the hypothesis of a shift in perception moreso than would a more stable glide path. Which is what stood out to me and what I tried to express verbally. Many of my fellow crat's disagree, which is why we try and explain our positions so that we are all the beneficiaries of each others' reasoning. Thank you for asking. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the hypotheses that underpin the LLN or CLT apply to this situation. (I stopped reading there because who can be bothered; I hope the rest is less terrible than the first three sentences.) -- JBL (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines. The entirety of that discussion depends on the LLN. For example, how else can you explain this sentence: "RfAs run for multiple days and are among the most attended discussions on the project; this suggests that the final support percentage is a reliable stand-in for the population support percentage.". -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on three sentences you wrote, about the LLN and the CLT. Neither of these mathematical theorems has any relevance because nothing even vaguely resembling their hypotheses hold in this situation. If other people are also writing pseudo-math, then boo on them, too. --JBL (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, I have nothing to complain about in the discussion at User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines -- there is no dependence of any conclusions there on the LLN (except possibly in places where a specific mathematical model is posited and then analyzed). JBL (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: I think the point was meant to be that even in pseudo-math land, you can't draw conclusions from trendlines. We aren't in pseudo-math land, and RFAs are very complicated (not binomial for example, as the voters are not iid). The double negative doesn't become a positive. EVEN IF the simplifying assumptions applied, trendline conclusions are faulty, and the simplifying assumptions don't apply. The point is that extrapolating trendlines and speculating is a never ending can of worms about what would have / could have happened if certain revelations had happened earlier. Even the simple math of nonReturners * (returnedReaffirmers / returnedSwitchedToOpposers) is faulty, because the event of returning is not an independent variable from voting in the first place. Having seen the page as a prior must influence us, to some degree, to recognize that even those who didn't explicitly reaffirm have some likelihood of having seen the new information and decided to do nothing. This was discussed in the RFA too, see here and here. All in all, down this road lies madness. Evaluating consensus is hard enough, let's not add in evaluating hypothetical concensus that might have resulted if things had gone a different way, that's not in the job description. Leijurv (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv: Thank you for explanation and I don't disagree. Nothing relating to people is truly model-able because the draws are not independent, the decisions can depend on more than one past state (so no martingales), and most importantly, human beings are chaotic and change their minds back and forth at will. So when dealing with people, we tend to make simplifying assumptions like these individuals are actually widgets a population where $p$ will always support and $1-p$ will always oppose. Otherwise, kiss all economics and other social sciences goodbye. That being said, my main point—no matter how poorly I may have expressed it—remains that the presence of a regime shift—a change in the entirety of gestalt or howsoever you wish to describe it—is something from which we as bureaucrats need to draw a conclusion, and I've felt that since my own RfB. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I outlined above, counting late votes different from early votes is fundamentally faulty because it makes an unfounded assumption on not just what percent of supporters would have changed their mind given the new information but also what percent of supporters who didn't come back simply didn't check the page. In your statement, Therefore, I am, comfortable actively combining those 70 with the remaining 130 as an explicit sample of the "incident aware" measure of community support, you should not be so comfortable, as it assumed that every supporter who didn't come back can be discarded. This simplifying assumption is not a necessary assumption to make economics and other social sciences work, that is not a valid justification. Consideration of dependent/independent variables does not contraindicate economic/social analysis. It's not a fair assumption to make and the rationale based on economics/social sciences is even more unfair. Put in mathematical terms, you took ${\displaystyle supportsAfterQ14+reaffirmsOfSupportsMadeBeforeQ14}$, which is laughably unfair. Better would have been ${\displaystyle supportsAfterQ14+supportsBeforeQ14WhoNeverReturned}$${\displaystyle *(reaffirmsOfSupportsMadeBeforeQ14/supportsBeforeQ14WhoReturned)}$, but that still assumes that returning and reaffirming are independent events, which is an unfair assumption to make. Best would be to take into account that RFAs are meant to have voters view and change their rationales based on other votes. There's a reason we don't use SecurePoll or some such. It is a feature not a bug that people can change other people's minds over the course of the RFA. 1 week is what the consensus is for a reasonable time period to allow all this to settle down. Even though the Big Reveal only happened partway into the week that doesn't change the parameters or premises of the idea that arguments made at any time can influence votes at any time. Leijurv (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv: See my response to Wugapodes below. I think you explained my approach better than I did. I used those numbers as my way of (poorly) explaining why I thought the regime shift was so stark. You are exactly correct, RfA may easily shift given good arguments even without the presence of a bombshell. Can I hire you for the next crat chat, please??? -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: Parallel to my suggestion that your numerical assumptions are a bit unfair (the second equation in my previous ^ comment would be better (which it appears you vaguely agree with? might that get incorporated into the crat chat then?)), I also think the fundamental idea is wrong, even separate from exactly how the goal of controlling for the "bombshell" is acheived. The fact that RfAs constantly shift makes the idea of controlling for specific causes of shift problematic. If we control for Q14, should we also control for Levivich's move to neutral? That had an effect since a few people opposed per his argument. Same for Hammersoft who struck, do we control for the opposes that cited Hammersoft's reasoning? Should we project how many more opposes would have happened "per Hammersoft" if Hammersoft never struck, or should we go the other direction (since Hammersoft DID strike) and discount the "per Hammersoft" opposes by some fraction? Cullen328's oppose relied on a misreading of Tamzin's position, leading him to construct a egregious hypothetical scenario where Trump voters (not even supporters) are witch hunted indefinitely, and many opposes cited that. Should we try and do the same analysis as with Q14, and try and push Cullen328's effect back to "as if" it had happened at the beginning of the RFA? Or as if it never happened, since the strength of its argument was low, and discount all the "per Cullen328" opposes? =/ I don't think any of it is valid, not even trying to project what "would have happened" if we just pushed back the effect of one thing, Q14, to "as if" it had happened day 1. And if none of the reimaginings of history are valid, the only thing left is to evaluate the RFA as it stands, without looking at all into what happened when. Leijurv (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) JBL is right, they don't apply (for starters, comments are not independent trials). But I think we're getting sidetracked in technical minutiae. Avi, please avoid couching your evaluation in pseudo-mathematical terms that make it look much more rigorous than it is. You weighted votes that occur later in the voting process much more than you weighted votes made earlier, unless someone went to the trouble of reaffirming their vote. Something that currently no one knows is necessary (indeed, someone else on this talk page thinks it's cheating!) You assume that a large percentage of supporters voted and then never looked at the RFA again in the week that followed, and had no idea there was controversy, and would have changed their vote. You're a crat, so no one can prevent you from doing this, even if I think it's fundamentally wrong, and somewhat disrespectful of earlier voters. But please own that opinion, don't hide it with references to the LLN and the CLT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:, sorry, I tend to think statistically. I believe regime shift requires us to recognize the effect of new information in the determination, and felt so since my own RfB. I am a poor explainer, I guess. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I love a good LLN discussion, but what we have at RfA is much closer to a census of highly experienced and active Wikipedians overlaid on a smaller random sample of less experienced volunteers who see the RfA by advertisement (e.g. in their watchlist). This isn't i.i.d. Moreover, the time at which people vote is correlated with opinion, so we cannot apply trendline conclusions to votes in the latter half to votes in the former half. (P.S. my favourite proof of the Weak Law of Large Numbers was on the syllabus in my first term at university: it is an elementary derivation of Markov's inequality, then Chebyshev's inequality, then the WLLN. Regrettably, it assumes a finite second moment, but WLLN only needs finite first moment.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue, Bilorv. What we have here, in my (apparently flawed and controversial) opinion, is the possible presence of a changepoint/regime- or sentiment-shift, and that is what I feel is important too. Unlike others here, I am an applied mathematician/statistician, so I just use the theorems, I don't have to understand them 8-P. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think every single vote and question is a mini-changepoint, by design of the RFA. It is futile to attempt to wind back the tape and imagine how it could have played if we rearranged the order of these changepoints. It's on purpose that everyone influences everyone else in a giant chaotic mess of non-independent influence. Leijurv (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's a fundamnetal disrespect of the RfA process and RfA partcipants, otherwise -- we individually get to decide when (and even if) to participate to move the decision, and more than that we individually get to decide if we know enough. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Leijurv's point directly above is correct here. I think it is plenty more helpful to think of the pre-Q14/post-Q14 divide not as much as an objective shift in the trend of votes based on the same information in the same conditions, but rather an almost identical group of actors being asked to participate with more complex information provided to them. There was a very notable lack of diffs and statements being provided about Tamzin's behaviour as an editor (rather than general trust or distrust sentiments) throughout the RfA before and after Q14. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for when @Avi wakes up :D : Avi, this statement stood out for me: "I tend to think statistically." Fair enough, but I tend to think in terms of process, and I'm afraid I think that your extensive discussion of how to weigh supports before and after Q14 leads to an unfair process. There is nothing in the information about the RfA process that says "In the event of an [undefined] regime shift, 'supports' prior to the regime shift will be given less weight, unless you come back and expressly re-affirm your support." Doing so in this case is not fair to the editors who gave their 'support' !vote prior to the undefined and unpredictable regime shift. How can you assume that their 'support' would necessarily changed? Perhaps some of them saw Q14, thought "that doesn't change my support" and went on to do other wiki-things, not knowing that if they didn't expressly re-affirm their support would be devalued? We just don't know. If the "regime shift" was so significant as to toss out the window the prior supports, unless they came back and re-affirmed, then the whole RfA should have started anew (which I am most decidedly not advocating for!). It's possible to say that there was a marked change in the trend line; in my opinion it's not possible to say that the prior supports should be discounted, or given less weight, which is what you seem to me to be doing here. Just going on your own intuitions, about what the early supporters might have done differently, and thereby discount their !votes, is unfair, I would say. The tally is what it is, and is right on the nose for the lower limit for promotion without 'crat intervention. Tamzin should be promoted to admin, without the tea-leaf reading that you seem to be engaged in. Respectfully, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The crats are right to put weight on the reaffirmations of support here. It's also important to consider that the dramatic swing from near-100% support to where we are now happened in the last two days. I would have reaffirmed my support had I seen it, but I'm not in the habit of watchlisting RfAs and I didn't look at Wikipedia much over the (holiday) weekend. I imagine I'm not the only one. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is wise, because I certainly don't want to be perceived as voting twice. However this turns out, I want to be clear that my support for Tamzin's mop is unwavering in spite of all the pile-on opposers. My decision is firm, which is that Tamzin is an awesome editor whose helpfulness will only be expanded by her getting the tools. Tamzin's numbers are in her favor, and the mop is hers. Personally I have a difficult time seeing why anybody would want the mop these days; however, those editors who do want the mop, and who are even half as good as Tamzin, should be given the mop. We still need good admins, and Tamzin is already a good and helpful one! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 06:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good news then, as most editors treat re-affirmations in these circumstances as a 'I've seen the new arguments and remain unconvinced' as opposed to 'I am voting twice'. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. What I don't get is why are we even here? There is a clear border set for crat intervention and Tamzin's numbers are good enough that this crat chat should never have been opened, isn't that correct? Is this the "It's all over but the shoutin'!" stage of pre-adminhood? I thought the pile-on opposes were disgusting, but this! This extra bit of gauntlet is unconcionable. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 06:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, tomorrow I'll be sitting on the beach, reading a book and watching for dolphins. Whatever and whenever the outcome, I'm sure someone will find a way to get a hold of me when it's reached. :) I thank the bureaucrats who've commented so far, and those who've commented above, for their thoughtful analysis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beach sounds good! Life can be a beach sometimes. Remember our last trip to France, my better half and I spent a few days in Paris and then off to Cannes and the Riviera. Mmmm, one of my favorite mems. Great beach with an awesome fireworks display one night! Enjoy, Tamzin, and when you return it is sincerely hoped that your tanned self will have become another of my favorite admins! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you do manage to ignore this prolongation of RfA stress and find many cetaceans! —Kusma (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, you definitely don't wanna participate in an RfA whale you're at the beach!

I'll show myself out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More cetaceans! :) Renerpho (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: an exceptional number of people have already re-evaluated (and often reaffirmed) their positions; here is another one. In fact, many people on both sides seem to have followed the progress of the RfA and the arguments made closely; I don't see how more time for people to reiterate their opinion is going to be of use. It is certainly not going to make this less controversial. —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma thank you for note, my comment above is really only in relation to the aspect that some editors have limited time or days to come to Wikipedia. I see no reason to specifically discount any un-reaffirmed support statement. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kusma. Time to move on. Let the 'crats chat and be done. Personally, I'm not even sure there should be a chat. Yes, 75% was on the nose of the dividing line, but that's still a statement that three-quarters of those who participated supported Tamzin. That's pretty strong. (Spoken as one who opposed). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Paine_Ellsworth I really don't think this is a fair comment: "in spite of all the pile-on opposers". It's dismissive of the editors who took a different position than yourself. We all have to respect the process, including those who take opposing positions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you caught that. It's exactly what I meant. The crats should be dismissive of those oppose counts because no evidence was presented to make them valid. The pile-on opposes should be invalidated by the crats, not because they took a different position from supporters, because they were editors who basically said, "Oh look, there's an editor I like who opposed, so I will too!" Isn't that what pile-on means? The candidate is an admin now. No amount of rearguing is needed. Have a nice day. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose section definitely had a problem with WP:PERX, but that is not in itself evidence that anyone who opposed only opposed because someone else did (the WP:PERX opposes probably just couldn't think of any other way to state their oppose). I was one of the ones that had moved to oppose, before moving back to support, and it had nothing to do with anyone else's rationale, although I can see where the sheer amount of opposes can come off as just being bandwagoning (there's still no actual evidence of that and should not be a reason to discount the opposes). The sticking point of this crat chat, from what I can see is those that re-affirmed versus those that did not and it seems the main reason there's consensus to promote is because so many did re-affirm (or move back to) their support, and that there would not be consensus to promote had there not been so many re-affirmations.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was active on the wiki in the last few days I would have reaffirmed my support. Although it has been mentioned, I would say that just because a support hasn't re-affirmed doesn't mean that the voter would move to the oppose camp if they found out about the situation as some support voters (like me) might be inactive and thus not been able to re-affirm, or may not have seen it as necessary to re-affirm. I do get and understand why the opposers opposed, and I certainly would not want to see any administrator desysoped for simply their views and would also not vote against any candidate simply because of their voting stance. Again my comment only adds to the 140k bytes already on this page, so I only intend to comment once and leave the crats to assess consensus with my comment lost to the sea of the others here. Regardless of the outcome of the crat chat / this RfA, I will still be supporting this user for adminship and wish Tamzin a nice day on the beach. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is, elsewhere, mantra on the project. If it isn't applied here, then this entire RfA becomes the biggest exercise in bad faith one can imagine. There was plenty of insinuation, accusation and supposition presented in which Tamzin was too biased in her opinions for them not to influence her. There was not one iota of evidence, in the form of a diff, to suggest that she had ever allowed her opinions to influence her on-wiki at all. Therefore there is no evidence whatsoever that the imaginary hypotheticals indulged in by the opposition would ever, in fact, occur. That, with all respect, should be the bottom line. SN54129 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and with all due respect, this argument invalidates most or all of the pile-on opposes. When those opposes are invalidated, as they should be, that puts the candidate's numbers easily back up in the ninety-something percentage. It's that lack of evidence that really should be scrutinized by those wiser than me! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't the editors who still supported Trump after 6 January be treated the same as well? With good faith and without judgement to their off-wiki activities? The nominee has made it clear that they will "tend to oppose" admins that are voting for Trump, because according to the nominee, Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character. instead of judging the future nominee for his/her/their on-wiki capabilities. The nominee has also stated that I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. Any nominee that have integrity will reject any kind of arbitrary rules that desysop supporters because of politics OFF-WIKI. And in my opinion, when choosing an admin, you choose them on what they might do based on circumstances, not what they had done. SunDawntalk 09:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real comparison. !Voting in an RfA is not the same as being an admin. More Americans voted against Trump than for him (twice) and yet even those who opposed him accepted him as president under their weird system. Point is, being against a certain group of people is not proof that one will use official authority to mistreat said group. SN54129 is right to point out that there is no evidence of the latter and for that, we can look to the candidate's past behavior. Also, as I pointed out in my support !vote, I think a candidate with openly declared biases is actually better than one who hides them (which Tamzin could easily have done). Regards SoWhy 10:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, being against a certain group of people is not proof that one will use official authority to mistreat said group. Agreed. But it is an indication of what they might do. They might do it or they might not. Some people may vote solely based on track record, some may vote on what they perceive the candidate will do. The easiest example of it outside this Wikipedia is just your politician. We vote him/her in not only for their past deeds, but also for what we perceive he/she might be doing. Based on speech by candidate D, we perceive that he will do X. Based on promise from candidate J, we perceive that he will not do Y. My point is that voters that looks at what the nominee would do (which could be very wrong!) also have a valid reason to do so, because that is how we do it in real world as well. I think a candidate with openly declared biases is actually better than one who hides them. I agree wholeheartedly with this though. SunDawntalk 10:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. is in no way the same as saying "I want to make a rule that says we should desysop any Trump supporter." And Tamzin did clarify when they said I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that.

As I've said elsewhere, what we have here is a very clear distinction between a belief and the manifestation of it. Tamzin has expressed a belief, and said that they will not manifest it. Alas such subtleties seem to have been missed by a great many of the oppose voters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was about to say, Serial Number 54129. This RfA was an exercise in electoral politics in the sense that the candidate would have passed with 100% support had they given a politician's answer (not even necessarily a false answer) to Q14, but this faux pas led to an inordinate amount of commentary and intense scrutiny despite its complete irrelevance to the candidate's history as a volunteer and their suitability to the role of adminship. The comment, let's remember, has only to do with how the candidate would vote at RfA, something that (I believe) no oppose editor has explicitly recommended that Tamzin should be unable to do. A treatise of subtext and speculation has been built from this comment upon which Tamzin is a fervent leftist evildoer whose secret inability to follow NPOV has never presented itself in 30,000 edits across a decade.

Maxim was incorrect to open a crat chat rather than making the correct closure and being willing to face the inevitable but ill-founded backlash for it. We now have a crat chat over an RfA in which there was one type of oppose rationale, unrelated to the history of the candidate's contributions, and at best indirectly related to the areas they would initially contribute as an admin in. All this when, as the candidate points out, the current most prolific admin in the area of international (including American) politics is openly a Marxist-Leninist—but that is only fine to reveal as a fact after you become an admin.

Each oppose has the effect of not just opposing this one person becoming an administrator, but opposing all people becoming new administrators, and of opposing this one person continuing their outstanding volunteer work on this website. This is because the opposes are primarily a character attack that argues that Tamzin is unfit to edit, as complying with NPOV is required of all volunteers. It is also because it shows any non-admins that RfA is a game of electoral politics where an issue you could not pre-empt in 100 hours of planning will derail the RfA; the election is subject to wild randomness because a slightly different set of questions asked of the candidate would result in an entirely different support percentage. There is a taboo on Wikipedia of talking about running for adminship before the fact, as prospective candidates are terrified this could affect their RfA. But I might as well say that I have been approached about running for adminship several times, and this RfA reminds me why I cannot do so unless I am prepared to treat the exercise as a joke, in which whether I pass is a matter of randomness and I am scrutinised based on things I do not believe or that do not accurately reflect my contributions to this website (and in which this paragraph will inevitably be quoted back to me in a hostile manner). — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saves me the time to ask whether you'd be interested in a nomination from me, but I kind of had expected this answer anyway :( I am waiting for the oppose rationale "accepted a nomination at RfA, must be out of their mind" to become popular any day now. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said it better than me Bilorv, should've left it to you :) SN54129 10:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and yes, if I thought my saying Gofrit would make any difference, then Gofrit! SN54129 10:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Regarding All this when, as the candidate points out, the current most prolific admin in the area of international (including American) politics is openly a Marxist-Leninist—but that is only fine to reveal as a fact after you become an admin. - Why would anyone have a problem with El C being a Marxist-Leninist? It should be fine to be a ML and an admin, but it should not be fine to argue that for instance all liberals should be desysopped because of that. I don't think believing that MLs and "right-of-centre" editors should both have the ability to become admins is contradictory at all. Endwise (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What SN said here is exactly why I chose to reaffirm my support (and the rational I cited in doing so). I've been waiting for anyone to point out even a single example of Tamzin exhibiting political bias in her editing. If any such diffs existed, I am pretty damn sure someone would have dug one up. Last I checked we didn't make it verboten for admins to hold political opinions. I guarantee you every single editor has some personal opinions regarding some aspect of Wikipedia that, if brought to light, would result in something like what transpired at this RfA. One can hold opinions, even strong opinions, without being biased in their editing. For instance I'm an obsessive train fan and yet maintain NPOV and due weight when I edit about trains. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a counter argument that applies to RfA - in that the process is about demonstrating trust. It's not about "has the user done X, Y, Z" but instead "whether the community believes they might do X, Y, Z" because the user does not yet hold the tools to do X, Y, Z. Trust is not something that directly translates into diffs. Certain actions, which can be backed up by diffs, can exemplify the reasons that that trust may, or may not, be present - and I do believe that has happened here. Long story short - the opposition is valid and should be considered. Worm^TT(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want also to bring this discussion into attention. It is likely that someone is willing to muddy the water on this one. I have done thousands of reverts against vandals, and I never got this kind of email. While from a technical standpoint it will be impossible to hijack people's account (even if their password is weak they can recover it easily through email) this kind of "voter harassment" is unprecedented here. SunDawntalk 09:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be trying hard enough :) I've not seen it in an RfA before, but this kind of trolling is not uncommon on the rest of Wikipedia when there's some drama to be had. I do just want to take the opportunity to confirm that some of it has been tracked back to one specific LTA. There's probably even some copycats, since it was raised as an issue on the talk page. But probably nothing to affect the outcome. It's always good to be aware of what's going on but my advice as ever is to stay secure, then ignore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This was almost certainly one of our LTA frequent-flyers trying to troll people rather than any attempt at "voter intimidation". firefly ( t · c ) 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! SunDawntalk 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club. Once you're on some LTA radar, for whatever reason, dozens of failed login attempts become the norm. I was a bit distressed at first when seeing that, then I ensured that my password was very strong and just learnt to ignore the notifications. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven years on Wikipedia and this is the first such "failed login attempt" message I've received. A long list of "no" voters on Tamzin got the same message. I don't know how these things are handled, but I would like to be reassured that this was a trivial event -- or informed if it wasn't. In the meantime we should all take note of the chaos that ensues when someone makes an inflammatory, and totally unnecessary, statement. Smallchief (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a troll, perhaps even several of them, and this really isn't uncommon. I would personally place it in the trivial bin, although checkusers do look at these things and they're always non-trivial. I don't know if that reassures you or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we should [...] all take note of the chaos that ensues when someone makes an inflammatory, and totally unnecessary, statement. This is an LTA trying to get a rise out of people by repeatedly logging in to an account with a nonsense password, nothing more, which seems to have worked given the discussion here and on the RfA talk page. While I realise that seeing the "failed logins" notification may be disquieting for someone not used to that particular trolling vector, it really is common for those working in anti-abuse areas. I get around one every two weeks or so, usually when I've blocked a few proxy IPs. I respectfully suggest that we not give the troll the recognition they crave. firefly ( t · c ) 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's keep the communication lines open in case this attempt at intimidation continues.Smallchief (talk)

It's actually not intimidation, but an attempt to create complaints of intimidation. This is the definition of Internet troll, and why it should generally be ignored. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a big deal. A failed login attempt just means someone typed your username, and put a bunch of gibberish in the password field. It tends to scare people, but its the most sort of low effort ruckus making possible. A dog could sit on a laptop and accidentally send you a failed login attempt. So imagine how many one bored weirdo could send, if they wanted to make people paranoid and argue on wikipedia for their enjoyment. Parabolist (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good call to secure your password on the Wiki though! When I ran my password on Password Checker it turns out it only took 3 days to crack my password. I do not secure my Wikipedia account much, seeing that it have nothing to do with my personal life or my finance. SunDawntalk 11:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not disclosing how easy it is to crack your password, as information like that may encourage trolls to attempt more login attempts as you've basically said my account's password isn't very secure. Regardless whether it's true or not, saying I do not secure my Wikipedia account much will probably only lead to more attempts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "this RfA could benefit from additional running time to allow the earlier participants to reevaluate their positions" is necessarily correct. The oppose that got the "ball rolling" came after three days, so people had more than half the RfA's running time to reevaluate their positions. Many did and many reaffirmed their support as well. There is no indication from the discussion itself that there is any significant number of people left who still need to reevaluate their positions. For the community's sake and also the candidate's sanity, this should be resolved sooner rather than later. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and would add that I see a reopening as achieving little more than preventing a fresh wound from healing, something that's rarely useful. The important thing for both candidate and community is resolution. SN54129 10:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really kind of weird that everyone's votes are being second-guessed like this. Opening this back up "to give people a chance to reconsider their votes" doesn't seem viable. Would every voter get a user talk message telling them about this? What message would that send, to have a message saying "Did you really mean this?." People shouldn't be required to support twice to have their supports counted. Bureaucrats are meant to weigh the relative strengths of opinions, not decide that a support might mean oppose if the person really thought about it. Parabolist (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - no reason for more time. A week is plenty of time, and in this case attracted a record number of editors expressing their views. No need for more time. The members of the community have expressed their various opinions, and it's time to move on. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any early support for this from other 'crats - so it may be moot. If this was the initial step, I would not seek to actively solicit participants - simply allow time to allow those the edit only a couple times a week to further participate (this would not preclude new !voters from joining). This would be an "extend" not a "reopen", as the discussion is not currently "closed". WP:RFA includes, ...In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer..., so this isn't a novel idea, just not usual. The real question is if there is an exceptional circumstance in effect. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the percentage of support just narrowly over 75% and a trend downwards over the latter days (from 95%+ after the first few days), it's possible that an extension could see support wane closer to 70%, as may have been the case if the RfA was say 10 days than 7 or if the Q14 revelation had come sooner. Even in that theoretical scenario, it'd still be in the so called "discretionary" zone and you'd be no clearer. A trend in the opposite direction could moot the need for a crat chat but could set a concerning precedent for future close-call runs. I don't think this is exceptional enough that it needs to be prolonged any further, for the sake of Tamzin if anything. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that extending an RfA is not possible. I just see no evidence that a significant number of people was robbed of the possibility to reassess their !vote since the trend started long before the RfA's scheduled close. I would agree with an extension if the comments had been made / unearthed within hours of closing and there is some indication that only the (arbitrary) closing deadline prevented people from reassessing their !votes. Regards SoWhy 14:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is already one of, if not the, most attended RfA in Wikipedia history. More running time will not be the answer here. It's not like a dramatic reveal happened 2 hours before the RfA was scheduled to end. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the message UninvitedCompany is sending. Their throwing out the users who participated early is a slap-in-the-face of participation on this project. (And that's beside their wholly mistaken understanding of consensus regarding the proper application of NPOV and the glaring related lack of evidence in the minority opposition, see comments above.) It's been proposed multiple times that we restructure RfA to prevent early participation, multiple times it is a failure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the correct conclusion editors should derive from the thread if there is a no consensus or not promoted result. Your vote counts if you vote at the last possible time you cant and doesn't otherwise. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and such an outcome on that basis is worse, it is delegitimisation of the community's process of RfA, which RfA may suck, but it's the community that gets to decide the process not a Crat. Moreover, this adhoc, standardless clawing of numbers into the discretionary zone can do nothing but delegitimise RfA and destroy user participation even more. Such clawing has been a disaster before, causing untold damage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. If it is to become policy, unintended or otherwise, that !votes after a "milestone event", for lack of a better term, are to be weighted more than those before that event, then we need to wholly restructure the RfA process to prevent disenfranchisement of those who !vote or otherwise contribute early. If that were to be the case, then ironically we should draw inspiration from how elections are typically carried out.

For example. Instead of having the Q&A run concurrently to the !voting/community consensus building process, it should be run separately, and for a fixed period prior to the !voting. Once that completes and the consensus building process beings, the candidate should provide no further input. Consensus building should be based upon the candidates contribution history, the statements by the nominators, and the answers provided during the Q&A period only. This would prevent a late question (relative to the early votes) becoming a "milestone event", and avoiding the issue of !votes made prior to that "revelation" being weighted less than those made after. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There could still be an issue if consensus building found a "milestone event" in the candidate's contribution history. I suppose you'd need an open Q&A session, maybe for a week, then that closes and another week of a fully closed SecurePoll or some such. Leijurv (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the discovery and discussion of "milestone events" is a feature and not a bug. Reading others' thoughts on the milestone is very useful before making a vote, as it sometimes reminds me of perspectives or policies that I had forgotten (e.g. Levivich's very insightful religion comment in this RfA). If the milestone is found late enough in the RfA the 'crats are likely to extend it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention behind this is to minimise the effects of such "milestone events" then yes, the Q&A session would need to be open for at least a week, as would a separate week of consensus building. It would lengthen the RfA process, and it will assuredly have an effect on the candidate and whether or not they wish to subject themselves to such a thing.

Note that I'm not saying that this is a good solution to this problem. Just an obvious one. RfA reform is badly needed, regardless of the outcome of this one. It has long been known to be a toxic shitshow, and often shows us as a community at our worst. And addressing that should in my opinion be a high priority. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All such re-structuring has been rejected as (ironically, perhaps, here) too bureaucratic. And it seems most unlikely that making the process yet longer would make it better. (and, of course, we are selecting an admin on a website -- not a Pope, a god, nor even a dog catcher (who could do something actually bad like take your dog)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think extending RFA's from one week to two weeks, whatever reason, would just have a chilling affect on future candidates. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of RfA reforms has one problem at its core—we are too afraid of bad admins. At one time, adminship was too easy to get, but the pendulum has now swung too far in the other direction.

We overestimate the amount of damage that a rogue admin could do before they were blocked by another admin. In day-to-day work, a "problematic" admin might make some bad choices - and those would soon be appealed, noticed and reviewed. All admins make mistakes from time to time—that's nothing new. I would rather have 20 new admins, even if 1 or 2 might eventually be de-sysopped, than no new admins at all. But that is what we are trending towards. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal for a discussion phase followed by an anonymous voting phase received ~65% support in last year's review of the RfA process, but was deemed not to have received consensus support. A future proposal along these lines may be able to gain consensus approval. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of responding to bureaucrats weighting late votes more by voting later, I think the better course of action is to do away with bureaucrat discretion completely. That would immediately end all second guessing of votes and reading the tea leaves of percentage trends that we have here, and could reduce some of the heat of the discussion when you don't feel like you have to re-affirm your support after every oppose argument (or vice versa). (I am aware that I supported extreme bureaucrat discretion in the past, like 15 years ago, but that was in an age when we still had candidates). —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is certainly an argument for that when someone like Avi makes nonsensical in comparison decisions that are based on nothing but how they feel that day (claiming they have changed or the community has changed - no, Avi that is you being arbitrary and capricious; it is you replacing the community's judgement with your own - yesterday you feel like civility does not matter, now, you feel unevidenced in actions bias does). And in the end, regardless of intent, it is a clear power grab by Crats - they can't even live within 10% discreasion they are given, they must grab more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually fair reasoning (to draw a distinction between pre and post Q14 comments). Some of the support comments are outright incorrect in light of future answers, the assumptions made are (as a matter of fact) not true. Iridescent's is one example, and by his own comment he probably should've moved to oppose (unless he changed his criteria/reasoning). Speaking generally: Editors who haven't had the ability to judge a convincing argument cannot be said–with any certainty–to have a position on the issue after said revelation. I apply the same logic closing RfCs - it doesn't mean outright dismiss earlier comments, but you do need to consider the information those editors had available to them. Doesn't mean I agree/disagree with the rest of UC's analysis, just that I think this info can be considered. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that closers of a discussion need to consider the information editors had available at the time when they made their comments. We should not be asking closers to project the views of commenters. Although I appreciate why it why it would be hard to do fairly for this situation, for regular discussions, if something significant arose that threw previously stated opinions into doubt, we'd restart discussion, not ask closers to divine the intentions of earlier commenters. It's a neverending pit to try to figure out what a given commenter may or may not have known, and from that extrapolate what their view might have been. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's utterly arbitrary to judge anyone's !vote on the basis of the time that it was made. That's the only interpretation I can see - I (and hundreds of others) met the criteria for participation, that is the only issue that matters. Editors in good standing means something and cannot be trumped (pardon the pun) by loquaciousness. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the above is utterly clear, I do not believe any emphasis should be placed on whether the contribution was a reaffirmation or an oppose, it should only be the overall content of the discussion (and count) that is considered. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note Bilbiomaniac's comparison to DHMO's 3rd RFA, but I'd say a better comparison RFA was my second one. Within 2% of the participation level, and within 2% of support percentage (2% lower than hers, I'll emphasize), and much more recent than DHMO's. Tamzin's RFA is in a better position to pass than mine, because the opposition in my case was a perfectly legitimate concern about breaking a WMF cardinal rule. The opposition in this case boils down to Tamzin being too honest (if she had felt the same but just hid that information and said nothing, this would have passed 350-2), and is based on a deep misunderstanding of NPOV. And while I basically wander around kibitzing, no one seriously disagrees with Tamzin's competence and usefulness at SPI, and general helpfulness elsewhere. So my sins were worse, and my benefits were more meager, and you still gave me back the bit. 3 out of 4 people think adminship is a good idea. Please push the button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another comparison is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2, which had a similar closing percentage but was passed unilaterally, albeit with a detailed explanation. (Note, my view of Oshwah's suitability for adminship has changed since then). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate in question has charged Trump supporters with vicarious liability and guilt by association. Implied that they are uniquely unfit for adminship and is in favour of desysoping them, because they are supporters of an oppressive regime. An impassioned and tear inducing rant/case can be made against Xi, Modi, Bolsonaro, Erdoğan, Orbán, Le Pen etc. by their detractors, for being oppressive too. Will the special courtesy that has been extended to the said candidate, be extended to other candidates that make impassioned appeal favouring desysoping of supporters of political leaders I mentioned? SN54129 has argued "Diffs or it didn't happen". That's not the point. The answers that the candidate has given have the potential to embolden other candidates looking for desysoping supporters of politicians that they think have been oppressive to them. You can't strip away the rights of people you politically disagree with, all at once. So first you'd have to ask for taking away their adminship. And then it's a slippery slope because a precedent has been set. Imagine a Yemeni candidate coming along who advocates for desysoping Obama supporters because his family was bombed in a drone strike and cites this. Such a candidate will be politely shown the door, even if they have 100 FAs and never edited political articles. - hako9 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bureaucrats: I mentioned "imaginary hypotheticals"; I rest my case. SN54129 13:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hako9 what are you even trying to achieve with this post? Respectfully, it seems like you just latched on to another opportunity to soliloquy over the Tamzin comments rather than discuss a matter directly relevant to the 'crats (i.e. assessing community consensus). It is not their job to supervote the RfA, which seems is what you are trying to get them to do. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat talk isn't the place to relitigate RfA.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or, 'someone said something wrong on the internet' is no reason to indulge in flights of fancy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin status does not bestow upon anybody privilege in achieving new policy: this is done by the consensus mechanism in which non-admins' voices count equally to admins'. As such, the outcome of this crat chat is irrelevant to your comment. — Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't RFA round 2. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a lightning rod. 468 total votes. I think this might be the highest participation for any RfA on Wikipedia, except perhaps for Floquenbeam's second RfA. To me, I think this indicates a massive amount of community awareness regarding the RfA and the principles behind those who oppose/support. Even if this finished with 80% support, I can see why the bureaucrats would want to initiate a crat chat under the circumstances. WaltCip-(talk) 13:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is officially the highest participation, Floq RfA has 456 votes. Thingofme (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: Maxim hits on a salient point - "it's particularly unfair to not only the present candidate but also to have such a precedent hanging over the heads of future candidates." Though this might occur regardless of the outcome of the crat chat, if this ends in a failed RfA, the possibility is accentuated of a future questioner asking during a hypothetical RfA: "Given this diff/comment by you, what is your opinion on the competency and ability of someone who is politically right-of-center (U.S.) in the realm of adminship, ARBPIA, SPI, etc.?" This shouldn't be a gubernatorial election or a government ministerial post. And it would start an awful precedence of future RfAs becoming political referendums, for people who well don't deserve such treatment.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone lives in the US, but politics are not very important at adminship for something. I don't like having something to call like political referendums because every country have substantially different politics. Thingofme (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, on that point, there used to be an editor whose mandatory RfA question was whether the candidate was Republican or Democrat (or, r/wing, l/wing etc); a consensus was formed that this was irrelevant and disruptive and they stopped (or were made to stop, I can't remember now). But I wish I could recall the details and what, if any, kind of precedent was formed regarding politics wrt RfAs, because it's definitely come up before (although admittedly, not quite like this!). SN54129 14:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a semi-formed idea for an essay for a while that applies here so I'm going to share the premise, even though I've not fully developed it. The basic premise is that the more people that participate in a discussion the firmer the consensus reached by those participants should be said to have. So an RFC on an article that is closed 4-2 should be easier to close against the 4 than if it was 40-20. This is because in a small discussion, the marginal impact of one person giving their thinking shifts the balance of opinions more and, importantly in our consensus based model, because some salient element that needs to be considered was not brought up. So to take it to RfA, in looking at the last two candidates I've nominated, Firefly can be said to have a firmer consensus of the community behind them than Colin M despite both finishing at 100% by virtue of the extra 66 people that supported for Firefly. Similarly, and this is where I'm going to get a bit controversial, I would suggest that the 75.3% Tamzin has received is a firmer agreement of the community's trust of their ability to be sysop than CaptainEek's 76.0% because nearly twice as many people participated (240 in Eek's vs 468 here). Now a bit of that analysis could be dismissed with the "timing issue" (Eek's concerns were brought up right away, Tamzin's after 3 days) but others on this page have written about the limitations of this kind of thinking so I won't repeat them here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A solid principle overall. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the underlying thinking here. It's basically an argument from sample sizes as I understand it, i.e. that if you poll a larger sample of the community, the consensus from that sample is statistically more likely to reflect the community's overall consensus than a small sample. Considering the uniquely large sample size of this RfA, the consensus is especially strong. With that in mind, I also think Avraham's logic here is a bit flawed because a 200:100 vote count (which would put the RfA in the lower part of the discretionary range) would still most likely demonstrate a consensus in favor of the candidate by virtue of the amount of people who participated (unlikely say a 20:10 vote count). Regards SoWhy 18:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote, we are using them as tools to help us understand what the community at large thinks. Moreover, and this is just because I'm an actuary and love probability, I believe the central limit theorem would support the conjecture that a 20:10 vote has a greater likelihood to be > 80% than does a 200:100 due to the standard deviation being reduced by the square root of the observations. Sorry, I get carried away :) -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree consensus is not a vote. That very reason is one of the things that's held me up from articulating this idea previously. But I see this as a cousin or maybe even a sibling of WP:CONLEVEL. That piece of policy recognizes that not all consensus is the same and so would this idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much stronger the consensus of 240 participants is than 468. Both are large enough to be fairly representative samples (of project-affairs-interested editors), yet small enough to not really represent the community-at-large. I don't think either consensus is stronger than the other. Obviously a consensus of 200 is stronger than a consensus of 10, but you reach a point of diminishing returns I think; it's not linear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to go through Tamzin's recent contributions and this way get an idea of both her editing skills and her topics of interest, given that she has seemingly amassed over 30,000 edits. To my surprise, the majority of her recent edits turned out to be semi-automated actions, mostly using such scripts as AWB/JWB and Twinkle[2]. Digging further, I saw that the account has barely 4,915 non-automated edits to the mainspace,[3] and this number very likely also includes the 1,449 new page patrolling actions.

So, this leaves us with rather few content edits. Stats show that just 557 of her edits are 1,000 bytes or more, and it appears most are automated AfD notifications.

I don't mean that Tamzin has no editing experience; she does have some – she has created 8 stubs and two pages with more substantial content.[4].

Yet – is it only me, or do others also feel that this is a rather limited content experience for someone who intends to work in arbitration enforcement area? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been an excellent point to raise during the RFA. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this seems more like a new argument than something related to the determination of consensus. Second, I have half Tamzin's non-automated count and the community still saw fit to elect me to the Arbitration Committee. I don't think this "non-automated main space edit count" is a strong line of argument. — Wug·a·po·des​ 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than mine when I first started working at AE, and I didn't even think I would be when I went through my RfA. I'm one of the very few few NPP admin candidates from after 2008/2009 and I I'd be doing much more NPP (which I only very occasionally do now) and username patrolling (which I still do a lot of), but within a couple months I charged into AE and managed not to make too much of a mess. Conversely, I know of a couple administrators who ended up desysopped for doing the exact work they said was their strength and turned out to be unsuited for it. That makes me not care what tasks admin candidates say they'll focus on at RfA, there are so many things out there and you don't know what you'll end up wanting to do until you actually are an admin. Nothing specific to this RfA, more of a general observation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's question: It's only you, yes. SN54129 16:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's line of analysis is irrelevant at this stage and should not be brought up at this time. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I had less total mainspace edits than Tamzin's non-automated count when I passed through RfA as well, so yes, this is really irrelevant. ansh.666 17:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a lot of editors are insanely overfocused on editcount and see it as the single most important indicator of ability or value to the project. To those, I'd recommend reading about Goodhart's law. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per BusterD, this would have been appropriate to raise on the RfA itself. At this point, our job is not to opine on the merits of Tamzin, but on the entirety of the discussion and whether or not clear consensus was achieved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi is that a direct response to my comment? If so I did not think of it during the RfA nor do I think it would have changed anything then. There are clear groups within wiki that either believe or do not believe in the importance of editcounts. My comment was more of a direct response to kashmiri's sentiment. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general statement and a pre-emptive explanation as to why that point won't be seen in the chat :). Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted neutral, but I think SilkTork's comment reflects my view of the overall outcome here. I believe the questions the crats must address are not about Tamzin's statements or the votes themselves, but rather the community's response to this RfA and the trust/legitimacy of admins overall. The concern about this RfA being weaponized by certain media outlets is a real concern too. But, to the individual votes themselves, I know some oppose voters have valid and continuing concerns (which I generally share).

I just wanted to voice the observation that, unlike American politicians, there is set term or minimum (or maximum) time that Tamzin would be able to use admin tools. WP:ADMINACCT and WP:RECALL (see answer to Q5) provide us mechanisms for dealing with any of the potential abuse that is feared by those voting oppose. If, for example, Tamzin were to immediately begin blocking Trump supporters without cause, their admin tools could be removed immediately. I believe Tamzin knows they will be under intense scrutiny if they are confirmed as an admin and I doubt this will be an issue though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, the candidate's own criteria can be read in their answer to Q5, which I will copy below for those who do not wish to find it:

I think that the reconfirmation criteria I set out at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments § Admin version of this, if I am sysopped are tantamount to a set of recall criteria, enough so that I would list myself at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. To save people the click:

I have no interest in serving as an admin if I do not have the community's enduring support. If anything should happen to make me think that I no longer have the community's support, or if an uninvolved bureaucrat notifies me that they have reached that conclusion, I will promptly stand for a reconfirmation RfA, with the same support threshold as for any other RfA, and will not use the admin tools while that process is pending.

I considered adding some sort of enforcement mechanism—"and if I don't do this, I give permission in advance to desysop me"—but it's "constitutionally" unclear if an admin can make an irrevocable recall commitment, and if an admin can be trusted to not later rescind that enforcement mechanism, then they can be trusted to keep to the underlying commitment in the first place. I know that I would keep my word, and I think that the community making me an admin would mean they believe the same. That said, if the community does ever establish a formal "no take-backs" procedure to make one's recall criteria binding, I would enter into that, because why not.

Recall is a standard procedure and not an insanely high bar that the community must reach, so it is realistic to expect the community to be able to use the procedure. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 16:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about this RfA being weaponized by certain media outlets is a real concern too - I have to disagree here. A couple of people have mentioned this now, and I think it's worth rebutting.

I fully realise that the media takes an interest in the inner workings of Wikipedia sometimes, and that we do not exist in a vacuum (i.e. things on-wiki have real-world impact - see BLP, probably our single most important policy). However, we should not be looking over our shoulder worrying what some partisan media outlet might think of our decisions - we should make decisions according to our principles, policies, norms, and community standards.

Someone somewhere is always going to be able to twist a decision to fit some narrative, so you can't really even win if you wanted to take the "minimise PR risk" option. For a hypothetical, one media outlet could take a "consensus to promote" to mean "evil Wikipedia leftists have openly declared their hatred of patriotic Trump supporters" (to paraphrase 28bytes), while another could take "no consensus" to mean "Wikipedia is failing to promote left-wing admin candidates for fear of angering right-wing press". Note that I don't believe either of these hypotheticals are at all likely. firefly ( t · c ) 16:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10000 times this, especially However, we should not be looking over our shoulder worrying what some partisan media outlet might think of our decisions - we should make decisions according to our principles, policies, norms, and community standards. To make decisions based on what bad-faith actors might do is to substitute their values and principles for your own. --JBL (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 2 xaosflux that are at different opinions? (Extend and Other) Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 18:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There can only be one! xaosflux and Xaosflux: you must now duel to the wikideath; whoever survives keeps the naming rights and may freely vandalize the other's user page. Choose a side of the coin and whoever wins the toss gets to choose the weapon, with the other person choosing the side they wish to occupy in the duel.^[Joke]

In all seriousness the opinions are not contradicting and I suggest you wait until the 'crat chat is closed to see what xaosFlux decides, Viewer719. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not participate in the RFA because I felt that at 75 percent, the RFA was destined to pass. That being said, I find it hard to reconcile Avraham's determination that there was no consensus to pass here with his comments at the RexxS 'crat chat where he said there was consensus to promote despite Rex's support levels falling below the "discretionary range." In both cases, it appears Avi entered the discussion with a preconceived notion and explained away votes that does not fit into that notion. -- Vaulter 18:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly curious, what are my preconceived notions to which you refer? -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi, I don't want to speak for Vaulter, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is a concern of backwards/motivated reasoning? That is you started with an opinion on the merits of the two candidates and found the evidence to support the consensus you desired. I'm not saying that is true even but that is the concern I see. So I would be interested in what, philosophically, links your thinking at those two crat chats, other than the idea that crat discretion exists even outside the community endorsed discretionary zone, or what caused your philosophy to change between that crat chat and this one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just explained what I was trying to say much better than I could. -- Vaulter 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are positing that I have violated the community's trust by using my position as a bureaucrat as a backhanded way to implement my personal opinion. To be honest, I find that somewhat insulting. I take my responsibility very seriously, and have for the entirety of my tenure with privileges on Wikipedia, and when I had them as a steward for almost a decade. Regarding crat chats, I try, in general, to approach each chat with a clean slate and do my best not to allow the issues of one to affect the other. The community evolves over time as do we all individually. I also tend to give most weight concerns about issues striking to the core of the responsibilities in question (be they admin or crat), which is clearly the case here. And yes, being an actuary, I probably take an intuitively more probabilistic approach than others. But to answer your direct question, I'm afraid you will have to take me at my word that I do my best to remove all sense of "self opinion" and try and prize out the mind of the population of English Wikipedia given the sample which responds. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly strive to avoid insulting people - which is why I tried to be clear I understood what was being suggested was not necessarily true - and am personally sorry to you that I missed the mark here. As someone who supported Rexx's RfA, and did not vote to desysop them, I don't understand how civility is less to the core of responsibility than political political retaliation, but do appreciate your having substantively answered the questions I posed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Barkeep49:, and if I misunderstood, misconstrued, or overreacted, then I hereby apologize to you. The Wikipedia Foundation tries to excise our emotions when we get the crat tools; we're like the deformed cousins of Witchers I guess 8-). I do not think it appropriate at this point to try and ex post facto find differences between the two cases—that would be dishonest and misleading on my part. As I said, I try to specifically shy away from reading my own past opinions. I believe my role is to do my best to tease out the Wikipedia gestalt as represented by the discussion at the time of the chat. Regime shift, not trend, is something I have been sensitive to since my own RfB (Q12). Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: Sorry to ping you again, but I do want to follow up on Barkeep's question re: philosophy in part because I usually find your opinions (and willingness to reconsider them) exemplary. At the risk of too much pathos, one of the first crat chats I witnessed was the one you started for Hawkeye's 2nd RfA. Your analysis there, although contrary to my position in the actual RfA, was influential in developing my own philosophy as to reading consensus. For similar reasons, I found your analysis in the RexxS crat discussion to be another great example of a closer summarizing main arguments and their conflicts as a way to assess and convey the consensus of a large discussion. None of this is to impugn your analysis here, but having appreciated your closes and closing philosophy over the years, I was a little surprised by your mode of argument. Unlike other crat chats of yours that I recall, you focus quite extensively on the numerical counts. It's a valid form of evidence and you motivate it well, but (getting back to my main point) I'm curious why your rationale gives more attention to the numbers than the arguments. I understand you try to approach each discussion de novo, but as someone who has read more of your crat chats than I care to admit, your rationale here strikes me as unusual and seems to mark a turn in your style of argumentation if not your philosophy on consensus. I'm genuinely curious whether you share the observation and if there are recent events or consensuses that made you reconsider how you ought to approach the reading of consensus. Put another way, I think it might help editors understand your argument better, and selfishly I'm interested in your retrospective on how you think the gestalt has changed over time and its influence on your approach to reading consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: It isn't so much the numbers as it is the stark difference between the early and late voting. If all we had was the late voting, it is very likely that this would never had gone to chat. I cannot ignore that. I really don't want to do this, because I think it improper to try and expost facto justify, but as you brought it up, forget the numbers, look at the shape of the mean plot from that voting tool. There isn't the same drop-off in Hawkeye7 2, for example. So I presume that there was nothing staring me in the face saying "CHANGE ALERT CHANGEPOINT ALERT" back in Hawkeye. Here, from the very first few minutes I started reviewing the discussion, the shift in sentiment at that single point in time was overwhelming. Did I go back and compare this with every explanation I gave? Of course not. I deliberately try not too. Maybe that is flawed, but I try to give each case a clean slate. Nevertheless, I am preternaturally sensitive to when I perceive discontinuities and consider those reasons to realize that the community has shifted. I am very aware that others may disagree as to how to gauge community sentiment. I very much appreciate your kind words, Wugapodes, and I hope this helps you understand my approach here, even if it may not be the most pristine. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, there's two variables that I'm not sure you've accounted for. Or at least I haven't seen you try to explain. One is the assumption that the oppose shift is not self limiting in some way. The other is, a fair number of the late oppose votes cited Hammersoft's reasoning for why they were voting. However Hammersoft struck their vote a little over two hours before the process finished. How accurate is your analysis when we do not know the effect of that vote and justification being struck had? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th:, thank you. I'll address your second question first, please. I did not recall seeing any "Oppose per Hammersoft" without anything else. Most people in opposition spelled out their reasoning (even if it is as simple as pQ14) or agreed with another Wikipedian who maintained their opposition. I went back just now to see if I was misremembering, and I was not. I see only 4 opinions which can be construed to be "per Hammersoft and nothing else". Moreover, as I understand his posting, Hammersoft did not withdraw his opposition because he changed his mind about the opposition, but because he regretted starting a firestorm. His exact quote is "I am withdrawing my oppose here and subsequent comments by me in regards to this oppose as generating far more heat than light. My point isn't to generate heat. My point isn't to bully, as some have described it. I apologize for straying too close to the line for my poor words to be able to adequately express myself." As someone who tends to have to enjoy the taste of my own foot at times, I understand and appreciate his gesture. However, that is not the same as someone saying "I rethought my position and now have changed it." As for self limiting, yes, you're correct. None of us are prophets. But my perception of the flow, and I believe it's backed up by the graph, is that here the regime didn't bottom out or get more shallow, the percentage was falling rapidly up to the end, which to me indicates that the underlying view changed starkly enough that the consensus was no longer clear. What the truth is, none of us know. We are trying to use our judgement and diversity of experience to ascertain if there is a consensus from what at times is a chaotic result. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst form of consensus evaluation other than all the other ones which have failed :) . -- Avi (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: But my perception of the flow, and I believe it's backed up by the graph, is that here the regime didn't bottom out or get more shallow, the percentage was falling rapidly up to the end, which to me indicates that the underlying view changed starkly enough that the consensus was no longer clear. This is very very shaky reasoning :( You're almost making me wish I hadn't sent the link to that graph ;) The graph doesn't show reaffirms (let alone "silent reaffirms") for example. But regardless I think this is the fundamental core of the issue: separate from all the mathematical jargon and estimator variables and such, the question is whether a Big Reveal can sometimes be big enough that we should try our best (even when that best is quite flawed) to control for it and mathematically push it back to as if it had happened at the beginning. That's where my math peters out because it's an is-ought problem. I argued below based on Sorites paradox that every argument changes the consensus to some degree and there's no hard line for what reveals are "Big". I guess the answer is that it's up to consensus and judgement, which is indeed your role here. I think that no reveals ought be considered "Big" in this way but, shrug. I do think you might want to give serious consideration to the section above, #Don't_participate_in_RfA_until_the_last_day, because while this may make sense now, it might also create a bad precedent where people are incentivized to vote at the last second, so that crat chats will weigh their votes the highest. I think that wouldn't be good since it would be a stifling effect on discussion of the candidate. Leijurv (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that the reasons Hammersoft struck his oppose had more to do with how he expressed that oppose than a change of mind about the reasoning of the oppose. Even if that's not correct, that doesn't mean that others couldn't have found that reasoning compelling even if Hammersoft moved away from it himself. So I don't think "Hammersoft struck his oppose" has quite the weight you're wanting it to have Sideswipe. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, and I hadn't considered that those who found it compelling would continue to do so after its withdrawal. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham I appreciate you indulging me, and for the record I think the "clean slate" approach is good. I also appreciate the clarification, but in true academic fashion it's such a good answer that it left me with more questions :) You're fielding a lot of questions elsewhere so I won't heckle you much more, but if you'll humor me I do want to unpack your thinking just a little more. The point of my trend line essay isn't that their wrong per se but that they don't really tell us anything we wouldn't need to justify rationally. I appreciate your response on that talk page, and will say that the essay was written in response to an RfA whose voting profile had more early opposition than this one. I don't disagree there was a shift--that's plain as day--my point in that essay and now is that consensus isn't simply identifying a change in sentiment but examining whether that change in sentiment is meaningful. So to finally get to your point here, you say If all we had was the late voting, it is very likely that this would never had gone to chat; for the sake of argument I'll agree with that, but still that's not all we had. As a general or specific question, how do we reconcile post-bombshell comments with the fact that earlier comments are still part of the discussion and assessment of consensus? We can identify a changepoint and even agree that it's significant based on an analysis of behavior after the fact, but what do we do with all the other information we have? Are we to discard pre-bombshell, un-reaffirmed comments entirely, and if not on what basis should we weight them? These are more "food for thought" questions than ones I expect an answer to. I don't think I have great answers myself and there will probably be a lot of variation in opinions. If nothing else I appreciate that you let me pick your brain a bit. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes. By all means. It's not an indulgence, I learn a lot from these discussions too. And sometimes, they expose sufficient flaws in my appraoch that I change my mind. So long as the discussions are respectful, and you are an exemplar of such, this is exactly the right approach. Now, if I had the answer to your last question I'd quit my job, play the stock market, and retire to Tahiti. When all is said and done, crats are people too (well, most of us. Xaosflux has been rumored to be a quantum device and can hold more than one opinion simultaneously ;) ). I can't say for certain, and under the current decision-making process, there won't be hard-and-fast rules since…crats are human too. It would be very easy to code up an algorithm. The community has not wanted that yet. Maybe it's as simple that if the crats exist, there is a class of people with which EVERYONE can be upset :D. When it comes to regime shift, I think there are a lot of factors we can use, such as on what is it based, how sharp the before/after divide is, how early it happened, and how long it lasted in its "steep" stage to name a few. It will also depend on how other crats explain themselves AND on suggestions and discussions here. While we clearly cannot—and will not—treat crat chat as an extended RfA/B, there is nothing special about the crats that makes their intuition and understanding any better. I for one read the crat chat talk pages to see if there is an argument or approach I may have missed. However, it's also going to boil down to the intuition of the crats, and in that may lie inconsistencies. I am not the same person I was 10 years ago; none of us are. Now, I believe in lifetime appointments absent abuse because of situations like this one. I want to be able to express myself (and yes, I did a bad job here) and my reasoning without fear of the pressure that there will be a clamor for my removal because many disagreed with my outcome. I welcome criticism of my approach, and try to justify it, but each and every one of us is bound to disagree with scores of Wikipedians (otherwise we wouldn't be in chat!). So I think we do what we;ve always done. Try to keep consistent principles (understanding we evolve as people) and apply them individually to each case. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer :(. -- Avi (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any of us would have a much better answer, and I do appreciate your points. If anything, the understanding that people grow is what made me interested in this line of questioning not so much "right" or "wrong" interpretations. Diversity of viewpoints is a feature. As I said at the start, I appreciate your insights, and I'm interested in hearing how and why your thinking (may) change since that means the argument or information is probably important. Thanks for the discussion, and it's nice to see your name around again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here, Avraham. I've also enjoyed reading them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Avraham, re: Some [support votes] am comfortable discarding as I believe they are inherently counter to Wikipedia's policies; are you as comfortable dismissing a probably larger number of opposes who were voting without policy basis? (Or as you put it "inherently counter to Wikipedia's policies", but "against policy" and "not citing policy" are not synonymous). SN54129 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they are de minimis and would not have affected my decision as of now. Opinions relating to either being confident in the candidate's judgement that tools will not be abused, or fears to the contrary, are excellent reasons and should be viewed as a sample from the greater Wikipedia population. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it another way: diffless Opinions relating to nothing in the candidate's past. SN54129 18:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the opinion is based on the perception of the candidate's judgement and how it will be applied to the use of the tools, it is reasonable. This is the main thrust of most of the reaffirmations, in that Tamzin is eminently capable of separating personal opinion from application. Are those to be discarded too?? I would say not. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She passed. That's it. It's time for everybody to drop the stick and move on. @Tamzin: Some of your comments forced me into the oppose camp, but I have always appreciated your outstanding contributions to the project and assuming the crats ratify the community's decision, close though it was, I wish you the very best as you go forward. I am sure you will take note of the concerns raised by various experienced editors. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like most contentious discussions, I was pretty indecisive about this RFA (I still am), but it appears that the RFA will pass. Tamzin, I wish you the best, and I hope you will prove me and all of the other opposes wrong. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Crat Chat is still going on. Or, did I miss something? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still going on. It's just that it's unlikely the remaining crats will vote against promoting her. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on. I've changed my mind in past chats, as have others, so it isn't over until it is over, but I believe a crat consensus is emerging. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have philosophic differences as to your entire approach; but your judgment is faultless, and also, may I say, a demeanour many others—including me—on this page could only hope for. SN54129 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your saying that very much, Serial Number 54129, thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ad Orientem and Scorpions13256 statements. I'm almost 100% positive this RFA with pass and with that said, I hope (and believe!) you will become a great admin. Tamzin, I'm sure you prove me and the other opposes wrong :). Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well! SunDawntalk 03:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well written. Exactly my feelings. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ad Orientem; I hope it works out with a confirmation. As a side note--every crat chat I see bureaucrats I've never met before, just like every RfA I see editors I've never met before. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite.. good to give them something to do though eh.. — TNT (talk • she/her) 08:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether successful or not (results still pending at the time of writing this), many can jointly agree that.. this RfA brought more attention to it than any other one. And I hope Wiki-journalists (if there are such) will capture this moment, put it in the news then archive it in the history books. joke>> Now back to you in studio ('crat chat) <<joke Volten001 ^☎ 20:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost... Politics? What we can expect of an administrator? maybe. Thingofme (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I don't think this is appropriate. Once you recuse, any further opinions you wish to express should be expressed here, with all the other folks who are, for purposes of this discussion, not 'crats. You can couch it with "don't count me" but it still looks like trying to have it both ways. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other two recuses, did not offer an opinion on what they thought the consensus was, so SilkTork should've followed suit with Acalamari and WereSpielChequers, the same way arbitrators don't keep offering their opinion on ArbCom-only pages after recusing (and do so on the appropriate pages like non-arbitrators). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to discourage "the side I supported lost" recusals, they are much better than "here's why my side won" recusals. —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still probably best to simply recuse on chat and then discuss here amongst all the other voters. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't care what the content of their further remarks were, if they wanted to make them, they should not be on the same page as the 'crat chat. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tricky one this. The other two recuses said they supported, and one linked to their comment in favour of the candidate. I was merely going to say I had voted, but when I saw that there was precedent for giving an opinion or indicating support (or otherwise) for the candidate, then I gave mine. If the community feel that when Crats recuse that they should not be providing any additional information, then I think we all need to take that on board, and if we voted simply say we voted without indicating if we supported or opposed, or linking to any additional material. I will strike what I have written and make a new recuse comment. SilkTork (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • FWIW I think instead of "recusal", crats should just list as "active"/"not active" for crat chats, like Arbs do for arbcom cases. All we need to know is who is participating in the chat and who isn't. If a crat isn't participating, we don't need to know why not (it's a volunteer project, lack of time/interest is a good enough reason). If a crat voted in the RFA, there's no reason to draw attention to that fact, and doing so can be counterproductive (regardless of how they voted). Levivich 06:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this notion. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think "Recuse, I participated in the RfA" is fine, I've fallen in to the "and left a comment" during a recuse before (which I removed after it was brought up). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I get the argument that when recusing one shouldn't say which way one has !voted and will try to remember that for next time. I do think that "Recuse, I !voted in the RFA" is better than "Recuse, I participated in the RFA" as it is possible to participate as a crat such as by clerking the RFA. I also think that we should differentiate between recusal and inactive, partly because an inactive crat might become available if the crat chat runs on long enough, but also because not all reasons to recuse are as clearcut as having !voted in the RFA, and if anyone challenges whether someone should recuse it is helpful to be able to point out times that they have recused. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of participants in this RfA felt hurt at what others said, not the least the candidate, whose demeanor I was generally impressed, as I tried to express in my eventual oppose. I do not think it was appropriate to ask her forcefully to withdraw; but I regret the outpouring of emotion from the candidate on the talk page concerning an oppose by Ealdgyth, who didn't deserve to bear the brunt of that, either. I see the crats considering the reaffirmations from Support !voters as possibly hypothetically reducing the strength of the support, which must be a tremendous shock to those in support who thought they were being called on to demonstrate that they had read the oppose arguments and nonetheless remained in support. I'm not sure any of us ever imagined that reaffirmations might be taken as undermining the legitimacy of a !vote or as an attempt at double !voting. I'm horrified. But I am also horrified that apart from this concern, the swings in numbers appear to only be being considered in the raw; where is the consideration of the bludgeoning of oppose !voters, up to and including accusations of bullying? It was among the worst I've seen, one of very few RfAs where I've thought that clerking would have been good. Many oppose !voters changed to neutral or otherwise withdrew, making reference to pressure. We can't control bludgeoning and canvassing outside the RfA itself and its talk page, but I do believe that when the crats are weighing how much credence to give to !votes, particularly if they're going to apply a surprising criterion regarding !votes in one column that were changed during the course of the RfA, they should bear in mind that RfA discussions are on-wiki discussions, subject to our behavioral guidelines, and concerning whether to trust the candidate with a set of advanced permissions ... and therefore also weigh the stated reasons for !voters who were at one point in opposition to change their position, or withdraw from participating, during the discussion. I apologize profusely if this issue has been raised in the crat chat and I missed it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to apologize for being extremely unclear; I should probably re-word my reasoning. No one vote is counted more or less than any other, but I have always understood that consensus can change even mid vote. I have been of the opinion that a stark shift in sentiment brings consensus into question more than does the natural ebb-and-flow of responses, which is why I did not see a clear consensus here. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to negotiate consultant rates (response to edit summary) :))) Leijurv (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I'll give you 2/3 of my 'crat salary! -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::I'm confused by the statement that no vote is counted more or less thab another. I've always understood that the strength of an argument is also considered? That's why I reaffirmed - my initial vote was trivially short, so when it became clear that the outcome might be contentious, I wanted to give a proper statement explaining why I was supporting. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can I have ketchup with my other foot? I meant in terms of TIMING. Yes "I oppose because the user is actually the giant space frog Zerbxlza from the planet Goop XV" is not afforded the same weight. Unless, of course, you're Xaosflux who IS a giant space from from Goop XV… -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

from from Goop XV? casualdejekyll 23:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GIANT SPACE FROG. A GIANT SPACE FROG. I GIVE UP. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe being a bureaucrat on Wikipedia when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy has sufficiently broken your brain. The mind worms will be invading shortly. ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If the first reaffirmation hadn't happened & raised the bar, would there be any suggestion that other support votes were devalued in any way?

I didn't reaffirm because it's not part of the process, not because I didn't see the discussions progressing. If I embellish my vote out-of-process with sprinkles, whipped cream, marshmallows, peanuts, & maraschino cherries, are the other votes diminished? Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did not apply weighting to any !votes based on simple reaffirmations or lack of such. I also generally give very little weighting to sundae toppings on their own - if someone wants to show that their participation is especially strong or weak, I suggest they do so with prose. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas are a sundae topping, and they're excellent on their own. You should probably resign.^[FBDB] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're halfway there - if you can extol the virtues of bananas a bit more, you will better drive the discussion towards a consensus that we should provide new admins with a banana instead of a t-shirt. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What lasts longer before it's spoiled, a banana or the afterglow of a successful RfA? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are mixed views on whether RfA is a discussion or a vote. If it is a vote, then reaffirmations can only help to sway people yet to vote (or who may change their vote). But if it is a discussion then this is all the indication needed for reaffirmation to have weight. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long do they usually let the talk page for a concluded affair remain open? Zaathras (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 'crat chat talk is still open, and that was 14 years ago. -- Avi (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a talk page ever close? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I close my user talk page? People keep asking me to explain my fuck ups. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like a competent mobile platform for Wikipedia, a closable talk page is one of those editorial Holy Grails that seem ever-so-elusive to us peons. WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it should be treated like an AfD or an Arbitration case, once a decision is made, there's nothing further to do. But to each their own. Unwatching. Zaathras (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]