Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Slumgum

message: Slumgum's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Hey Taxman. I think you should make a statement somewhere on why you're promoting people at 73%. Maybe WP:BN? -- Y not? 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you didn't intend your tone to be how it came accross. Besides, if you're going to look at only numbers, you would need to be more careful on the calculation. Mangojuice's comments weren't available when I was judging the consensus (they silently automerged in while I was preparing the paperwork and they are technically post close) and you may have missed Eagle101's. I read all of the comments and judged the supporting comments on the whole to be more well reasoned than the oppose. In addition I considered where the debate was at at the nominal closing time and took that into account. - Taxman Talk 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the more discretion the better. It's not a vote... Majorly (hot!) 15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you didn't discount any comments... more than any RfA in a long time, I'm afraid this promotion is a mistake likely to reveal itself in due time.  I, too, would appreciate a fuller statement: not only because of the percentage, but because -- at the time of closure -- the RfA was definitely trending against the candidate.  The "flow" of the argument is certainly something that is considered elsewhere on Wikipedia in evaluating consensus.  Best wishes, Xoloz 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If it helps, I think that call was pretty good.  The reasons for opposing seemed to boil down to "weak answer to question 1."  His actual answer was: "I can foresee the rollback ability to be useful. On occasion I have been a little frustrated by backlogs, so I would like to be able to help with those."  Not what I'd call weak.  He shows a willingness to do unglamorous work like vandalism reverts and clearing backlogs.  What was called "insufficient Wikipedia space" turns out, on examination, to be 295 edits spanning reference desk, wikiprojects, afd, tfd, and cfd.  Nothing serious seems to have turned up in his past eighteen months of productive editing. And unlike some aparatchiks he has very impressive real article editing experience. I would have recommended promotion myself without hesitation. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)Of course, both Y and Xoloz are biased because they both opposed the candidate. Instead of assuming the candidate will make a mistake, which you appear to have done, how about assuming he or she will be fine until there really is a reason to be concerned? Seriously, most of the opposes were "answer to question 1". Remember all our trusted admins who never answered any questions? Also note all the admins who have ever been desysopped by ArbCom passed RfA with (generally) flying colours. Majorly (hot!) 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Majorly, whether you supported this particular candidate or no, your own biases in favor of laxer RfA standards are known too.  Everybody is biased here, except the 'crat. Xoloz 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the biggest thing that tipped my decision. Some of the opposition comments automatically assumed the editor would make lots of mistakes without any strong evidence to support that conclusion. That in the face of the strong evidence of good contributions over a long period of time along with trustworthiness noted by those in support. No big deal provides a default to promote unless the evidence says we shouldn't. - Taxman Talk 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So arguments based on inexperience are now generally going to be given low regard by you in your capacity as a 'crat?  Just asking... I might as well stop caring about RfA, if that's true.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could hardly argue inexperience here. He has eighteen months, some 6000 edits, and a fair proportion of different namespaces. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inexperience with administrative tasks, Tony. You know exactly what Xoloz is talking about. -- Y not? 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perforce, all new applicants to Requests for adminship lack administrative experience.  We usually forgive them that particular lack. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Y that you're being coy, Tony.  It is quite possible to have experience with admin-related tasks before adminship (project-space is the haven of wikignomery.)  Some of us like to see our candidates have a little of it. Xoloz 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not being coy.  I've already pointed out that this chap has considerable Wikipedia-space experience, including at least three different deletion/move/rename processes.  The only thing he lacks that we might want to look for in an admin candidate is an admin log, and sadly new admin candidates don't, as I've already lamented above, have one of those. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's simply not as strong an argument as for example, trusted user, great editor or "made multiple mistakes here, here, and here even after having a discussion around it and being shown why they were wrong." It presumes an inability to be a good admin without evidence that they will be a poor one. It doesn't mean I outright ignore it, but in close cases I weigh the strength of arguments to come to a decision. - Taxman Talk 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy.  It is my opinion that your rationale as given constitutes an over-injection of the subjective into the final stage of RfA process.  While b'crats do have discretion, I'm very sad to see the "closer" take such a firm stance in favor of one subjective view on an open question.  This doesn't impugn you personally... I simply see little point in contributing to RfA any longer, if it is likely that my considered voice is going to be systematically held in lower regard by the guy who makes the final call.  I don't dispute that there could be a good, solid rationale for promoting Slumgum here; the one you've given, however, seems to suggest (to me) that cautious voices are being pushed aside.  "It presumes an inability to be a good admin without evidence that they will be a poor one." -- this statement of yours suggests that saying "there is not enough evidence yet... let this person get more experience first" is now considered a disfavored, inferior view.  If, a priori, the decisionmaker thinks my cautious opinion is not very useful, I don't see much reason to waste my breath.  Of course, I'm disappointed in your choice and much more disappointed in the nature of your explanation; but, it's nothing personal.  I'm glad to know exactly what shape RfA is in now. Things will change when a larger number of inexperienced admins start doing goofy things, if that happens, as I fear it will. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To Xoloz: I am more lax because adminship is not big deal. As I have pointed out, the result of the rfa tends to be irrelevant to how the user will turn out. Majorly (hot!) 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you admit you're bias, we're cool.  I know what your reasoning is... I hope mine is clear as well, by now. Xoloz 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am biased - but at least with my bias we get more admins. Have you seen CAT:CSD lately? And I honestly don't understand why you're so tough on candidates. Majorly (hot!) 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your statement is worded to presume explanation is needed for an incorrect action. In any case I went ahead and assumed you just wanted explanation and provided it for you and others. - Taxman Talk 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There does seem to be a certain air of wishing to dictate numerical margins to bureaucrats in that original query.  Or at least requiring bureaucrats to justify straying from fairly rigid numerical criteria.  --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. Justify straying from fairly rigid numerical criteria. Which is not to say that straying mustn't happen from time to time - just that an explanation ought to be given. Kinda like when closing an AfD. -- Y not? 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Neither AfD nor RfA are voting mechanisms. They are consensus garnering mechanisms. Expecting an explanation because of voting is looking for the wrong thing. --Durin 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bureaucrat ought to ready to explain any promotion at any time, for any reason.  Transparency is good.  Questioning the motives of one who asks for an explanation that ought to be freely given is doing the wrong thing.  Best wishes, Xoloz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y asked for an explanation based on percentages. RfA is not about percentages. --Durin 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, "Anyone can ask for an explanation for any reason" and it ought to be freely given.  If Y reasoning differs (or is in error), let the b'crat say so; but let's not have others critize the act of asking. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The answer he gets will depend on how he frames the question. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with that... but the question should be freely answered by the b'crat, and other folks shouldn't criticize the fact that it has been asked, or badger the questioner for having done so.  I think b'crats can reason for themselves. If the question has a basis the b'crat dislikes, he'll say so. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was the bureaucrat who questioned the tone, and rightly so. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to argue with you, but I must run - I hear there are backlogs at CSD! ;) -- Y not? 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best possible answer! That or WP:VITAL articles need tending to. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing discussion