Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat


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

Discussion
On numbers, we have both an extraordinary number of opposes and supports. Regardless of the current "discretionary range", it is highly unusual, historically, to not promote at >=75%, and as 28bytes mentions, we need a very compelling reason as to why there wouldn't be consensus, and like 28bytes, I don't see such a compelling reason. With something this contentious and well-attended, it is important to do our due diligence, but I am satisfied that, given the numbers (both percentages and absolute figures) and the lack of a very compelling reason to not promote, that consensus does exist to promote.  Maxim (talk)   14:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Initiating discussion; I am still assessing the RfA. For those who care about numbers: the strict math puts the RfA at 75.3%, which is within the discretionary range if rounding to the whole percentage point, and slightly outside if we round to the one-tenth. I feel a crat chat is worthwhile given not only the closeness but also the volume (>450 editors opined) and the acrimoniousness of the discussion. It is the kind of RfA that is better closed collectively than leaving one of us to do it alone.  Maxim (talk)   02:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that this RfA should be closed as successful. In an ideal world, perhaps it would be useful to extend the time or even restart the discussion, but I see two problems with such an approach. First, it's particularly unfair to not only the present candidate but also to have such a precedent hanging over the heads of future candidates. Second, the risk of poisoning the well doesn't outweigh the benefits of extension or restarting; if an RfA is borderline passing, it may imply that we need to give a bit more time to fail, and vice-versa, if an RfA is borderline failing, we may need to give it some time to get into the "pass" territory.

But this is not an RfC, it's an RfA, and we have to consider the totality of what the RfA participants say about the candidate, not just the one comment that most participants from all three sections seem to think isn't so great. While I think Maxim made the correct move in opening this for a crat chat, I also think that if we're going to use our discretion to move what the community has decided should generally be a pass (i.e. 75% or above) into the unsuccessful column, we ought to have a very compelling reason for it; the RfA must be unusual or exceptional for some reason. I don't see that this RfA is. The pattern of a near-100% support rate being upended by some revelation or another that brings it down significantly by the end of the week is something we've seen again and again. The only way in which this RfA might be different is that if it passes, certain media outlets will have a field day by saying that the evil Wikipedia leftists have "openly declared their hatred of patriotic Trump supporters, and purges of conservative administrators are soon to follow" or somesuch. Promoting to admin someone with that very quotable quote very well might be a self-own for Wikipedia, but we obviously cannot take that into account when determining consensus. Ultimately this RfA is a fairly standard split on the question "does this candidate have sufficient judgment in spite of the concerns expressed?" Nothing about the downward support percentage trend, the number and percentage of re-affirming support comments, and the "weakness" or "strength" of the supports or opposes is outside the norm enough for me to say we ought to override the guidance the community has set for us that generally, RfAs with a support percentage of 75% or greater close as pass. Keeping that in mind, I believe the RfA should be closed as successful. (And once again, it bears repeating: this is not an endorsement by Wikipedia, its bureaucrats, its RfA participants, or anyone else, of the controversial statement about Trump and his voters. There are not now, nor will there be, any plans to desysop administrators or otherwise penalize any editor based on who they vote for.) 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening the crat chat, Maxim. Looking at it now... 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For better or worse (worse, mostly), this RfA boils down to what the community thinks of the statement "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter" and its related clarifications. There is clearly not a lot of agreement with that position, and the reaction seems mostly split between "concerning, but outweighed by the candidate's positive qualities" and "unforgivable" (along with some harsher language that has now mostly been stricken or withdrawn.) If this were an RfC on the question "should we desysop any admins found to be a Trump supporter?" there would be an overwhelming consensus that we should not do that. (Personally, I found Zagalejo's comment in opposition to ring true: "I know from my real-world job that people with bizarre political views are still capable of following an organization's rules and being competent, polite co-workers. Human beings are complicated! We need to learn to compartmentalize things and recognize that most people aren't iredeemably awful.")
 * Preemptive apologies to Tamzin, since it is already quite late in the evening in the US, I won't be able to read through the RFA contents in its entirety until after work tomorrow. Useight (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I read through the RFA enough to understand the situation. I do not believe there is a consensus. The considerable opposition is rooted in WP:NPOV and other foundational principles, and resonates with the consensus conclusions from the 2006 userbox wars.  The change in voting patterns after Hammersoft's oppose is stark, and I cannot believe for a minute that this RFA would enjoy 75.3% support if the facts brought to light in Hammersoft's oppose had been available for consideration from the beginning of the RFA.  The bureaucrats are not bots; to proceed with promotion on the technical grounds that 75.3% is outside the range now considered discretionary would imply that we can be replaced with a very small shell script.  I would like to thank  for opening the chat and  for bringing it to my attention.   Uninvited Company 04:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thanks for opening the crat chat. It's a bank holiday weekend in the UK, so I cannot guarantee I will be able to find time over the next 24 hours, but fully intend to read over this discussion and offer an opinion. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well here we are. At first glance it appears that additional information that arose during the RfA impacted the consensus of participants after that introduction. To that, I think this RfA could benefit from additional running time to allow the earlier participants to reevaluate their positions. Unless we have some 'crat agreement to do this very soon, the usefulness of that will wane. I do not think we are in a situation where the RfA became so defective that it would need to be restarted from scratch. Following up on that, I will need some time to review the entire discussion to come to a conclusion. — xaosflux  Talk 09:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dweller - my initial discussion for extend was really for discussion, as it doesn't seem anyone else is leaning this way I will just need some more time to evaluate the lengthy discussion. — xaosflux  Talk 17:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need to extend personally, there's more than enough discussion that has already happened. Either there is consensus here or there is not. WormTT(talk) 17:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have just seen this now. Will take a look later today after I've woken up a little more. -- Amanda (she/her)  11:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was away for the bank holiday, will catch up on the last 48h of the RFA and comment more when I've had some more sleep. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

biblio's assessment
This RFA took me back to Dihydrogen Monoxide's 3rd, which had similar numbers in terms of turnout (a better ending percentage, in fact), and which I said in my RFB did not have a consensus to promote. The differences between that one and this one, however, was that DHMO's opposition had a pattern of behavior to point to. This RFA, however, had the opposition almost entirely based on a single diff from an RFA discussion. On its own, this seems rather weak, but the volume of opposition does show that these opposes should be given proper weight, since a substantial part of the community feels that this could affect Tamzin's ability to conduct admin affairs neutrally and that it could represent a future conflict of interest, especially given Tamzin's desire to work in WP:AE. At the same time, there is an overwhelming consensus that Tamzin's demonstrated pattern of behavior is that she is a skilled, experienced user, even among the opposition.

Now I want to pushback a bit on UninvitedCompany's assessment of the situation, because despite all but 2 of the opposes (110 opposes) coming after Q14 (around 15 of which were converts from support/neutral), 153 supports came in after Q14 was posted and about 60 supporters (forgive me if I'm off by a few) pre-Q14 reaffirmed their support (about 10 users reaffirmed their !votes after Q14 was posted as well). Even if all of the supporters pre-Q14 who didn't reaffirm their support had their votes stricken, the percentage still would have been about 65.5%. In other words, the RFA still would have been at the discretionary range (although I don't think that hypothetical discussion would have passed). My point is that this is not a case where Tamzin just had an early lead, and the opposes were unlucky to have caught a big mistake halfway into the RFA. If this was the case, no one should have reaffirmed their supports or supported after the fact; that would be a case where there is no consensus to promote. But it seems to me that a substantial number of people did reassess the situation and decided that the candidate was still trustworthy. With this in mind, I believe that there is a consensus to promote.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder from Dweller
Aware of this, but busy with bank holiday. Hope to get time to review later. Proceed without me if crat consensus emerges. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Avraham
This is a difficult one, as the personal political opinion of any editor is completely irrelevant to their ability to perform as an administrator. One can be the most loving of all or one can harbor an intense hatred for all humanity, so long as that does not bleed over into the activities of administration, it is moot. Here, our job is clearly not to analyze based on our opinions as to Tamzin's capabilities but our understanding as to whether there exists a consensus to promote based on the corpus of Tamzin's actions. Consensus is not a vote, although preponderance of responses is an indication. It also includes strength of argument and precedence. At the risk of being pedantic (which is always true with me ) I will explain myself at length to allow any of my fellow bureaucrats to be able to counter my arguments with persuasive ones of their own. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by solid argumentation.I would make the following observations.

The key issue is, of course, the response to Q14, and whether or not the community response following this question is a better indication of the overall consensus of Wikipedians than is the entirety of the discussion. Here, the issue is not one of personal political identity or animus but one where there is a significant (or not insignificant if you're a frequentist) concern that Tamzin would allow personal opinions to bleed into the use of the administrator toolkit, should the tools be assigned. This gets to the heart of our core policies in Wikipedia and of our expectations of our admins. Admins are held to a higher standard than editors and serve as an example to new members as to how to represent the core Wikipedia pillars. Therefore, consensus being related to policy and precedent led me to pay more attention to the responses after the issue was raised than those prior. After Q14 there was a distinct shift in the balance of supports to opposes. At revision 1084877138, where Tamzin answers, the count stood at 209:3. The final count is 340:112. This means that in the last few days, the count became 131:109. Thus, the simple trend underwent a very severe shift from an almost 70:1 ratio to a near 1:1 ratio. I then reviewed the first 209 supports, and they do show a significant number of "reaffirmations"—upwards of 70 such. Some I am comfortable discarding as I believe they are inherently counter to Wikipedia's policies, but they are 'de minimis' (fewer than 8). Most of them, however, are well-stated and reasoned opinions affirming their trust in Tamzin and that they are either completely, or at least sufficiently, confident that Tamzin would use the administrator toolkit appropriately regardless of any personal animus or opinions. Therefore, I am, comfortable actively combining those 70 with the remaining 130 as an explicit sample of the "incident aware" measure of community support. Even this in and of itself, though, would give a ratio of roughly 200:100, which while strong, would be very unlikely to pass RfA. However, it is also inappropriate to completely discard supports without reaffirmations. We assume that editors pay attention to what is important to them. While impossible to quantify, it would clearly fall between the 2:1 ratio above and the 3:1 ratio seen—which in and of itself is borderline. This indicates to me that the emerging consensus of Wikipedian support over the time period after the NPOV issue was raised was not one which clearly demonstrated the requisite trust to provide the tools. Unlike the case with DHMO, there was enough time for Wikimedians to digest the answers and make their decisions. The key issue is not one of time, per se. Later votes count no more or less than early votes ceteris paribus. But here we lack the "paribus". All else is not equal, as can be seen from the shifts back and forth after Q14. Therefore, this is not the emergent-kind of case which would warrant extra time. Based on all of the above, and with the concern being one which strikes directly at the core of our expectations of our admin, unfortunately, I see no clear consensus to promote in this discussion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nihonjoe
I'm aware of this and reviewing the discussion. I'll post my comments and opinions here after I'm done with that. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the discussion, I have to agree with 28bytes and biblio. While the discussion is certainly close, the number of those who chose to reaffirm their support—despite all of those opposing—tips this discussion into the consensus to promote category. If this 'crat discussion ends with a decision to promote, I would strongly encourage Tamzin to keep politics off Wikipedia unless it's directly related to whatever discussion is at hand. It too easily undermines WP:AGF and WP:NPOV and often devolves into bitter and angry name-calling and attacks. We need to keep that off the site as much as is humanly possible. Discussions and decisions here should be based on editors' actions here, not on their political opinions or anything not related to building a good encyclopedia. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

WTT opinion
I do like to have my own personal section, so appreciate the fact that so many 'crats have already done so. I do agree that a 'crat discussion is right to have here, even though we're outside the area that would be considered "discretionary zone". Equally, we should take into account the many years of community consensus that 75% and above is sufficient agreement that an admin should be elected - and therefore we should have a very good reason to go against that.

Looking at the numbers, the RfA could be split in two - roughly at midday on 28th - about half way through. Before that date, we had approximately 250 votes with a clear support and looking at how the votes came in after that date, there were about 100 of each supports and opposes. So, how to weigh the 250? Well, let's look at what happened to those votes where people came back. 80-90 reaffirmed (with a fair number moving to weak support), an unprecedented number, while a dozen or so switched. I don't believe it's unreasonable to extrapolate that ratio to the remaining voters who didn't come back - rather than just accepting them at face value. Long story short - no matter how I look at the numbers, there appears to be a large majority (over 2/3s and far closer to 3/4 support)

Looking at the arguments put forward - we're strongly in political territory here, regarding a president who has starkly divided opinion in USA. Outside of the USA, though, opinion is not so divided, and I believe that's the lens that Tamzin has been looking through. With regard to that political aspect - we need to accept that everyone has political bias - so the question that needs to be answered is "Does the community trust Tamzin to be impartial on American Politics"? I think the answer from this RfA is a quite clear "No". However, does that translate into the wider "Should Tamzin be an admin"? Well, reading through the opposition, it's based primarily on lack of political neutrality. The supports give a far wider variety of reasons.

I have other considerations, like how many editors with a relatively small number of edits, who have never participated in RfA before have suddenly appeared - it does give me concern that this has been canvassed off-wiki. But, without hard evidence - I feel the best thing to do is weigh the arguments and the numbers. I believe there is consensus to promote and I also implore Tamzin to stay away from taking any administrative action on American Politics, where the community response to her outspoken nature should show her clearly as Involved. WormTT(talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Warofdreams
I've reviewed the discussion and the way it evolved. I agree with the majority of bureaucrats here, and in particular with Nihonjoe. A crat discussion is a good idea. The level of support meets the usual requirement for adminship, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The circumstance is Tamzin's highly controversial opinion, which emerged partway through the RfA. However, while this certainly increased the number and proportion of oppose comments, many other editors have reaffirmed their support. There's little support for Tamzin's opinion, but that's not the question being asked, it's whether people trust Tamzin as an administrator, and a sufficient proportion of editors who have commented continue to do so. There is a consensus to promote. As others have said, Tamzin might be wise to avoid administrative actions around U.S. politics. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux
My initial "quick read" reaction was that a slight extension to time may have been warranted to ensure that participants that edit less frequently (perhaps only once a week) had an opportunity to be heard. I'm obviously in the minority among the 'crats on this, and I have not heard any significant community support that this is needed. In reviewing the discussion more thoroughly I'm satisfied that sufficient opportunity existed for participants to contribute even after the additional candidate questions were responded to, so I'm vacating that position. With that put aside, this seems more routine. The discussion shows that the candidate holds some controversial political opinions, but does not show that their conduct as a contributor has been negatively impacted by them. My read is that a general consensus to promote appears to have emerged. — xaosflux  Talk 23:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * should you be promoted, I suggest you carefully review the comments of those opposing this nomination and use them as a way to steer away from controversial tool use. There are tremendous amounts of areas that need administrators to help with, most of which are far from subjects you could have a perceived bias about. — xaosflux  Talk 23:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Primefac
I don't have much to say that wasn't said above; this RFA has seen an uncharacteristic number of reaffirmations of support, and a very large number of individuals who could not decide how they felt about the candidate (which is totally normal in such situations). I was predicting that the downward spiral would tail off around 80%, and obviously I was a bit off, but if you count the reaffirmations I don't see this dropping any further even if we were to extend (which I am not in support of), and certainly not to a point where it would reach the bottom of our discretionary range. In other words, I find consensus to promote. Primefac (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dweller
I was waiting to close this, so wasn't going to give a view, but as asked so nicely, I'm happy to defer, especially as it'll be soon.

Looking at the RfA, I find there is consensus to promote. I'll try not to repeat the comments made by other Crats who found consensus. So I'll add two points to what is above - they are very much supplementaries, not main arguments:


 * 1) A couple of Crats have made passing reference to weakness of support/oppose. A little more forensic looking reveals #11, #23, #44, possibly #181 and #278 in support, versus #6, #7, #15, #26, #73, #79 and #97 in opposition, were all declared "weak" (I've ignored other terms like "regret" etc). If we lessen the weight of those !votes it nudges the % upwards, further.
 * 2) While RfA is never a simple % exercise, I have (I think) said before in Crat Chats that we should also look to numbers as well as %s. Here we have a candidate who has not only topped our % requirement, but a massive number of editors - 340 - have !voted for her to have the tools. That is a sizable chunk of our [sadly diminished] community these days and it tops our all-time list by quite a margin.

A general comment to conclude. I'm uncomfortable about placing too much weight on reaffirmations. I wouldn't like a future RfA to be derailed because people hadn't chosen to do this. While of course I think it's great if !voters keep an eye on discussions and reflect if they wish to change their opinion as the discussion progresses, they should also feel comfortable that they can give their well-judged opinion once and it be weighed equally with others. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Recusals

 * 1) Bowing out of this one, for the reasons I noted within Tamzin's candidacy itself and because I supported. Acalamari 03:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I also have to recuse, as I wound up in the support column.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I voted oppose, so I can't get involved. If I was to be involved I would say that this is borderline but passes because of the exceptional number of reaffirms after Hammersoft's oppose. My comment counts nothing toward Crat consensus, but is a view from someone in the oppose camp. SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) I voted in the RFA, so I recuse. SilkTork (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I agree with the comments below about not letting this drag on, and I won't have time to look at this in the next 24 hours. There's no conflict of interest of interest here so it's not a recusal, so I'm going to mark myself as an abstention. --Deskana (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Summary
I've not read the material yet, thanks to the Bank Holiday and a thought that we might need a Crat to simply assess Crat consensus if this is very close. At this point, I'm merely totting up what I think the Crats have said (please correct any errors):

Before any of us close this, it would be helpful to hear the opinions of at least 1 or 2 of the Crats who're aware of this but not yet given an opinion. , and.

Also,, what would you say if extending the time were not an option? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See above. — xaosflux  Talk 18:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It feels to me like consensus might be emerging, but there are quite a few Crats who've expressed an interest but not yet properly weighed in. If this is still open when it's morning for me, I'll close it, as it's unfair to let this drag on too long. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest giving it overnight. While there is a consensus emerging, the remaining five expressed interest in opining here and I think it would be impolite of us to ignore that. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we agree. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably about my turn to close a 'crat chat, so I can do that in about twelve hours to let it run over night for the other four (including Dweller) to weigh in, if they want. Useight (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't closed one in a decade, but you haven't ever, so go for it, my friend! -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Consensus to promote: Maxim, 28bytes, Bibliomaniac, Nihonjoe, Xaosflux, WTT, Warofdreams, Primefac, Dweller (9)
 * No consensus to promote: UninvitedCompany, Avraham (2)
 * Intend to Respond: Amanda (1)
 * Recused: Acalamari, WereSpielChequers, SilkTork (3)
 * Abstain: Deskana (1)

Close
The participating bureaucrats widely agree that there exists a consensus to promote Tamzin to administrator. Useight (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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