Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte

Edit statistics for according to XTools --  samtar talk or stalk 13:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) First edit: Apr 2, 2015, 8:22 AM Latest edit: Jun 11, 2016, 1:08 PM Live edits: 12,098 Deleted edits: 2,207 Total edits: 14,305

Edits in the past 24 hours: 169 Edits in the past 7 days: 869 Edits in the past 30 days: 2,803 Edits in the past 365 days: 10,225 Ø number of edits per day: 32.8 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 7,342 Pages created: 2,308 Pages moved: 483 Ø edits per page: 1.6 Files uploaded: 31 Files uploaded (Commons): 33

(Semi-)automated edits: 4,508 Reverted edits: 78 Edits with summary: 11,154 Number of minor edits (tagged): 3,683

Actions: Thank: 395 Approve: 111 Patrol: 1,795 Admin actions Block: 0 x Protect: 4 x Delete: 0 x Import: 0 x (Re)blocked: 0 x Longest block: – Current block: –

SUL editcounter ► enwiki 13,438 +5 minutes commonswiki 665 +55 minutes wikidata 107 > 30 days enwikinews 6 > 30 days metawiki 5 +8 days enwikibooks 2 > 30 days ruwiki 1 > 30 days simplewiki 1 > 30 days 47 others 0 > 30 days Total edits 14,225

The crats need to discount much of the opposition
In this RfA, the crats need to decisively step in and use their discretion to discount the oppose votes that only cite arbitrary statistical "insufficiencies." These arguments constitute the overwhelming majority of the opposition, and fall afoul of WP:NOTENOUGH. If the candidate were too inexperienced to be trusted with the tools, why can't the opposers be bothered to present evidence that Anarchyte demonstrates an overall pattern of insufficient understanding? The best they can do is simply nitpick on isolated mistakes and insist on 100% perfection. That is not a sound argument for rejecting adminship. History shows that most of the time, admins who pass RfA despite all the isolated mistakes dredged up by the opposition turn out just fine. The same applies for those who were opposed mostly on the basis of arbitrary statistics. Put simply, the opposes in this RfA hold no water, and the crats must take that into account when closing this RfA. Biblio (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah, you are an admin and you understand so little about how RfA (and voting in general) works? Do you really think that you should tell crats what to do? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the policy that forbids voicing opinions and making recommendations to bureaucrats? By the way, I spent many, many months trying to spearhead reforms to RfA and doing detailed research on it; WP:RFA2015 finally accomplished what no other project could. How can you say that I know nothing about RfA? Have you been involved in even more intensive RfA reform work that I'm not aware of? Biblio (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I can show you a potato that says that maybe you should think about this for a while, instead of digging the hole even deeper. I mean, I would recommend striking your comment because it makes you look stupid, but if you do not want to then you do not have to. Crats are experienced Wikipedia users, far more experienced than you are, and you do not have to give them advice (even though it is not disallowed). Someone who likes reading would probably point out to you that I didn't say that you know nothing about RfA. I am just surprised that you understand so little about how RfA (and voting in general) works. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And admins are very experienced users, far more experienced than lowly rollbackers, and you do not have to give them advice (sarcasm alert). Really, Quixotic Potato, no one is above advice. Bureaucrats are not know-it-all gods. And in any case, you are grossly exaggerating this issue. Instead of lecturing me on why I am an unworthy, unintelligent peasant, why don't you tell me why drive-by opposes based on arbitrary, substanceless statistics should be counted equally with votes that are based on examples and policy? Where is the substance? All I've seen so far is ad hominem. Biblio (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are an admin. You are obviously not a very experienced user. Did you just insult a huge group of wikipedians by referring to them as "lowly rollbackers"? Do you honestly think you are in any way better than them? The average crat is far more experienced than you are, and most of them have a certain maturity. I never claimed that you are an "unworthy, unintelligent peasant", but you are obviously not fit to be an admin. Please read the ad hominem article you linked to. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Biblioworm was making a sarcastic analogy (your status as rollbacker is to his as administrator, as his as administrator is to a bureaucrat); in case the sarcasm was not clear, he labeled it "sarcasm alert." He was using a rhetorical device to make a point, and did not actually insult anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what he said and why, but that actually makes it worse... Wikipedia is not a hierarchical structure like an army. And if someone basically says "you are not an experienced user, maybe you should reconsider if giving terrible unsolicited advice to a crat is a good idea" then responding with a sarcastic statement about "lowly rollbackers" is not very smart. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have missed 150% of my point here, as well as of Biblioworm's point. Perhaps someone else can help explain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I understood your point (even before you wrote it), and I agree with it, but we disagree on the consequences. You think his sarcasm makes his comment better, I think it makes it worse. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes sarcasm is useful to clearly demonstrate a point. It shouldn't have been hard to miss my point, especially since I put a disclaimer after every single analogy I used. That's why it's a good idea to read comments in full before telling people that they should be desysopped. Biblio (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case using sarcasm was a bad idea. Who said anything about desysopping? If my janitor says something that I think makes him look stupid I am not gonna fire him. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You did, here. Biblio (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please quote where I said anything about desysopping? I did write: "you are obviously not fit to be an admin", but that is not the same as "you should be desysopped", right? And I didn't say that you know nothing about RfA, right? Seriously, you need to slow down. You respond way too quickly. Read what someone wrote, wait 10 minutes, then respond. This is good advice. This meta-conversation has been interesting, but it is probably time to go back to the actual topic, your comment dated 01:09, 14 June 2016. Do you still think that that comment was a good idea? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say that someone is not fit to have a position, you necessarily imply that they should resign or be removed. Not everything must be stated to the letter for the implication to be there. When you say that someone knows "so little" about something, you are basically saying that they are clueless on the topic. I don't know why there seems to such difficulty understanding these simple points. And why don't you practice what you preach? I do take some time when typing my responses; I usually take at least a few minutes, and I always read the comment from beginning to end. But I would receive responses a few seconds after I replied, and the hastiness showed. Even when I would plainly clarify something as an analogy, it was taken literally, presumably because your reading of the comment stopped the instant you came across the later misquoted text. And I did respond very clearly to your comments concerning my 1:09 comment; but I wasn't the one who dragged this whole thing off-topic in the first place by trying to invalidate someone's fitness to even voice an opinion that votes should be policy-based. Please drop it. I already hatted the discussion on my talk page, and I will also stop responding here to any more comments that are evidently misinformed. Let's talk substance. Biblio (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Come visit me, I can show you many people who are doing jobs that they are not fit for, but I wouldn't be in favor of simply firing all of them! That would have horrible results! And no, I am suprised that you understand so little about how RfA (and voting in general) works, but that does not necessarily mean you are clueless on these topics, just that I expect more! Please read my comments more carefully. You should spent a lot more time thinking about what has been written to you before replying. You have attacked many straw men. Please read the userboxes on my userpage. Again you are attacking a straw man, I have repeatedly explained to you that I understand both the sarcasm and the analogy, but I believe it makes your comment worse, not better. You did start some bizarre metadiscussion, I don't know why, you comment at 1:09 is a far more interesting topic to talk about imho. The main problem was that you were claiming that "The crats need to discount much of the opposition" which is dangerously close to invalidating "someone's fitness to even voice an opinion". Don't you see the irony? Oh, and you wrote: "Let's talk substance", but when I did (on your talk) you reverted me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Doing this at RFA again eh? Can't say I'm surprised I guess. SQL Query me!  04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that I should really learn to ignore people who leave comments that make them look stupid at RfA's! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Biblioworm deleted our conversation on Biblioworm's talkpage, but it can be read here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biblioworm&oldid=725189519#Trout The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and have people read it. I just hatted and archived it because the misunderstandings were becoming insane. Maybe once people read it, they'll understand what I'm talking about. Bye. Biblio (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the votes seems to be fairly well based on actual criteria used in the past, and are not of the "what?" nature found in some cases. To discard votes where the percentages are so far below the normal discretionary range at this point might appear odd. Collect (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The general experience criteria continues to balloon, not stay constant. It has shot up from a few months in the beginning to about two years or more. I will not advocate the discounting of those votes which actually present behavioral or editorial evidence, even though I might disagree. I am simply calling for a stop to the madness of rapidly inflating demands concerning arbitrary stats that have no substance and fall far short of showing the whole picture. See WP:NOTENOUGH. There is zero evidence that this inflation has increased the quality of the admin corps. I passed just three-quarters of year ago with a little more than a year of experience. Except for a few minor protests, there was really no huge deal made over that issue. Now, for a person with similar experience, it is the obsession of most of the opposition. This is becoming insane. Oppose votes, such as many of the ones in this RfA, that are not grounded in solid examples and policy should have their weight substantially reduced, or even discounted completely. Biblio (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically you would prefer it if people who disagree with you would only be allowed to vote if their vote follows your personal set of rules? Even though those rules are not imposed on those who agree with you and there is no consensus for them? Are you aware that you should try to get consensus if you really want that to happen? Do you honestly think your comment dated 01:09, 14 June 2016 will influence the decisionmaking of a crat? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To say that "the crats need to discount much of the opposition" may be an exaggeration in this case; many of the oppose !votes raise reasonable points, although as a support !voter I obviously disagree with their bottom line. And for better or worse, unless there is a significant change in the !voting in the next few days, the RfA will close so far outside the discretionary zone that any exercise of bureaucrat discretion won't make any difference.

Expecting an admin candidate to have significant on-wiki experience, measured by a reasonable activity threshold, is perfectly sensible, although of course people can disagree about what a reasonable threshold is. However, time-based (as opposed to edit-based) measurements should be proportionate to the collective experience and to the role we are talking about. The suggestion that otherwise qualified candidates should wait more than two years before seeking adminship is not reasonable and indeed is overtly damaging to candidate recruitment; and the extreme suggestion that an ideal candidate would wait for five years is just laughable. Given natural editor turnover, the percentage of even highly active editors who remain so for more than five years is probably slight.

It would be of interest to see a breakdown by year of how long the average successful RfA candidate edited before passing RfA, although I suspect it would be far too much work for someone to compile. Failing that, I can only cite my own experience, which is that I passed RfA after six months of active editing (and several people had urged me to run three months before that). And if I say so myself, I was a perfectly good administrator in the months right after I passed RfA. In fact, I was a better administrator then than I am today, because after several years, for many of us the jadedness and burnout factor begins to outweigh the experience factor.

We do need more administrators; that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold candidates to standards, but we shouldn't hold them to pointless and counterproductive ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a point on your comment that this RfA is so far outside the discretionary zone. While it is outside that zone, per WP:RFA2015 it is only off by 2%. The range was extended to 65%-75%. So really, the !voting does not have to change that much for it to fall within that range. Regardless, the nitpicking in this RfA is a return to form. Nothing really changes. --Majora (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the arbitrary, substanceless votes were discounted (this does not include the opposers that actually presented some sort of evidence), the percentage would be well within or even above the discretionary range. But overall, I completely agree with your point on "pointless and counterproductive" standards. Biblio (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had indeed forgotten about the change to the range. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would hope that if this Rfa falls in or around the 60% support, bureaucrats should still have a discussion irrespective of whether this falls below the ~65% mark. Can we suggest that to bureaucrats? Xender Lourdes (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, unless you want to set a precedent for bureaucrat intervention at the expense of community decision. Muffled Pocketed  09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole idea was "RfA isn't a vote; it's a discussion." Are people finally throwing out that polite fiction? If so can we stop with the silly "!vote" and whatnot? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discretionary range of crats is 65–75%. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that the crats can be trusted to do their job (without any input or reminders from us).

I think it is a bad idea to write that "the crats need to discount much of the opposition"

I think that oppose votes should be allowed, even when I personally disagree with the vote and/or the rationale.

I think that we should allow stupid reasons for both support and oppose votes. The support votes do not have to be based in policy, they do not have to cite examples of good edits (heck, the support-voters do not even have to check the contribution-list of the potential admins!), so to me it seems unfair to have different standards for the oppose votes.

I think that many vote rationales reflect only (a small) part of the decisionmaking process of the voter.

&#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

These kind of nitpicky RFAs are a prime reason more editors don't stand for RFA.
When one sees how a good editor like Anarchyte has been treated, it's hard to see any benefit for putting oneself through such a process. I thought perhaps things had started to change. I was clearly wrong. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How has he been treated? Muffled Pocketed  18:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Poorly. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I have seen some RfAs with what seemed to be a competition for who could make the least rational oppose this does not seem to be one of them. The opposition has a variety of points that they have presented that are very much relevant to the position. I don't really agree with those points but I respect their validity. It is not like those RfAs where someone decides to oppose just because nobody else has opposed.


 * Essentially my position is the there is a kind of nitpicky RfA that is the prime reason more editors don't stand for RfA, but this does not seem to be an example of it. HighInBC Need help?  19:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think by the standards of RfA in general this doesn't particularly plumb the depths. But by the standards of interactions in general (with the possible exception of ANI) it's all pretty low. Particularly annoying to me are the WP:NOTQUITEYET arguments which I frankly find ridiculous and inflated. If after 13K of edits some sort of reasonable track record hasn't been established I'll eat my hat (or at least my beanie).
 * (Sales brochure) "Come to RfA and see your editing torn apart by ravenous dogs. After you get through that, become an admin, receive lots of hate for necessary work, before being made to suffer a humiliating ArbCom case if you make a mistake". Somehow I can see why RfA participation and success is slowly falling apart... --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But at least you get a free mop, right? -- samtar talk or stalk 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know,, I think it's exactly the opposite. Opposing because nobody else did is irritating but completely irrelevant. It doesn't affect the outcome at all and mostly just makes the opposer look foolish. What's going on in this RfA - unreasonable expectations accumulating just enough critical mass - is a much bigger problem than some minor trolling. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with many of the reasons given for opposition, however I do find some of them reasonable. I can accept people taking a different stance than me when they do so with reasoning that I can at least understand even if I do not share. People who oppose based on things that have nothing to do with being an admin are far more of a concern to me.


 * Without specific examples it is really hard to tell what is being criticized, I see a lot of different reasons for opposing. Are they all considered unreasonable, or just some? HighInBC Need help?  20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At this moment, the tally is 76/50/16 (60%). Votes that essentially say "a year isn't enough" and provide little other feedback: 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 24, 33, 35, 38, 39, 45, 47, 49 (16 in total). Those that mention "a year isn't enough" but also offer, or at least endorse, other comments: 2, 25, 27, 37, 48 (5 in total). Those that give generic "per above" rationales: 9, 22 (2 in total). I didn't count the ones that say "needs more experience" but say they mean something other than account age, or the ones that claim failure to meet some other, different arbitrary benchmark. Even if we only look at the first set, that's a full 30% of oppose votes that are based on an objection with no grounding in evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I demur with your cavalier opinion and dismissal of so many votes and rather think that you should specifically neither close this RfA nor use your position to promote such a close. I note a great many supports based on such strong arguments as "net positive" or "per someone." Perhaps a different person might dismiss such supports as being insufficiently based :).  Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on discounting opposes en masse; the bureaucrats can handle the role they were chosen to perform. But how is "net positive" (i.e. This person will improve the encyclopedia with the tools) not the perfect rationale for support? I would argue it's the only rationale for support. Even if you have your own criteria you judge a candidate by, the point of having criteria at all is to judge whether they'll improve the encyclopedia with the tools. ~ RobTalk 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing no one in this thread is a crat... ;) And you know there's a long-standing, if oft-disputed, tradition that a support without detailed comments is implicitly expressing agreement with the nomination statement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I think the NotQuiteYet oppose !votes in particular are insulting and should be discounted. Or, in the alternative, create a rule that an editor can not receive the admin bit until after they've been an editor in good standing for at least X number of years, decades, or whatever. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In general (*), comments that an candidate isn't quite ready yet aren't reflecting on a fixed number of edits or length of activity, but upon the breadth and depth of the candidate's knowledge of relevant aspects of Wikipedia. To date, none of the attempts to create a consensus view on what knowledge is required has succeeded, but the mini-guide, guide, and advice page for prospective candidates cover what most commenters will consider. (*) Although it seems for this particular RfA, the commenters specifically using the letters "NOTQUITEYET" mostly focused on length of activity. isaacl (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is completely reasonable to have an expectation of a lengthy tenure and an extensive edit history before granting Administrator tools, because there is no recall provision and it actually IS a "big deal." This candidate doesn't get over the first hurdle, it's a waste of time to see whether they get over the second, third, or fourth — no offense to them. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to support
I see Anarchyte as a well-intentioned, civic-minded, editor. He's done an enormous amount of work, and I want to support him. I don't like to oppose candidates. Unfortunately, I see too many issues with the candidate. Let me focus on just one.

The candidate wants to work AfD. That implies closing discussions which requires an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. That policy should be understood by anyone working deletion. If one does not understand consensus, then he isn't ready to close discussions.

Consensus is the heart of Q5:


 * Optional question from Iaritmioawp
 * 5. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
 * A: If the debate is that close-knit by the end of the first 7-day period, I'd relist the debate, hoping that more editors have their say in the matter. There are not only two results to a debate, yes, there are the two most common ones of "agree with nom"/"disagree with nom" (keep/delete, move/don't move, etc) but there is also the option of closing as no consensus. As to not come off as supervoting, I'd leave my comment on the issue and move on or relist it, without closing it. Admins aren't required to close anything and don't have set roles in debates.

To me, Q5 is a softball question about consensus. To first order, the four supporting outcome A have been refuted; the support for B is based in policy. If Anarchyte had understood the audience, he would have explained what consensus means, but he didn't. There's not a word about evaluating consensus. He labels the hypothetical situation as "close-knit", but how is it close knit? Anarchyte should have have mentioned the possiblity of closing in favor of B. From there, Anarchyte could have offered his other options of (1) leaving his own assessment so the next admin to come along confronts an easier decision or (2) relisting. I don't think Anarchyte understood the question, but if he did, then he did not communicate it. To get a favorable reading, I must infer a lot from his answer. I'm not willing to do that.

Anarchyte got a second chance at consensus in Q17:


 * Additional questions from Esquivalience
 * 17. In your own words, explain consensus and outline the differences between consensus-based decision making versus voting-based decision making.
 * A: Voting-based desicision making can be compared to a strawpoll. Strawpolls are primarily a vote. They can be useful when you want to find whether it's worth discussing it in further detail, or just finding people's favourite food. Consensus-based descision making is not a vote and instead it allows the participants to voice their (hopefully policy based) opinions. Let's say there's an AfD made for the deletion of Example. The nominator supplies good reasoning for the deletion and people start adding their rationales for deletion and keeping. A few people come along and mention the idea of draftifying it, which satifies the deletion-voters because it removes the article and it satifies the keep voters because it'll mean it can still be accessed. The closer comes around and closes it as "draftify" and that makes the majority of the voters happy, meaning consensus has been found.

I characterized this response as a contorted muddle. The first two sentences are circular: they define a vote as a vote. There's no mention of the majority wins in a vote. An editor with significant content experience would not use circular reasoning; content editors use clear and focused arguments. Anarchyte says that consensus is not a vote but rather opinions, but Anarchyte does not explain how those opinions are weighed. Then Anarchyte goes off the reservation with the draftify option. His conclusion does not describe consensus but rather compromise. Anarchyte equates consensus to making the "majority" of the "voters" happy. He finally uses "majority", but he applies it to the wrong concept.

A majority has nothing to do with consensus. WP:CONSENSUS says, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

I'm sorry, but Anarchyte does not understand what consensus means, and that's an absolute fail for someone who wants to close deletion debates. Policy is important, and Anarchyte does not understand a fundamental policy right now.

Consequently, I cannot support such a candidate; he's not quite ready.

Am I wrong? To turn it around, how can RfA voters support a candidate who fails to grasp a fundamental policy?

Glrx (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the low utility of Q5 was discussed at length last year here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This can be "fixed" with a suggestion to candidates, I think. The proper way to answer this question is to discuss consensus broadly and then link to a few solid closes you've made that demonstrate a clear understanding of consensus, not to try to answer a vague question that will always boil down to "It depends". ~ RobTalk 16:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)