Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ComplexRational

Moved from Lightburst's talk page
Given that ComplexRational has noted they do not wish to disclose their prior account for privacy concerns, asking exactly when they began editing on that prior account should not be a question the candidate should answer. Doing so would erode their privacy. They have acknowledged the prior account, and ArbCom would have intervened had the prior account been under a cloud of some kind. That is sufficient to explain their prior experience and thus abilities with their current account. I respectfully request you remove the question. given your legitimate privacy concerns, I would not answer this question. If you feel compelled to answer, I would not note when you began editing except in the most general of terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am doing Due diligence - your statement about eroding privacy is simply not true. They have demonstrated proficiency early in the new account and disclosure of "when" does nothing to compromise their identity. The ComplexRational account was started in 2018 and I am requesting how much earlier the other account was started. We cannot keep rubber stamping admins into lifetime appointments and try to silence anyone who has questions and concerns. Also this conversation should not be taking place on my talk page. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a person who actually knows the answer to your question, I think it's actually the wrong question based on what you've written here. I think a question along the lines of "Could you describe your editing experience under your previous account?" might do a better job of getting you info you find helpful while doing less to demand that CR compromise privacy that they are under no obligation to compromise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to hear from you . I do not want to be an oppose here, but my concern is stated: if the old account was started in 2017 or earlier I can understand how the candidate would be aware of inner workings. That is the basis of my question and I think it is relevant. If the candidate will not answer I will have to be an oppose. I can see no privacy concern about revealing when someone began editing. Thanks for checking in! Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking the candidate to "share with us exactly when you began editing on Wikipedia" does erode privacy. The reason is because if the candidate were to supply the day they began editing, it could be possible to tie their current account to the prior account. In essence, you are asking them to out themselves. This is very inappropriate. Further, the question is answered on the face of it. The question seems to want to answer how they had sufficient experience to conduct the edits they did so early on in this current account. That's already answered; they had a prior account. You have placed the candidate in an awkward position; if they answer in the way the question asks them to, they risk outing themselves. If they don't answer, they run the risk of people opposing them for failure to answer a question at RfA. You've placed the candidate in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. This is wrong. I'll ask you again to please remove the question. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC) ( courtesy ping)
 * I can remove the "exactly". I have no intention of snooping around to find an old account. I am not trying to post a "gotcha" question but I understand how you interpret it that way. Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, but question 5 is really redundant to question 4 isn't it? They're seeking the same information, are they not? Don't worry about re-pinging me back to the discussion here. I'm following :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Lightburst, this was really funny! Hahaha! Well, you're human, eh? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just taking Barkeep49's advice with that follow up question. Lightburst (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking that alternative question. In the interest of transparency, I am advising CR not to answer the first question for the privacy reasons Hammersoft laid out and as a matter of principle - the community has made certain requirements around disclosure and any disclosure of past accounts is a recommendation but one CR has followed. The only required disclosure is around paid editing. Now I've advised candidates not to answer questions before and they've disregarded my advice in the past and if I didn't trust CR to make good decisions about things like this I wouldn't be nominating them. In terms of why I don't think it's helpful, let's suppose that CR registered their first account in January 2018 - not saying they did or didn't just saying for the sake of a hypothetical. If they averaged 400 edits a month (as they approximately did in the first 4 full months under this account) they'd have had just under 4000 edits. Wouldn't that be enough to get the experience necessary for the diffs you refer to? I think it would be. But that answer would be 2018 which by your statement means you'd oppose them. Now let's contrast that to a second scenario. Let's say they had registered their first account in 2005 and had 1300 edits when they became active in 2018. This second scenario describes me. That's a lot less editing experience over a much longer period of time, yet this would reassure you. So not only is it invasive into privacy it doesn't actually give you the most pertinent information you are looking for to cast your vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, regrettably I will be an oppose if the candidate cannot answer. I appreciate that you trust them, but an RFA is about more than your trust. This is a lifetime appointment and from the looks of it, they are a good candidate. I think a person who has lingered around for a few months can figure things out and develop competence. The community should be able to learn how much editing occurred with the other account because this account started with competence. As an aside, it is troubling how much protection is afforded to administrator candidates (by other admins) - but administrators are comfortable allowing all the other volunteer editors to get skewered at ANI. Lightburst (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't you just oppose them because they have an undisclosed previous account and this isn't compatible with your trust requirements? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you're likely to end up an oppose as it is the community is who has decided (not admins) what the disclosure requirements are. I suspect the standard you seem to desire wouldn't get consensus, but I'm sure we'll hear from others about this. If I'm wrong as a community member you could certainly seek to change the requirement through RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What Barkeep said. Further, I'm not affording any protection to the candidate, and most emphatically not doing so in my role as an administrator. I utterly resent this accusation. There's an issue here of upholding our principles, as Barkeep laid out. Whether or not I participate in WP:AN/I is immaterial. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I now have three admins on the talk page. You would think I asked this person their name and address. How about just experience 4-6 mos, 6-8 mos, etc. Or previous edits, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 etc. This is not so I or anyone else can out the person but to know that they only have one other disclosed account. Not just, "Are You Experienced? But how much experience? We might have no issue if I ask them if they like ice cream?Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't even know if you have asked them for their name and address. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the season, bah humbug. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * LB, I'm just curious what sort of thing you're worried about? Like, what sort of numeric answer would lead you to oppose, and what would lead you to support? We have four full years of data about this candidate. Is the concern that before 2018 they were a vandal/pov-pusher who decided to pretend to be a productive, good faith user for four years in order to abuse admin powers? I might get this if it was someone who just registered this year, for example, but how many years of constructive evidence is necessary before unknown past accounts don't even really matter anymore? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the fact that the account was disclosed to ArbCom who did not find any problems (else we wouldn't be here discussing this). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are one of my favorite editors. Thanks for stopping by. Lately in RFA's their seems to be an effort to squelch all opposition, and we want 100% support. Even now I see two admins wanting to erase my question. My concern is that the candidate may not have disclosed all accounts. Perhaps they did, and that is easily answered by how much experience the other account had. It is pretty clear that I am in the minority here, and responding to Barkeep49 I will not be starting any RFC's about this or anything else. I do not have that kind of clout. My admin requirements are always that an admin protects content and content creators, and many of you have not been doing that. See my comments on EW's RFA for proof of that. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason (please agf) that I want to see it removed is because it puts the person in a position of having to out themselves. This is flat wrong. I don't care who the candidate is in relation to my feeling it should be removed. We could be 100-0 in favor or 0-100 against promoting this candidate. There's no desire here to make this a 100% candidacy. There is a desire to see an editor treated fairly, when that editor is attempting to keep their identity secret, who is now being forced to make a decision between outing themselves or not. You've doubled down on this by saying you will oppose them if they refuse to answer. Wow. Utterly wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You and others have made this into a far bigger deal than it is. Possibly because of the original wording of my question. How much experience did they have? That is my question, and if that outs anyone I will express the same kind of shock you are relaying to me now. Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reformatted my question to make it vague. Thanks for the input here. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)