Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

Community will
Clueful members of the community have repeatedly said that adminship should be easier to get and easier to lose, no big deal. ArbCom has obliged by readily deadmining people for serious or repeated poor judgement.

It is time for bureacrats to more vigorously overlook bad oppose reasons, such as stale complaints, or complaints based on a single axis of wiki politics, such as inclusionist-deletionist. Bureacrats need to make it easier for good candidates to gain adminship, in spite of narrow interest groups who can gain disproportionate attention to their views in our Request for Adminship forum.

I also think a two to one margin of supports to opposes represents a consesnsus in our maturing community, especially for candidates with long experience who are well known to many. As the saying goes, if you don't have enemies, you don't have character. We want a diversity of admins, not a collection of politically correct Milquetoasts. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm biased, as the nominator, but I believe this should pass. If one disregards the !votes obtained by canvassing (i.e., from opposers at Kww2 who had not voted at all or rarely voted since at RfA), you're past the 70 percent mark.  Note that many of the opposes are based on conduct six months or even a year or more old, and the consensus becomes clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that a large part of the reason why I did not comment (oppose) on the RFA was because I had been canvassed - as I stated that I had been on the Bureaucrats noticeboard. I had planned to wait until near the end of the RFA and then comment if I deemed it necessary, but after receiving that e-mail felt I could no longer comment as my opinion would been irretrievably tainted. Understandably I am very p*****d off at the person who sent those e-mails. Davewild (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways... Assuming those 5 questionable !votes are thrown out the RfA moves from 68.7% to 70.6%, which is hardly an auto-pass (in fact said % will usually be a fail).  You then go on to claim the "real" % is higher because some opposes are invalid.  Well, if you are going to do that you have to look a the supports too.  Somewhere around 5 supports (depending on your read) supported pimarily because they didn't like the opposes.
 * Historically this RfA is within the acceptable discretionary range, but to pretend like it should be a lot higher support % is disingenuous. You can't just throw out opinions you don't agree with.  There is no rule against opposing for "old behavior." Indeed, I am sure that nearly everyone would oppose some theoretical RfA for "old behavior" if said behavior was heinous enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable suggesting we just subtract numerically the allegedly canvassed votes. As I said on BN, those folks have the integrity to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote and how to vote if they do.  If they make that decision to vote knowing it was influenced by an illicit campaign to upend this RfA, then they have their conscience to deal with.  But we can't ask the crats to declare a host of votes invalid based on that email.  I obviously would like this to pass (and feel it should) and understand that if it does pass there will be no escaping the impression that what happened was discounting of suspected canvassed votes.  So I don't have a solution to that. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm commenting on global process. This RfA is an example of the experienced, well-known editor getting disadvantaged at RfA. I hope bureacrats will generally loosen up the percentages for experienced editors. Another relevant saying is familiarity breeds contempt. The more well-known an editor is, the more opposition they draw. Current process favors those we know less about. Anyone squeeking by RfA is effectively on probation. They better not do anything controversial with the tools, or else the result will be RfC, RfArb and loss of sysop flag. Jehochman Talk 18:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:RFA for a current example of a very experienced and well-known editor who is sailing through RFA without a single oppose. Kww's case seems quite different. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's obviously true; we would not have this discussion if Kww's RfA had finished 101-0-4 and I'd be at the celebration in the sandbox!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's a good point; anyone with a strong opposition is watched very carefully by a lot of people for quite a long time - a new admin with 100% support has more potential for damage.  pablo hablo. 19:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I supported Kww's RfA but voodoo counting is not an appropriate response to your disappointment. Wehwalt, should we have passed Timmeh's recent RfA? Many of the opposers there were also concerned about long gone incidents. I'm puzzled by Andre's evocation of Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3: whatever one might think about Ryulong's work as an admin, the fact is he ended up being desysoped for the very same behaviour that many foresaw as problematic. That's the role of RfA: make sure that admins have the community's trust. Ryulong didn't really have it but he was trusted by enough of the Wikipedia brass to get the bit and I don't see how this can be considered as a good example of how RfA closing should work. Andre wrote: "Although there have been some inflammatory statements, in general it seems that Kww has not caused damage that a truly reckless user could cause even without admin tools, and in fact as the supporters point out, has been a real asset to the encyclopedia. His answers to the questions reflect caution, which is important because as bureaucrats we must not only gauge consensus but protect the encyclopedia against damage." How does this not apply to Timmeh, A new name 2008, Itsmejudith and just about any close RfA? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said at Timmeh's previous RfA, if he had waited six months and given no problems, I for sure would have supported. He did not choose to wait six months, and I consider the clock reset on a failed RfA.  Kww, on the other hand, waited six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on. You can surely find a better argument than that. But my question remains: should the b'crats have promoted Timmeh and discarded your opposition as resting on a six-month old incident? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that we have to wait and see what the bureaucrats make of the various arguments, for and against. Isn't that what we pay them for?  pablo hablo. 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have no idea what the closing crat made of my oppose in Timmeh 3.  It may be it was dismissed totally, in which case similarly, such opposes should be dismissed in Kww 3.  I'm not a crat.  And I didn't oppose in Kww 2.  Sorry, felt hadn't taken on board the lessons of the DougsTech incident and what he was taught by Timmeh 2.  No such concern with Kww.  Apples and oranges.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I supported Timmeh but I understand the crats' decision (Rlseve closed it). Still, double standards are not a good idea and the current b'crat discussion reads an awful lot like "what's the best way to justify closing the RfA as successful?" The wiki won't break if Kww is sysoped (that's what I argued in my support for him) but let's face it, he'd be getting a preferential treatment. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Were the opposes in the Timmeh !vote inflated by a canvassing campaign?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the difference between the two kind of explained by the fact that they are both at or near the bottom of the discretionary range? Meaning that crat discretion would dictate the difference, allowing easily for one to be closed as successful and one to be closed as failed.  It is not as though each close represents a numerical precedent. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those percentages should be disposed of rather than recoloured - they're a guide and add no other value. Most wikipedians (and, I would hope, all bureaucrats) can count.  pablo hablo. 00:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated below, I still think that Ryulong's RFA was closed correctly, even though I have personally opposed his actions and even called for his recall prior to his desysopping. Andre (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick statement of opinion (I saw my name mentioned here), I don't see how the opposition in this RfA is any less valid or should be given any less weight than the opposition in mine (canvassed !votes not included). In fact, I received at least one oppose based primarily, and several others based partially, on my choice of username, which is not a rationale that many would consider valid. Tim meh  00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, but we are not 'crats, and it is for them to determine how the !vote as a whole stacks up. Timmeh failed with close to seventy percent and some ridiculous opposes does not mean Kww fails with close to seventy percent and some ridiculous opposes.  Everything is sui generis--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the project would be better off with both as sysops. But let's not try to pretend that every contentious candidate is treated equally. I didn't hear a call for a bureaucrat chat when Itsmejudith failed... And Kww is certainly not the first candidate to get strong opposition on old diffs that are still perceived as a permanent doubt on judgment and character. As I just said, sysoping Kww is in my mind a good thing but if the bureaucrats choose to do that, they should be honest and just invoke IAR, not some subtle evaluation of consensus. Unfortunately, the current crat-chat is not going in that direction. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All strong points by Jerochman and also by Pascal Tesson, I just hope if this passes,  other  <73% RFAs  get the same treatment. Somethings wrong if this sort of discretion is never given to more easy going candidates who lack forceful natures and forceful friends, but  have opposers willing to go all out to supply the most effective diffs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, bureaucrats should not make RfAs easier for "good candidates" to gain adminship. bureaucrats should not give an edge to "well known" or experienced candidates. the RfA ratio should not be downgraded to 2:1. each one of those ideas chips away from the power of the community at large. i don't always agree with the outcomes of RfAs, but my responsibility as a bureaucrat is to gauge the community's consensus. sure, i cannot step out of my own POV, and my interpretations and judgments can never be fully neutral, but i place my judgments on the reasoning of the supporters and detractor, not on who ("good" or "well known") the candidate is. Kingturtle (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. If vote counting was the right way to do this, we'd have a bot doing it, not crats. The crats should evaluate the strength of the arguments with an eye toward arriving at the best answer in each case.   So you're not willing to do this - that's fine, just step aside and let other people come in and solve the problem you're not willing to touch.  If you're unwilling to be part of the solution, you could at least stop dragging your feet. Friday (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've misread what I said, or I didn't say what I meant well enough. To what of what I said prompted you to think I thought vote counting was the right way to do this? My statement is in full agreement with you when you say "crats should evaluate the strength of the arguments with an eye toward arriving at the best answer in each case." That is exactly what I meant when I said "gauge the community's consensus" and "judgments on the reasoning of the supporters and detractor." Yes, of course I am willing to do this, and that is what I do. I am sorry my statement was misunderstood. Kingturtle (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I do not know where to lodge this comment, so please move it if this is the wrong place. I did not bother to oppose because I was not aware that crats were even considering accepting noms with numbers this low; what have we come to? I thought the numbers were low enough here that I didn't need to lodge an oppose, opening old wounds unnecessarily. Kww's neutrality on the Natalee Holloway article was a serious issue; the editors watching that article did not respect consensus, even when multiple editors disagreed with them, and the conduct on the page amounted to ownership and the comments from them, even when faced with multiple editors who disagreed with their stance, were just out of line. No, KWW is not neutral enough to have the tools. Good grief, when did 70% become the threshhold? What happened to 80 or 85? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The discretion zone has been 70 for a long time. 80 and above is "green" zone. I myself once promoted someone at 73% and it's occurred in rare cases as low as the high 60s. This is called evaluating consensus and making tough calls, what crats were elected to do. The weight of the arguments will decide this one. And have no doubt, it'll be like arbcom decisions, no matter what is decided, there will be howls of protests and claims wiki has imploded.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm right in saying that you have supported 3 of the current bureaucrat's RfBs: The Rambling Man, Rlevse & Dweller. None of them advocated that candidates should be unsuccessful at RfA with lower than 80% support. The Rambling Man in particular puts it as: "As most of us are aware, a consensus to promote usually manifests itself in the community showing over 70 to 75% support for a candidate. But of course the process is more subtle than just that. The way in which the community expresses its feelings for a more borderline candidate in the various opposition and neutral opinions are essential to form a rounded picture." I am surprised that you thought it not worth expressing your opinion simply because less than 80% of participants had supported. WJBscribe (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lately, the "shooting the messenger" phenom on Wiki is becoming really tiring. The tally on this one was below 75% for quite a while; no, I didn't think it necessary to opine at that level.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How are we shooting the messenger by pointing out that your main lament (that Kww's promotion would be a sign of declining standards and the fall of the west vis a vis promotion %'s) was inaccurate? Protonk (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's in the right place, but it seems to me that, like in political elections, if you can't be arsed to !vote, you lose the right to moan about the result, whatever that may be.  pablo hablo. 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Allright, well that is most depressing. We are now dipping into lower and lower thresholds on acceptability, both at RFA and at ArbCom, which does not bode well for Wiki.  Well, for the record, the only reason I didn't oppose here, having long-standing concerns about the Natalee Holloway article, is that I had no idea that our standards had gone so low, to 70%.  I check the chart, and don't take my time on anything below 80, thinking it's not necessary.  Now I will ! BUT, if the discretionary zone has lowered, someone should change the color coding on the RFA charts.  (Pablomismo, most ignorant comment, but thanks for opining; the question here was when our threshhold became so low, and Rlevse already answered that.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, happy to help.  pablo hablo. 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the RFA chart has been showing 70s as discretionary for some time. No offense, but I'm surprised this is news to you. See my RFB, where you were the 9th supporter, there's significant discussion in it about disrectionary ranges. — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it a "brain fart"; at my age, they happen. OK, I've learned my lesson; it will stick now :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. I back Kww up 100 percent on the Natalee Holloway matter, and urge editors in any doubt to thumb through the archives of that article's talk page at the time of its promotion 17 months ago or its main page appearance almost exactly a year ago.  I'll be happy to diff some of Sandy's more colorful statements in it if editors are interested or if Sandy wants to go down that road, as I did in my own RfA, in this case as a means of showing how conciliatory Kww acted towards her under what I will lightly describe as severe provocation.  I am aware of Sandy's position on that article, she expressed it fully in opposing unsuccessfully my own RfA, but her statements that we were opposing consensus or disregarding other editors are not well supported.  However, this RfA is over and Pablo is correct, if you don't vote, don't whine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is well established that you, Auburnpilot, and KWW back each other on Holloway, no matter how many other editors (significantly more) disagreed. It's called ownership :)  But since I did miss my opportunity to present my argument, I won't do it now. My current concern is the lowering of the threshhold at both RFA and ArbCom, the "hell in a handbasket" scenario.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually called an article that made FA and TFA with broad support, Sandy, and attracts up to 10,000 or more hits a day when that Lifetime movie is shown. It's called an article which is a credit to Wikipedia, and Kww is entitled to be proud of his FA credit for his role in it.  Wish we had more admins with FA stars.  But I agree, Sandy, this isn't the time or place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested in examining the original dispute, most of it can be found in Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4. I wound up initiating an RFC at Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4. I will point out that this dispute occurred in Oct 2008, but I don't see anything there I'm immediately inclined to disavow. As a content dispute, I certainly expect that there's a decent percentage of Wikipedians that would disagree with my stance, but that really isn't what adminship decisions are supposed to be based on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note that the FA Director delegate who passed the article as meeting the FA criteria, which includes NPOV, was one User:SandyGeorgia. 'Nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that I exercise neutrality in closing FACs doesn't negate my ability to opine when other issues surface later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Enough.  We've had our say and given the links we felt were appropriate.  Let's let the bcats earn the big bucks and get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed: it was my mistake not to have weighed in here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. And no offense intended, and I hope none taken, Sandy.  If you brought it up, I felt it important to weigh in.  I think we've long since agreed to disagree on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's why I avoided weighing in here, not wanting to raise old wounds. Whatever the 'crats come up with, that's why they get the big bucks, I'll shut up, but I will pay more attention to the threshold in the future. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Big bucks?? I wuz ROBBED (all they gave me was a tin-plated badge that says "cleaner-upper third class") [[file:face-sad.svg|25px]]. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz's Commons-style proposal
See here. An innovative approach, no doubt about it. But I am concerned that such a decision would not be accepted by the community since previously consensus has always been against "probationary" adminship. Also, the approach would mean that the decision would actually be "the community is undecided, so let's see if it works" and probably a number of opposers will point out that this means that there was no consensus for promotion. No matter my personal opinion on this specific RFA, I don't think that crats should decide on such an approach without a community consensus that probationary adminship is actually an option. But I wonder what others think about Matt's suggestion. Regards  So Why  17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am surprised at the procrastination here. The candidate has a higher risk of contentious behaviour based on his past (a Leopard can’t change its spots etc.). This is exacerbated by his refusal (which he's fully entitled to do) to modify his recall criteria from the standard, discredited model. Is there an absolute community need here? Does the community need for this candidate to become an Admin. outweigh the risk? Admin. isn’t a reward for improved behaviour. If there are so many doubts that a special approach or even an unprecedented probation period is being suggested there is only one sensible decision. Once the door is open to special situations & treatment every future marginal candidate will want to be treated the same. Leaky  Caldron  17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, I'm both for and against it :) It wouldn't destroy the whole RFA system if either the community or the crats decide maybe once a year that there's a case that is just too exceptional to be handled well by the usual procedures ... that might mean accusations of canvassing, or lots of shouting, or some huge divisive issue (and we've got a little of all 3 here).  I don't think Arbcom would screw it up, and maybe we could learn something from the way they handle it.  OTOH, we're a large and sturdy community, and regardless of whether KWW becomes an admin or not, that doesn't settle the questions raised in this RFA ... we have to work those out ourselves.  Since we have to do the work anyway, if we're going to try something innovative, we might just fail him but invite him to come back in one month, which will give the supporters and opposers time to argue with each other and figure out what's wrong and how to fix it; obviously, this fight isn't just about KWW. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I wrote this, and then noticed the above. I'll merge them together, and state that I agree with SoWhy. NW ( Talk ) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) MBisanz recently brought up the idea of what Commons did in a similar borderline situation: Have the bureaucrats vote on granting adminship in a probational manner. While I am cautiously supportive of the idea, I don't believe that the bureaucrats have the authority to make that call in this situation; the community seems to have rejected that idea multiples times and any such proposal for any binding X-month probation period must come from community discussion. NW ( Talk ) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the for and against bit, but the notion of resolving this by failing Kww and bringing him back into another RfA is the least best solution (may even be the worst). The advantage of the 'probationary period' is that we get evidence that Kww is not a horrible child eating monster in the obvious form of direct experience w/ him as an admin.  Then and only then can we expect to see some rapprochement between moderate wings of both sides.  Otherwise we just get the same shit two months from now.  Acrimony, 18+ questions, all with the added fun of explaining to people why there is a two month difference (And deal with opposes from folks who won't bother to read explanations). Protonk (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of repeating an RFA in three months gives me the dry heaves. I'll go along with the probationary period if that's what is decided.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is effectively agreeing to a modified recall which you were opposed to in your RFA. Leaky  Caldron  18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of reopening my RFA, I refused to make promises. Promises of any kind. That's not what an RFA is supposed to be about. If a probationary period is imposed upon me, I'll cooperate. That's different.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, can you drop the recall bit? What's proposed here is not at all like the sort of voluntary administrator recall that you seem so adamant about.  The whole point that Kww was trying to make in the RfA is that even if he said "yeah, sure, I'm open to recall" there is nothing, absolutely nothing to prevent him from reneging on that campaign promise as soon as he's promoted, and basing a !vote on said campaign promise or lack thereof is D-U-M-B dumb.  The bureaucrats are proposing (not even proposing, just kicking around an idea) a binding recall that could not be weaseled out of by the candidate.   Hi DrNick ! 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I’d really appreciate you keeping your "DUMB" assertions to yourself. In the RFA I asked him what his position was. He stated it. I never raised the subject of campaign promises. I based my vote on my criteria – no one else’s – and I respect his stated position regarding recall. Leaky  Caldron  19:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really a good idea--recapitulating the debate does no good. LC staked a position and defended it.  I may disagree with it, but there isn't anything to be gained in continuing the discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that settles it ... I think we can all understand that sentiment. My point is that, short of canvassing and other oddities, 70% often represents a failure of a community that usually doesn't fail, at least not like this; maybe people aren't taking the time to read all they should, or maybe there are real issues that need to be resolved in general before they can be applied to this particular candidate.  Maybe the crats have already seen enough already to know which rationales they like better.  But it's pretty complicated, there are good arguments on both sides, and it wouldn't bother me a bit if they made an announcement along the lines of, "The community hasn't done its job on this one, yet.  There are arguments that the old behavior was heinous enough to keep KWW from being an admin for a long time ... can you show us how other candidates were handled similarly for similar behavior?  There are arguments that the recent behavior isn't any better, but supporters claimed that there was a lack of specifics and a lack of links ... for whatever reason, there wasn't enough back-and-forth between the supporters and opposers for us to assess consensus.  Take a few more days, people, and do your jobs." - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO: go for it. It may not work; it may even fail miserably. But we've never tried this before, and we won't know for sure until we give it a shot. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple and direct approach is to promote the user, but state that the promotion was borderline and subject to a bureaucrat discussion. If subsequent events show the decision to be incorrect, the bureaucrats may have another discussion. Kww, if the bureaucrats later change their decision, do you promise to resign immediately without any sort of fuss? Jehochman Talk 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally unfair to the candidate IMHO. He’s going to be looking over his shoulder constantly. He deservers full backing, not a half way fudge. I would alter my vote and support him fully rather than see him being under scrutiny and threat at every decision he makes. Leaky  Caldron  20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if you sent an email to the crat list saying that you reconsidered your oppose it would be noted. I personally feel that the most unfair element of the probationary period is to the candidate (having to undergo an RfA twice), but that the community is decidedly split on the merits of probationary adminship and Kevin's fitness for the bit.  I don't know how effective it would be to institute a compromise on both issues simultaneously. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the process they were debating: the proposal was to say that any three bureaucrats could agree to remove my bit after a 90-day probation, not that I would have to endure another RFA. For what it's worth, discussion seems to be veering towards the "let's not do anything fancy, we should either promote him or not" point of view.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would greatly prefer a defined probationary period with a defined review process to waking up every morning wondering if yesterday's activities had caused someone to want to remove the bit. I'm not sure if it has ever happened, but if a bureaucrat decided unilaterally to remove my bit, what would stop him?&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, a crat can't remove the bit, he lacks a button for that. It takes a meta steward, I believe, to remove a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. There was a discussion to enable it some time ago but it did not lead to such a change. Regards  So Why  22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that is why I added the qualifier to my suggestion, indicating it might be better to simply have the crats certify to arbcom instead of directly requesting at meta. Also, SoWhy, as to your phrasing of "the community is undecided, so let's see if it works", I would phrase it instead: "if the canvassing had not occurred, it would indicate consensus, but since we can't account for every variable and people agree it is too hard to desysop, let's hold back a temporary measure".  Granted, the consensus among the crats seems to be for promotion and against temporary probation, so I'll probably consent to that.  MBisanz  talk 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this "if the canvassing had not occurred, it would indicate consensus" coming from? The RfA was flucuating between 69 & 70% (perhaps occasionally bumping up or down to 68/71 by the narrowest margins) for several days before the canvass issue arose.  There is no reason to believe this email affected more than 5 !votes, which is only a 1.9% difference.  If the RfA had ended at 70.x% with no canvassing (which seems the most likely outcome) I doubt it would be a pass, although it is certainly possible.  To me it seems the 'crats are choosing to say "some canvassing occurred so let's promote based on the assumption that the real result would have been a lot higher if no canvassing had occurred" - a conclusion not supported by actual evidence.  The implied implication here is that an undetermined number of additional opposes are suspect, but no support is suspect.  Thus it appears the canvassing attempt actually helped Kww by making every oppose questionable/worth less.
 * If the 'crats feel the actual !votes indicate a consensus to promote, that is fine. However, I don't think this should be a promotion based on the assumption that a significant number of opposes are invalid based on being canvassed, which appears to be what the discussion so far is saying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but canvassing is a difficult issue. It could have been in favor of Kww as well as against him, since we have no way of knowing who was influenced by what. If one asked me, I'd simply ignore that part. None of the !votes added after the canvassing allegations have been posted at BN added anything new in terms of arguments, they just re-echoed previously made arguments both on the support and oppose sides, so I think crats should concentrate on those arguments to determine consensus, not why people might have made them (again, we do not know, if !votes were influenced by it or how many were). I agree that consensus seems to be in favor of granting adminship at this point, both at the RFA (weakish though) and amongst crats) but consensus here and amongst crats seems to be also to not try such new approaches as a result of the discussion of a view users, especially since the community has rejected such ideas multiple times in the past (see above). And, as Protonk points out, implementing this approach would mean that Kww would have to face RFA again in a very short time which I do not think is something one should have to endure again so soon (not one like that at least). My phrasing above was more what the those dissatisfied with such a decision would say though. Personally, I simply think a RFA should not be where new approaches to adminship should be developed and/or tried, at least not with this community. It might work at smaller projects but en-wiki has a large and active community who will certainly want to be involved before we try something like this. On a side note then, we should definitely keep this approach in mind as an idea for discussion later on. Regards  So Why  23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The probationary adminship worked well on Commons and was a good way forward in the situation where it was done... But this is not Commons. I think crats on Commons have a bit more faith placed in them by the community... and innovative appproaches would not be met with howls of outrage. I think you probably shouldn't do it in this case. But, if you think it has merit, announce "we the crats are going to put this into our toolbox and in future, we might just use it if we felt it was the best thing to do. Just so you know..." and then if in future you need it, use it. :) Just not this time. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Knowing this community, using it in the future will in all likelihood lead to exactly the same outrage as it would if it were used here. I think the wiser approach would be something like "we the crats think this should be added to our toolbox, what do you guys think?" and bring it to the wider community for discussion. Places like Commons might be suitable for such approaches but en-wiki has a reputation for drama if something is not discussed beforehand. Regards  So Why  21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Being Bold: Thoughts on the RfA of Kww, and the current proposal for first-ever 'probationary periods' for new admins
I speak here as Kww's second opposer, at a point in the process when Ikip was the only voice raised against Kww's third try for the adminship versus about ten votes in favor. Not having been speaking out in these RfA's for long, it was a bit of an edgy move, but after reading Ikip's oppose and links to some of the candidates statements, I was convinced I had to be bold and speak out. It turned out my seconding of Ikip's oppose was not to be the last.

My purpose here is not to rehash that debate, which is or should be considered closed. I instead want to urge the 'crats to step up, be bold, and make a timely decision on this highly contentious RfA. Don't let this drag on much longer. Yes, measured debate is often a good approach amid controversy, but seeing as there is considerable pressure from both sides with increasing amounts of drama, it is my view that those in charge should act firmly and promptly on the matter of Kww's fitness for the extra buttons.

And the new debate (see above and the 'crat main page) over some kind of first-ever 'probationary' period for new, non-firm consensus admins seems flawed to me. This is not the time to consider such a major change to the process, as I see it. That type of change should be carefully and thoughtfully debated outside of Kww's RfA - perhaps as a result of it (no matter what the decision is), but not as a type of compromise to avoid making a tough decision. The buck should not be passed. Make the call, let the dust settle a bit, and then we can contemplate changes to the way admins are made.

One other matter. The colors should changed on the voting tally panel so that those who might be tempted to vote one way or another have an accurate understanding of how close a vote is to approval range. The current colors are misleading, as SandyGeorgia notes above. This needs to be done asap, in my opinion.

My best wishes to the candidate who has shown coolness under fire, to everyone concerned enough with this issue to express their opinions, and to those whose who must make one of the most difficult decisions possible within the ever-expanding realm of Wikipedia. Jusda fax  20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the scale currently goes something like this:
 * 90 to 100: sea green
 * 80 to 90: still sea green, but a teeny bit closer to yellow
 * 70 to 80: yellow
 * 60 to 70: orange
 * 50 to 60: orange-red
 * 0 to 50: true red
 * I really think it's good as it is, because I believe an RfA with 0% support and an RfA with high-60s support should be marked with greatly different colors. If high-60's RfA's were almost as red as near-0's, I think people who see the table while casually browsing the wiki would be less likely to take notice, as it would just appear to be "another one of those hopeless SNOW RfA's". I would write to X!, though, if you want to suggest changes, since I believe he's the only one who can edit that part of SoxBot's code.  Since he's been on wikibreak since mid-September it might be best to use email.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Colors seem fine to me. 80+ is likely to pass.  70- is likely to fail.  Everything between 70-80 is in the 'wide' discretionary range, with the actual discretionary range being much closer to 71-74% (That is, the likelihood that a candidate will fail an RfA given that they have support in that range approaches 50% very slowly from 80-->75 and ~65-->70 and jumps up considerably between those to ranges.  The coloring could be improved, but I don't think that we would see much change on the lower end (much more of the upper half of 70s would be greenish) and we might lose out on the simplicity of round numbers. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is this. No one is really going to town to try to defeat this nomination while it is in the jury's hands.  But I would say, at this stage, give Kww the bit and expect he will be the most watched admin ever.  He has to be a net positive, because abuse will be seen and dealt with.  As an attorney, I've found the worst moments are the time the jury is out.  It must be far worse for the defendant.  Let's give him the bit and get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see the merits in this point. Hard cases make bad law and little "c" conservatism should dominate our thinking here. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, my intent is not to chew over Kww's fitness for the post, but to urge 'crat promptness based on the issues laid out over the last seven days, and ask that we not start debating changes to the RfA process inside Kww's RfA, with the extra matter of changing the colors on the tally box. Thanks, Jusda  fax  21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just fail it
The community rejected him, just accept this. I didn't vote and it seems too late now, but I would oppose if I could. This looks like just the kind of candidate that can start fighting battles as soon as he get the tools. Not will, but might. That he hasn't screwed up badly since the last RfA doesn't mean he has actually improved. Anyone who wants adminship so badly is able to show their good sides for a while. And please, no strange probation stuff either. We all know that getting rid of a bad admin is almost impossible, unless they are not only bad but also stupid enough to screw themselves over. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "We all know that getting rid of a bad admin is almost impossible"...that's your opinion, not a fact. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't speak for all of us. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course my comment is my opinion. What else would it be? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't vote, that speaks volumes, and you shouldn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean I shouldn't? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "We all know that getting rid of a bad admin is almost impossible", OH? I don't know the official stats, but this years arbcom has desyssopped several admins.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Several is not many, and I think all of them have the possibility to get adminship back through ArbCom rather than RfA. As far as I know, all of them lost it by doing something monumentally stupid and getting caught, not by just being bad admins. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a productive conversation. Either you voted and made your feelings heard at the RfA or you didn't.  Under both circumstances, trying to get in a "meta vote" about how argumentative you feel the candidate will be is not helpful. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let me comment in an unclosed RfA and I comment here instead. How is your reply to me helpful? What is this page for if not for commenting on the RfA? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't really. It is the talk page for the crats public decision making process about closing the RfA.  It isn't a forum to shit on kevin generally, thank you. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, where did all this rudeness come from? Something fishy is going on here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you started with a rude statement? Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing rude about commenting on a candidate for adminship. Is this page only for coming up with convoluted reasons to give adminship to someone that the community rejected? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any comments you want to make about the RFA (or me, at this late juncture), belong at WT:Requests for adminship/Kww 3. This page is specific to discussing the bureaucrat discussion. For what it's worth, I found your position blunt, but not wholly rude.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On that page I saw "Btw, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion is open for the community, so you might want to add your comments on that page instead for crats to notice them." Btw, I don't have any big grudge against you. Hardly recognize you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, possibly you could phrase your opinions less ... bluntly, if you don't have a dog in the fight. Or even if you did.  Just a suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Random thoughts
Well, I'll throw some of my thoughts in. My initial reaction was that this should be promoted based on what I perceived to be a fairly strong consensus. Some of the opposers' arguments are quite flimsy, and are often not substantiated by adequate evidence; after a read-through of the RfA, I still believe that if RfA is truly a community discussion, the bureaucrats should not hesitate to judge each side of the debate and decide which is stronger. As Rlevse mentioned, many of the concern brought up during the discussion predate, which obviously was quite a while ago. I therefore believe the onus is on those objecting to explain with sufficient detail why they don't believe the candidate in question has "reformed". Of course, the supporters need to also advance solid arguments, but IMO to a lesser extent. Like consensus, people change.

With that said: this obviously isn't going to be an easy decision for the 'crats, and an outcome either way will inevitably upset some folks. It's clear that numerically, Kww has received significant opposition to his promotion, so if he is granted sysop rights, it will make his work difficult. Admins should generally be trusted by most of the community; the admin who lacks such trust will often find himself involved in substantial disputes, dramas, and quarrels. Going by this argument, closing this as successful may not be wise. On the other hand, Kww is obviously in an extremely stressful situation at the moment (I know from some experience) and if he in fact possess a belly button he won't want to go through this again. RfA 4, in all likelihood, will face problems similar to that of this discussion.

Now, it's pretty clear that this RfA has, to an extent, been utilized as a battleground for the ongoing inclusionism vs. deletionism debacle. To be honest, I am unsure of what that really means—on the one hand, having strong opinions is not in and of itself reason to oppose an RfA. Obviously promoting this user to sysop will likely have little effect on the aforementioned content dispute. Most users, even if rabidly deletionist, will tend to be very careful with the sysop tools, so I think it's fair to assume that the user won't go about deleting stuff out of process and/or against the community.

However, on the other hand, strong deletionist views might lead to a perception of bias when the user closes AfDs and takes other actions as an admin. As I pointed out above, this could inadvertently lead to trouble. However, I'm of the opinion that this user should be promoted. The community seems to generally endorse his request, even if by a minor margin. As always, if Kww proves to be an ineffective sysop, there are methods of dealing with that, including ArbCom and future community desysopping processes that are being developed at the moment.

Just my opinion(s) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Healthy or unhealthy I find that opposition to admin actions has a lot more to do with the action than with the RfA percentage. Obviously we should take the opposition as evidence that Kww has some problems, but I think that is more important than the broad legitimacy issues.  I can think of one salient counter-example, but when was the last time you happened upon a suspect admin action and thought "what was the % at their RfA?". Protonk (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Random Thought
I haven't followed that much on RfA recently, but having observed some recent events over at the RfAr side involving RfA I thought I'll put a thought that came to my mind. Recently we have seen editors having to take responsibility of their actions on RfA (including nomination, which resulted in the loss of their own tools). And today or tomorrow we'll see one crat having to make the final judgment after discussion amongst others.

Perhaps one question the crat should consider : "If I don't think the opinion of the opposition is serious enough not to promote, am I willing to stake my tools and vouch for the candidate's future conduct?". If the answer is no, then it might be a better idea to let the candidate work on his shortcoming and come back to fare better in a future RfA. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a crat, but I'll stake my tools on Kww's future admin actions. Without a doubt. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If a crat had a personal stake in the outcome, they wouldn't be objective. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway I noticed the Commons proposal, which has some similarities to my thought. What I'm looking out for is that crats go out and actively take responsibility of their promotions, which I see as a good thing. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In our role we are not asked to make a decision on the candidate's behavior but instead simply to determine whether there is community consensus to promote or not. It is the community's job to determine if they feel the candidate's behavior is appropriate and ours to judge the consensus of the community's views. I believe that separation is both supported by clear community consensus and a good idea. There is nothing stopping a bureaucrat from taking the hat off if they have opinions about a candidate and wish to make them known&mdash;they can simply participate in the RfA while it is open and abstain from closing it. When judging community consensus a bureaucrat should either do their utmost to separate out their personal views about the candidate or abstain. Your proposal would conflict with that. - Taxman Talk 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary vote?
This one is from the "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" column.


 * 1. Lop off every vote starting with the first "hey, I got canvassed, and it's not affecting my vote but I'm still voting", and every response which came after that: Support, Oppose, or Neutral (sorry to all legit ones)
 * 2. Have a 2 or 3 day sub-RfA where only the responses of people who did not comment in RfA 3 will be counted (including those removed in step 1)
 * 3. Add 'em together and see what we get?

BOZ (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally I think if we did little changes like that, we basically still end up in the same place, ~70%. The question just becomes, do the crats want to promote someone at 70% or not.  I think that canvassing had a small impact on this RfA, at least from the two accounts (two, right?) blocked.  Even if we assume that those recipients were otherwise not going to vote, the change is <2% (see above for thad's math). Protonk (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the fundamental problem: nothing changed in terms of the nature of the arguments in the last day. There was an uptick in opposes based on those arguments, but the actual percentage change is only enough to affect people that are hypersensitive about the difference between 68.9% and 70.1%. Hopefully, that isn't a large segment of the population. The real problem is that I'm the only one on earth that is absolutely certain that I have no nefarious plans. 123 of you were willing to believe that I don't, and 56 of you were frightened for various reasons. If someone thinks the 13% of you that were frightened of me with a delete button argued the case well and the 17% of you that were frightened of me next to a block button argued their case well, changing that to 12.5% and 16.5% really shouldn't make much of a difference. The issue ultimately comes down to whether either group has a convincing case. Extending the vote is likely to just keep that same 7:3 ratio going. It was stable there for days, generally wandering between 69% and 71%. It dropped to slightly below 69% as a result of canvassed votes, and if you let the vote run long enough to erase that, you'll wind up back in that same slow oscillation. The variation away from 70% is due to sampling error more than anything else. There's probably a bit of what Hobit mentioned as well: people that didn't want to stick their neck out and oppose as long as it was orange, and people that didn't want to stick their neck out and support as long as it was green. The voting certainly ebbed and flowed that way enough to make me suspicious of that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Purely as a matter of general interest, most RfAs tend to drop a percentage or two in the last 2 days. This is likely because people who are unsure wait till the last minute and split 50/50 in general, thus dragging the ratio down slightly.  Absent canvassing, your RfA almost certainly wouldn't have dipped which probably means you did a better than average job of convincing "unsure" people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
If you have to search for it, it doesn't exist. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just couldn't pass this one up. Your comment is concise and compelling, but here's the problem: if you maintain that we govern by consensus vice voting, you necessarily have to assess not just the !vote, but the reasoning behind it. Once you open up that door, you will inevitably have cases in which the discussion leads to one conclusion, while the nose-counting numbers lead to another. That appears to be why the 'crats seem to find this case a challenge. It really boils down to whether it they feel it is reasonable to discard, or at least devalue, a group of !votes that argue a particular position, but lack recent credible diffs/examples in the candidate's contribs. If they think they can do so in an intellectually honest way they promote, otherwise the candidacy fails. As I read the 'crat discussion so far, they are quite aware of this issue, hence the "search". Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When closing AfDs, we discount votes clearly not in good faith. We take into account arguments. And we leave detailed arguments based upon why one or two votes weren't based on policy. At RfA, we cannot judge an oppose to be weak in the same way we can at AfD. There are no set policies for RfA votes, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sure, devalue some votes that are patently ridiculous, but please don't decide whether an argument is wrong. The last thing the community needs is a spin piece about how the opposers were wrong. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

if promoted ask him to interpret UNINVOLVED ADMIN broadly
Copied from User talk:WJBscribe

I stumbled onto. I don't envy you your decision.

One idea I haven't seen raised:

Assuming other issues such as the low-ish approval are not enough to block promotion, give the guy the bit but remind him strongly that many administrative actions require an un-involved admin. Assuming he takes it to heart and interprets this broadly, he would not use his tools on subjects he is involved in, except for issues where "uninvolved" is not a requirement, like blocking repeat vandals, etc.

If you choose not to promote, if he continues good editing and asks for the bit in another year, he will likely get 80%. If he waits another 6 months, he may or may not reach 80%. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC) copied to here 03:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

question
This page has rapidly moved into WP:TLDR territory, but at a glance I don't think I see an answer to this: Who the hell did the canvassing, and is their ass in a sling yet? Regardless of what the crats decide, there need to be some serious repercussions for that user or users. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two accounts were blocked and a Russian IP.
 * 16 okt 2009 02:02 Rlevse (Overleg | bijdragen) blokkeerde "188.40.74.4 (Overleg)" voor de duur van 72 hours (alleen anoniemen, registreren gebruikers geblokkeerd) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: of canvasser)
 * 16 okt 2009 02:01 Rlevse (Overleg | bijdragen) blokkeerde "Zirk69 (Overleg | bijdragen)" voor de duur van indefinite (registreren gebruikers geblokkeerd) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: sock of canvasser)
 * 16 okt 2009 02:01 Rlevse (Overleg | bijdragen) blokkeerde "Provingyourhuman (Overleg | bijdragen)" voor de duur van indefinite (registreren gebruikers geblokkeerd) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: canvassing)
 * No sockmaster uncovered. Rlevse says "If you could see the CU info, you'd understand, but because of the CU policies I can't go into the details.". I find this vaguely dissatisfying, but our CU policy is kind of designed to leave people vaguely dissatisfied. I thought the Russian IP would be a proxy, but apparently not, as it is only blocked for 72 hours, not the longer proxy-block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:BN where I gave the following explanation as to why no master could be uncovered: "Well, basically there are three options: it was someone who used a different IP than they normally do, it was someone who hasn't been active for a long time, or it was random trolling. I have no idea which, but will note the last option is actually quite common on RfAs."
 * As an aside IP resolves to "earth.justdns.ru", which is not a valid hostname. It appears to actually originate from the Berlin area.  Naturally there are probably thousand of Wikipedia editors from that region so it is impossible to say who was behind it, if anyone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty proxyish, based on http://www.robtex.com/dns/justdns.ru.html so I'm surprised it only warranted a 72 hour block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm more than vaguely dissatisfied with that result, but I guess it's all the satisfaction we're going to get on that front. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look. It's an open proxy. -- Kanonkas : Talk  08:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has some personal theories on the subject, but alas, I have no evidence of any kind, just a "hunch" based on past experience, so I'll continue to bite my tongue till it bleeds. I'd like to see the actual content of those emails, but so far it doesn't seem anyone has reposted one. This isn't just because I supported Kww, I'd feel the same way if I had opposed or it was a completely different RFA, this level of dishonesty is not something to be tolerated. It's frustrating that we apparently have no recourse against the culprit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, it's a bit frustrating. On the other hand, knowing who the culprit is wouldn't really change anything. After all, suppose it's me (I'm pretty sure I'm nobody's chief suspect). Ok, I get desysoped and that's pretty much the end of the story. Unacceptable off-wiki shenanigans are inevitable because we tolerate off-wiki coordination. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please respect consensus
Please respect the fact that this never got anywhere near the 75% mark. The way you're now trying to disregard oppose !votes based on the candidate's gross assumption of bad faith on WP:BN is appaling to say the least. Since when is a candidate asked what votes should be disregarded? You're making a joke of this process and the people who took the time to participate in the hope that this was a fair and honest process. Evidently it is not. Still in doubt? Read Andre's statement ''Although we are numerically on a borderline, the opposition is mainly concerned with abrasiveness and disrespect toward certain minority viewpoints. Although there have been some inflammatory statements, in general it seems that Kww has not caused damage that a truly reckless user could cause even without admin tools, and in fact as the supporters point out, has been a real asset to the encyclopedia.''. Neutral crat, my ass. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kww is higher, under any definition, than a recently promoted admin. He's in the ballpark and we are waiting for the umpires to confer and give us the safe or out call.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is seriously not the place to continue to pillory the candidate. Please stop. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How am I not neutral? I've never even seen Kww before this, nor have I overlapped in editing with him. This is just my interpretation. You're welcome to disagree with me. 75% is not a magic number. Andre (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong
In the bureaucrat discussion, one of them says "And in fact this looks like a good case of bureaucrat discretion used for promotion in the spirit of Raul654's promotion of Ryulong.". He's right that Ryulong's case was similar as that was also a third attempt and the numbers were almost the same. But what he doesn't mention &mdash; perhaps he doesn't realise &mdash; is that Ryulong was subsequently desysopped. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bringing up Ryulong was probably not a very wise idea based on these facts. The community still remembers that Ryulong's case was a reason for massive drama and that ArbCom has in the end "fixed" Faul654's error (so to speak) by desysoping Ryulong. But we also have examples of people with similar numbers whose promotion or whose actions as an admin have not lead to significant drama, for example Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab which was closed as successful at 67%. Andrevan should probably have used Davemeistermoab as an example instead of Ryulong to avoid the connotation you mention. Regards  So Why  09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only a few weeks since Davemeistermoab's RfA and that seems too recent to be a useful precedent. In Ryulong's case, it took 2 years for matters to reach a head. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but if I remember correctly (I was not active at that time but Ryulong's case is mentioned quite often, especially in RfBs), Raul's decision created a lot of drama immediately afterwards, unlike Davemeistermoab's promotion. Regards  So Why  10:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Ryulong, but Davemeister's promotion did cause some drama. Not excessively, though. Somebody opened a BN thread immediately following the closure - several section headers later, it was closed as "he gave an explanation, not a misuse of the crat tools, let's move on". Jamie  S93  12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with all the charts that are being flung around, someone can do one of desysoped admins and their passing percentages?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That has been done, but I haven't seen it recently. Last time it was done and posted to WT:RFA it actually turned out that some of the desyssoped admins were among the highest supported ones and there was no pattern to the support percentage in general. Also, of those promoted with the lowest numerical percentages some of them have had essentially zero controversy with their use of admin tools. Overall, I don't know how the level of controversy of that group compares to the admin population as a whole. I'm not sure if there is a useful metric to make a determination. - Taxman Talk 13:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Taxman is correct. With one salient exception, RfA percentage (given that the RfA passes) is an almost valueless prediction of future desysopping. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Taxman and well said by Protonk. As someone who personally requested Ryulong's recall as an admin long before he was desysopped (WjBscribe may remember the specific case; I can't be troubled to find the diffs at the moment), I still believe Raul was right to promote him based on the community consensus in his 3rd RFA at that time. The example still stands as a use of bureaucrat discretion. Andre (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Requests for adminship
Ikip (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would point out that those that did better, this year, than our current candidate, and failed, were withdrawn by the nominees. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - so if those figures are accurate, someone passing with less than 75% is extremely rare. But this may be one of those cases. That definitely means a leap of faith to promote for the 'crats then. BOZ (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What we should be asking ourselves here, since so many have claimed this is one of those rare cases, is why this is one of those rare cases. I see nothing here that makes this RfA exceptional enough to get preferential treatment. Take out the confirmed canvassed !votes, fine; we then have 70-71% support, which is still extremely low for promotion. Tim  meh  15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had vowed to make no further comments here, but Timmeh's probing question and Ikip's outstanding charts draw me out. Please, 'crats, take note of these germane points. Thanks, Jusda  fax  16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one of the first things I thought of when reading all this over. Everyone agrees that the canvassing had little or no effect on the final outcome, what makes this RFA so different that we're trying to find another way to decide the outcome? And in general, whatever process adjustments (or closing options) people are thinking of making to RFAs should be done outside of the context of a specific RFA. RxS (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As an obviously biased observer, I will make two observations anyway. First, purely numeric observations are easy to make, and harder to interpret. If denied, I would also be the only candidate with over 100 supports to be denied (one of two with over 99, so drawing those arbitrary numeric lines in the right place is obviously crucial to good decision making processes). Second, the debate really centers on whether the opposes are well-supported opposes based on sound reasoning, not the numeric quantity. It's the intersection of what some perceive as low-quality opposes and the fact that they pushed it barely past the lower bound that's creating the controversy. Each RFA should be judged individually. I knew going in that this wasn't going to be a walk in the park, but I'm surprised to have caused quite such a stir. I'll abide peacefully with the result, whatever it is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The raw number of supports should have nothing to do with determining consensus. RfA is not a popularity contest. Tim  meh  17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Neither should the precise numeric percentage of opposes, which was my point.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority of edit differences used in this RFA oppose section are from very recently
Ikip (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's begin debunking. I didn't express an opinion in this RFA, nor am I familiar with the candidate except in passing. Nearly all of those diffs from 2009 are very weak: Note to the crats: Either way this goes, I applaud you for demonstrating to the community that RFA is not just a numbers game. Crats are appointed to judge consensus, not tally votes. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is policy. This is not dispute. There is a big on the top of WP:NOT for a reason.
 * Participating in an AFD isn't the most edit summary-worthy area. Most summaries that people use there are "k" or "del" or something similar anyway, so that's not a huge loss. In mainspace, Kww has 100% edit summary usage
 * Kww has his opinion on how to make blocks preventative, rather than punitive. Keeping a disruptive user indeffed until they decide not to be disruptive is the very definition of preventative.
 * For these next two, I do not think "badgering" means what you think it means. To me, it comes off as him going to talk to an editor he disagrees with, to attempt to understand their position. A sign of maturity, IMO.
 * A user acknowledging that they were wrong is one of the cornerstones of the guide to appealing blocks. Asking if this was done is fine.
 * We have all dealt with an editor that makes edits we find troubling, but refuses to discuss them. I don't see a problem with him expressing concern for this situation.
 * I know you are an outspoken inclusionist, Ikip, but this change to the page was made without consensus and is, in fact, not how Wikipedia works. Deletion is not always a last resort, and to claim it is represents a radical inclusionist viewpoint. Some articles are just not fit for Wikipedia, and making the guide to AFD say that we should try to improve them first is a waste of effort. So, reverting this edit was the right thing to do.
 * I don't know the situation for the April one, so I won't comment on that one.
 * Well said. In a way this goes straight to the heart of the question: Is RFA a vote or is it really a discussion like we say it is? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve the impasse...
It is difficult to see how this candidate’s application can now be handled fairly and transparently in his, the community’s or the decision maker’s interest. Allowing the RFA to effectively transfer over here has done no good IMHO. The process allows for ‘crats to do a couple of things. In exceptional circumstances, they can extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. I think they should do the latter, over a tight 2 or 3 day period but allowing no further discussion once it starts. Just a single word - support, oppose or neutral. The essential thing is that no discussion should be allowed once voting is underway. There has already been 10 days discussion in various places.

This will provide a clearer indication of community support following the various accusations, counter-accusations and non-policy proposals for varying forms of special treatment, none of which have any policy support or clear way forward.

Let the community decide and the ‘crats implement in my understanding of the correct process. Leaky Caldron  16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it is almost a complete facade that RfAs are "not a vote", but this is pushing it. Opposers especially need to have evidence to back up their oppose !vote (I'm a strong proponent of innocent until proven guilty). Furthermore, a second vote would just restart a huge drama-fest. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The community has had enough time to evaluate the candidate and arguments and reasonings were given for and against the candidate. As such, neither prolonging the RFA nor restarting it would change anything. We should simply be patient until those we chose to evaluate such consensus have reached their decision. Or, to use your words: The community has decided, now we just need to determine what that decision was. Regards  So Why  17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If it was that simple we would not be still waiting and discussing all sorts of off-policy mechanisms to deal with it, nor would we have had the RFA++ debates for 2 more days. My suggestion was for the decision makers - that they have a clear, policy-based option. Leaky  Caldron  17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this is unorthodox, but in the American legal system (probably a lot of others as well) when there has been misconduct or double-dealing behind the scenes, the judge will usually declare a mistrial. This essentially says the process was tainted, and no verdict is being rendered. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, that is functionally equivalent to a finding of "no consensus". -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this America of which you speak? I don't recall any such colony from my history lessons:) In seriousness, I fully agree with Avi. I supported but alas still find no consensus here to add the tools. Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no more than 71% no matter how you slice it, I think this waiting is just making everyone antsy. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that we're waiting for the crats, not ArbCom, so maybe we don't need to get all tangled in a knot worrying that they have gone crazy. (since anyone who actually manages to become a crat obviously went crazy a long time ago) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Leaky, my personal opinion is to use extensions in cases where there is a marked change/discontinuity at the end of the RfA - similar to what happened with DHMO - where new information arises in the last day or so that may materially affect peoples' opinions. In this case, there was no such discontinuity or seismic shift, there was just a continued descent into the grayest of gray zones and so the 'crats have to decide whether or not consensus was achieved. For better or for worse, all of the 'crat discussion is out in the open on the project page of this talk page for everyone to skewer as they see fit :) -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said to someone last night, electing a new Pope seems a tad easier than this! In a fresh poll I would now change my !vote (to support). Leaky  Caldron  22:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see no useful purpose to a restart. If people can't be motivated to vote in seven plus days, why give them more time?  It would take large numbers of votes to move this outside the very narrow range it has been in.  Let's let the crats decide, I hope tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick calculation
Assume there was major canvassing. Moreover assume even that all the canvassing occurred for oppose votes (which is an unlikely assumption but bear with me). With 56 oppose votes and 123 support votes that means that there would need to be at least 18 canvassed votes in order to even push this into the range of crat discretion (that is above 75%). One needs to assume that about half the oppose votes were canvassed to get into the normal definite pass range (above 80%). So we have that even if we assume massive canvassing and we assume zero canvassing in support it is hard to see this as a passing RfA even if we remove all canvassed opposition votes. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but kind of irrelevant now, though as the bureaucrats have decided that it is within their discretion and commenced discussing.  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all irrelevant. Presence of canvassing reasonably puts it in their discretion. However, if there's no easy way to argue that the canvassing actually was severe enough to put it into the normal range of discussion then it is hard to see why they should promote. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is irrelevant. We elect crats to judge consensus. They have decided that this is a situation that warrants discretion, so they're using it. We can't just say "No, you're not allowed to discuss this, you must fail it." The Wordsmith Communicate 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not saying this clearly. Even if we add in as much possible canvassing as possible, and assume no canvassing in support by the usual standards there would be no consensus to promote. I'm not saying that as you put it they "must fail" this RfA. The point is that the nature of the situation makes a strong argument for they should interpret consensus. That is, the obvious interpretation is that even when taking canvassing into account there's no consensus to promote. This isn't an argument that they can't promote. This is an argument that they should not. See the difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the role of 80%, 70%, and so on. The range only exists as an interpretation of commmunity consensus. Even an RFA with 60% support and no canvassing can and has passed. RFA is a discussion and we interpret the comments made against our knowledge of Wikipedia policies and community judgments. Andre (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * >75% is almost a guaranteed pass in recent history. The "normal" discretionary range is more like 70-75%, extending a few % further for truly exceptional cases (and theoretically quite a bit further in the case of extensive canvassing/puppetry problems). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh? Has the range shifted down? When I used to spend time paying attention to RfA it was 75-80 percent. However, the general habit of promoting much below that is not good. Crat's exist to interpret community consensus not impose it. Promoting in this sort of situation seems very close to the second rather than first. Even if one uses 70% as the threshold one still needs severe canvassing to push into the usual range. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all kind of pointless. Consensus isn't a vote, especially not when you are on the numerically losing side. Alternatively, if you are on the side with more numbers, strength of argument is irrelevant. Do you see where I'm going with this? Protonk (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on observation (of myself and others) it has sifted slightly. Protonk is also correct that there are no hard lines. On the other hand, RfA is much more about opinions than policy (unlike AfD) so the discretionary range is (in practice) pretty small. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More than that there are no hard lines, rationalization is possible for both sides. If I close an AfD (or more topically, an RfA) and want to justify my close, I can point either to majority rule or "strength of argument" as justification, depending on how the numbers work out in the debate.  Presumably we elect crats to be responsible and adult about that weighting, but in cases on the margin we can get different results from different people on the same debate.  I'm just saying that rehashing the "votes vs. arguments" bit isn't compelling to me. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an unreasonable point. But there's one thing that the above numbers make clear: Whatever the close is, if it is a promotion it needs damn better logic than the presence of canvassing. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? As mentioned above, consensus is never bound to percentages; therefore, it's up to the bureaucrats to determine consensus either way, and that's what we give them the authority to do. Obviously, a closing statement is to be expected, but I'm not sure we need to expect flawless logic from the 'crats. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if the sole logic is that there was canvassing then this wouldn't be enough to promote. Thus, one would need soemthing like canvassing and that the oppose votes were weak. Simply based on canvassing doesn't work. And saying that we shouldn't expect logic from the crats is really less than helpful. We elected them to be logical and think things through. Defending a hypothetical course of action by saying that they don't need to be logical is admitting that that isn't a logical course of action. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A moot point, because "canvassing" is definitely not the sole logic we are using here. The course of action will take into account a full, holistic course of reasoning. Andre (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of other editors

 * 1) One editor who !voted support, notified another editor:
 * "Hey...why dont you express your opinion here with regards to our freind Kww. He has helped us both with many issues, so I think we should show our support." 01:12, 12 October 2009.
 * Kww "explained and asked him to stop".
 * This notified editor later !voted support. 10:06, 13 October 2009.
 * 1) Although more editors who were contacted via email either voted opposed or abstained, one of the editors who was e-mailed, voted support: "Note also that I have not received a canvassing email." The alleged text of the email can be found on wikipedia review, I will quote it here, if allowed. The text, if authentic and the same, was as Ironholds said:
 * "The request was to support KWW, but I opposed KWW's last RfA and it could be drawing up individuals in that camp and looking to discredit KWW at the same time. The request used some fairly inflammatory language about inclusionists, but was still "civil" on its surface so I am refraining from taking any action or replying myself."
 * 1) An editor mentioned this RFA in a controversial RFC that Kww has been deeply involved in. The RFC had many editors which traditionally support Kww involved. The editor posted on the RFC at:  19:51, 10 October 2009  Within 6 hours of this editor posting on the RFC, 8 RFC editors who were supportive of Kww postion had posted supports on the RFA.

Ikip (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that A Nobody's RFC was being monitored by people both inclined to support me and inclined to oppose me. I wish the two affairs hadn't become so intertwined, but it's a bit of a stretch to believe that A Nobody's misbehaviour at my RFA would go unmentioned at his RFC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed another editor mention this RfA during a contoversial RfC. You might want to look into it. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kww here. That RfC was almost certainly watchlisted by a large variety of people. It isn't at all obvious if a that mention would push things more for or against Kww or have no impact at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, I largely tend to agree with you on many issues, but this "after the election" lobbying is getting old pretty fast. Hobit (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it comes down at this point to the crats' decision it isn't unreasonable for people to argue for or against certain points that are relevant to the crats making that decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, just as AN did during the RfA. But both are now well over the "AGF" line in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When should bureacrat-chat be used?
Andre wrote: "One question which I find interesting is whether we would be having this discussion at all if the support percentage was 73% instead of 69%."

One of the purposes of having the 'crats close rather than closing by a vote-count is to act as a stop-gap in case the RFA's numerical totals result an apparent promotion or no-promotion that is somehow "bad" or reflects a broken RFA. 9+ times out of 10, if it's < 70%, it's a no-brainer no-promote. 9+ times out of 10, if it's 80+% it's a no-brainer promote. But not always. Crats can in theory deny a 99% or promote a 1%, but if they did, "they would have some 'splainin' to do."

If a crat is unsure what to do - and this should include almost all cases where a crat is leaning to promote below 70% or deny above 80% - crat-chat or at least asking for a second opinion from another crat is in order.

But, crat-chat or a second opinion may be in order if the person has 80%, the crat thinks promotion is in order, but because of the RFA or possibly out-of-RFA activity, he wants a second opinion or a group opinion. Ditto someone with 70% that the crat thinks should not be promoted but there is something unusual so he wants a "clean" non-promotion.

To summarize: "When in doubt, seek another opinion before acting" is a good policy to follow when closing RFAs, whether the "evil(becausevotingisevil)-vote-count" is 70% or 80% or 1% or 99%. Of course, there are probably no cases with below 60% or above 90% where the closing crat would have any doubt, barring a last-minute bombshell late in or after the RFA. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. But as pertaining this RFA, I was wondering if there would be so much doubt if the numbers were a bit higher. I suspect some might have promoted without a discussion, thus why I find it interesting. I'm not feeling the doubt from the actual substance of the opposes (hence why I would promote). Andre (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true of every RfA hovering around 70%. Of course there would be less doubt if the numbers were a bit higher. It's also quite clear that a few of the current bureaucrats would have closed this as successful had the percentage been, say, 71%. I'll again preface this by noting I supported Kww's RfA but I don't know how you could fail to see substantive doubt in the opposes, unless you somehow prefer to be blind. As for crat-chats, they're a very good idea in theory: increased transparency, clearer decisions, etc. In practice though, they haven't delivered and this one will breed cynicism. It's a bit discouraging to see crats talk of Ryulong's promotion as an example of wisdom, suggest that a controversial RfA is a good time to impose probationary adminship, take into account that Kww has not gone beserk during the RfA and argue for discarding opposes based on stale incidents. I strongly support the latter argument but I see no evidence that this was taken into account in earlier closes. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All things being equal except 69% vs. 71%, or 73%, the same RFA should be closed the same way. To do otherwise is to ascribe altogether too much significance to the raw numerics, which are not at the heart of determining consensus. To say that I "prefer to be blind" because I do not find the opposition's doubt to be substantive is purely inflammatory. Ryulong's promotion is not supposed to be wisdom but merely a correct determining of the community sentiment that existed on his RFA, which to Raul654 was that Ryulong could bring more good than harm to the encyclopedia as an admin. That does not mean I personally would have supported Ryulong at any time on his RFA. Probationary adminship was imprudent to suggest I agree, but to evaluate Kww's behavior on his own RFA is within the purview of our review. Part of the bureaucrat process is to counterbalance the tendency to hold grudges, nitpick, and pile-on. Remember adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and we as bureaucrats have to keep politicking to a minimum. Andre (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't rush on my account
I noticed a statement that you needed to get this wrapped up quickly due to a duty of swiftness. Please don't take forever, but I'm a grown man, and used to waiting for things. If it takes another 2 days, it takes another 2 days.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Don't you know this is Wikipedia? Official practice is to rush through difficult, complicated issues even when they have long-term impact on the project and are hard to reverse. Then the people responsible for the decisions defend it against all criticism and the people unhappy with it treat it like it is the worst thing in the world and will result in the destruction of the entire encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One might even go so far as to insist that it is serious business. ;) Protonk (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Kww is going to pass, and ironically it's because of the canvassing. Low 70% RfAs would normally be failed as a matter of course, but because of the canvassing the 'crats are looking harder than they normally would. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a very general problem that goes on here. We overreact to bad things. This happens often on AfDs. Canvassing in one direction makes a close much more likely in the other. This overcorrection may just be human nature. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would call out every aspect of that comment as false. Right now with the cards on the table it is no consensus, but we are waiting for a new take on it if one exists. Low 70s also aren't failed as a matter of course. Andre (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought they were, according to the stats provided. Are you a biased supporter when you say that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen or interacted with Kww before, so I don't understand why you would allege bias. Many low 70s RFAs are failed due to the significant opposition, but this is not automatic. As I and many others have stated, each RFA is evaluated holistically to determine community consensus, which does not correspond directly with the numerical support percentage even though there is a significant correlation. Furthermore I just closed it as no consensus before you wrote that. Andre (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I hadn't seen you name around, and was curious. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Andre?
You used Ryulong's promotion as an example of good use of 'crat discretion? That particular promotion caused an uproar and Ryulong was eventually de-sysopped for exactly the behaviour the opposers predicted. Without saying anything about Kww (I had my chance to comment and chose not to), Ryulong's Successful RfA is a poster child for less bureaucrat discretion at low levels of support, not more. Viridae Talk 07:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, in the Ryulong case, by promoting when there percentage support was so low Raul largely substituted his own opinion for the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, which is not how this is supposed to work. In other cases, where someone has had a high percentage of support and was subsequently de-sysopped for inappropriate behaviour (or conduct unbecoming), the community was either blind to the potential flaws of the future admin or they weren't displayed - a possible failing of the community, but the way it is supposed to work. When a crat substitutes their own opinion to promote someone with support as low as Ryulongs they are doing so over the opinion of a community who is unsure (no consensus). No matter how deserving individuals may consider that particular person to be, it is the community that the person must convince. Viridae Talk 07:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping up
I could yet be wrong, but it appears to be all but over. As one of the early opposers I think it only fair to extend a "well done" to Kww, who has been a good sport about this process. This was a gruelling experience and could have gone either way for a long time. My salutations, and sincere hopes that you will remain as a vigorous contributor - and try again next year, if you have the stomach for a fourth run. I've gained respect for you, sir, and learned a lot from you. With thanks, Jusda  fax  08:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't jump the gun here. Nothing is done yet. Kingturtle (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that I'm a bit surprised at the 'crats view that there has to be concensus, among themselves, for promotion, to promote. Did that apply to Davemeistermoab?  As I recall, several crats indicated that they would not have promoted under those circumstances during the aftertalk.  Here we seem to have a situation where possibly a majority of crats favor promotion.  That should be enough, I think, unless the oppose arguments in the crat chat are stronger, since this is not a vote of course.  Or the initiating crat should weigh the arguments and decide.  I should note that I heartily approve, pass or fail, of the crats being willing to have their argument in the sunshine rather than on their email list.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When one bureaucrat takes the onus upon his or herself to close, we recognize that we are all individuals and will execute our individual judgments. When a chat is invoked, that implies that there is a request for a joint decision, and then we need to make a joint decision about the community's consensus. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Flip a coin
http://www.random.org/coins/ Jehochman Talk 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A noteworthy distinction
Note: I voted support in the RFA. I know this is all academic at this point but I think it's worth pointing out that there was no consensus among the 'crats to indicate that the original RFA had no consensus. In the end, it came down to the closing 'crat to decide that the original RFA had no consensus. I think it's important to distinguish between these two if ever there might be a ...Kww 4. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage Kww, if this stays failed, to come back without waiting very long (2-3 months should be fine) since, after all, half the crats already feel he has the confidence of the community. This is a special case, and I think he will fall well into the comfort zone next time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I don't make a lot of predictions about the future, but I can pretty much guarantee it will be well over three months. I will do my best to not be bitter, and continue contributing, but I am deeply disappointed by the outcome of this RFA.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't blame you. Let me put it this way, I don't think you will do worse than you did this time.  Take a wikibreak if you like, relax, do what you like, give the bitter enders no cause for complaint, and when you do put your name up again, their concerns will seem so ridiculous you will laugh your way to the bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed Kevin, your conduct during and after the RfA has been beyond exemplary, in contrast to a number of others participating in the RfA and subsequent discussion. How you respond going forward&mdash;either maintaining your current conduct or being drawn in by others' poor behavior&mdash;will have a large impact on your future results at RfA. Poor behavior is unfortunately a fact of life here on Wikipedia and learning not to get drawn in is important. If they aren't given the satisfaction of drawing you in, they tend to get bored and move on. - Taxman Talk 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to echo the sentiments regarding your behavior, Kevin. Having been on the failing end of a couple of requests, including one that went to bureaucratic chat, I know just how frustrating it is. All I can say is what I said in the chat itself; use this opportunity to identify what it is about your on-wiki interaction that gives other editors pause, and commit to working on that, and you should have very little issue in the future. One can hold steadfastly to ones beliefs yet do so in an an unabrasive manner, as you yourself have done in this RfA. Demonstrate to the community that this is will be your consistent method, and you should find your next request successful. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of "campaign promises" related to what DGG and I were talking about, and you could be an admin in a week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to step away from this discussion, please. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to you, Proton? You used to be so reasonable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's move on now. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look. Immediately after the man finishes up an agonizing RfA riven with political splits along inclusion/exclusion lines you jump over and say that if he only had given up his integrity and promised to permanently recuse from a subset of the tools then the inclusionist kingmakers would make things happen.  That doesn't seem a little inflammatory to you?  It is his stance that you should promote him if you feel he was responsible enough to handle the tools and not promote him if you felt he was not responsible enough to handle the tools.  Part of the responsibility, which he laid out in painstaking detail across questions, responses and clarifications was that he should be trusted to decide when and where he would participate as an editor, decide as an admin, or recuse altogether.  The implied response in DGG et al.'s demand for wide recusal was that KWW could not be trusted to make that decisions at all.  In other words, you feel that Kevin is so biased and craven that he can't even determine where is involved and not involved, yet you would " [promote him] in a week" if he agreed to some admin-lite.  All of this even ignores the fact that substantive evidence to the contrary exists regarding the proposition that Kevin is unrecoverably biased with respect to fiction articles--the alternate hypothesis is that Kevin has a strong preference for reliable and independent sourcing in articles and that fiction articles (especially those on sub-sets of fictional works, e.g. characters or settings) tend to lack reliable and independent sourcing.  Obviously this was (between 2007-2008) not a perfect description of his feelings, but it is a reasonable working one.  And even if he had those feelings, it is another step entirely to assume that he would assess a decision wrt the tools using only those feelings and not some judgment about the propriety of the decision itself.  It's nauseating to contemplate that we would have promoted him instantly if he acquiesced on the fiction issues and then hear people tell me that they don't understand why supporters of Kevin alleged bloc voting vis a vis the fiction debacle. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

4th nominations don't seem to pass to often. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Cobi 4, Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5, Requests for adminship/ST47 5, Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5, Requests for adminship/Geni 4 Tim  meh  00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This research (Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2008). Mopping up: Modeling Wikipedia promotion processes) suggests that number of RfAs has a strong, negative and statistically significant impact on the likelihood of passing. Obviously that is correlative, but their regression indicates that it has an impact. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but let us be reasonable. It stands to reason that if someone can point to the issues raised in RfX (n-1) and show how over six months/one year each one has been addressed, then RfX (n) should pass. The negative correlation between the number of RfX's and passing has as much to do with the perception that candidates are not trying to address community issues but are instead trying a "volume" approach to RfX, and that does tend to backfire. At least, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But Protonk is correct that the higher the number of RFAs, the more likely it becomes that they fail even if the candidate improved. Because a 3rd, 4th, 5th RFA will compel some people to repeat their previous oppose !votes and will make more effort to find a reason while people who were previously not involved will look at the candidate's contributions with more scrutiny if they know that the candidate has twice, thrice, four times been rejected before, thus more easily finding mistakes than in a first RFA of a well-known user. The more RFAs you have, the more some people will try to find reasons to oppose you and thus the higher the possibility of failing. Regards  So Why  14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If Kww keeps on his current trajectory I forsee kww4 doing just fine. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another element is the fact that the relationship probably isn't causal. In other words, all the data allow us to say is that people who undergo more RfAs (and space them closely together for that matter, though I don't know if that was in their regression) are statistically significantly less likely to be promoted (I don't know if they teased out the edit count effect, I think they may have).  That may mean that the number after the name causes people who would otherwise vote yes to vote no.  Or it may mean that people who aren't going to ever get the mop have many RfAs while people who are perfect fits for the mop only have one. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just the number but the length of time that has passed since the previous nomination. A general rule of thumb: Unless it was "close" or a brand-new-editor-notnow who will be an obvious shoe-in in 4 months, I recommend waiting 6 months before your 2nd RFA, and wait until 3 months AFTER a straight-line-trajectory would have you at 80% for your next RFA.
 * For example, if you were at 40% on RFA 1 and 60% on RFA2 six months later, you "should" be at 80% after another 6 months, but I'd recommend waiting 9. If you were at 48% your first go-around and 72%/bureacrat-nixed six months later, you "should" be at 80% in 2 months, so you should wait 5.
 * The extra 3 months does several things, among them 1) it shows you aren't in a hurry, and 2) it gives you 3 more months of good recent editing to show that whatever the old objections were, they are behind you.
 * If your most recent RFA is over a year old, I will generally ignore this timetable. While I may take the issues raised at previous RFAs into account, I will discount negative information very heavily.  I'd much rather have someone who was banned by ARBCOM, reinstated a year later, edited well for a month but dared to run for RFA and got shot down in flames, then continued editing productively for 12 months than the same guy who showed poor judgment by deciding to run for admin again a mere 6 months after the first failed RFA, knowing it was likely too soon for most RFA participants.  In the first case, I'll look heavily at his last 12 months and a little at his previous behavior.  In the 2nd case that episode of poor judgment will be too recent to discount heavily. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)