Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship | Floquenbeam 2
The following thread is preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2. The final decision was that consensus exists to grant Floquenbeam access to the administrator toolkit. Please do not modify the text.

Discussion

Initiation and Acknowledgements

  • The discussion has dropped ever so slightly below 75%, and it would be improper of us to not discuss it given the overall situation as well as the unprecedented levels of participation in this discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledged I'm aware of this, will be several hours before I can even begin the review. — xaosflux Talk 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledging for the same reason as Xaosflux, although it might be between 24-48 hours before I can opine given the time I have available and the masses of text there is to read. But there is no rush. What I will say right now, however, is that we should, as always, not become carried away by pure numbers; 326/116/15 would be 163/58/8 if halved and would not be an issue. As I have said before, "sheer number of opposition" is countered by "sheer number of support" and vice versa. Acalamari 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it's been 48 hours and I've not yet posted anything, this is to confirm that, yes, I will still be giving my determination of Floquenbeam's candidacy. All being well, I'll have it delivered with the next 24 hours. Acalamari 23:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've seen this. It's going to take awhile to read the entire RFA, though. Useight (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a couple of hours of pouring over this RFA, I'm mentally drained. I haven't quite finished reading everything, but I'm relatively close. I hope to complete my assessment twelve or fifteen hours from now. Useight (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I have also seen this. That said, from only a quick scan of the RfA, there are not a lot of explanations in the support column, and a lot on Floq's previous experience. We aren't just judging the promotion of an administrator, but the repromotion of an administrator which makes the job harder to determine what to take into account. I will be taking the previous experience supports into account, but with less weight than those who explained themselves.
As for a timeline for me getting to this, I'll need a few days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crat Commentary

This isn't ArbCom, feel free to reply to ourselves in any section.

Dweller

  • I'm inclined to promote. Don't have much time currently to elaborate as much as I'd like, but here's a quick version. While I note the WP:100 opposition, I also note the WP:300 support - indeed we've never had an RfX with so many supports, even in the days when mass participation was more common. There are a few very weakly put opposes (and at least one that is frivolous and should be disregarded), but only a few. The vast majority are well-put, relevant and strongly argued, including the "per XXXX" comments, which we should weigh as heavily as XXXX's comment. However, I just can't get over the sheer weight of the support, which, remember, means supporting the nomination and requires no further argument. There is an unprecedented mass of editors here, a net of more than 200. In an RfX with lower participation, a net of 200 (say 212-12 or 250-50) would be a cakewalk. As this is in the discretion zone, I think this is an argument that is very very hard to overlook. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at WP:RFA include a footnote, which reads "Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers." Over the years that I've been a bureaucrat, this has been accepted as community consensus. If the community wishes to change that consensus, that'd be fine and we should amend our reading of consensus in RfX discussions accordingly, but at this point in time, we have to weigh unexplained opposes differently from unexplained supports.

The text was added by Lourdes in 2016, following the comments by several Crats, notably WJBscribe, in this Crat Chat, when this issue was last raised. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some discussion on the talk page about reconfirmation RfAs, I half remembered something about how we handle them and I couldn't find it on WP:RfA, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures or WP:RESYSOP. So I've had a look back at a couple of old Cratchats, and found it quite quickly, cited by Maxim in SarekOfVulcan's reconfirmation Cratchat. Maxim said, "Reconfirmation RfAs: traditionally, some leniency has been given, especially percentage-wise, as a former admin may attract opposition that is nowhere near objective in their reasoning.". Writ Keeper challenged that such an argument should not mean that the discretionary range should be lower, to which Maxim had no response. This particular RfA, by contrast, is right at the top of the discretionary range. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux

In reviewing this RfA and the associated talk pages I feel it is important to frame what I have considered in the primary scope of RfA and what I do not. I am applying less weight to discussion points that stray from this purpose (and full weight to ones that are on point).

I see that the primary purpose of RfA is to determine if a person has the trust of the community to: perform administrative duties with due care and with sound judgement; have and will continue to maintain a high standard of conduct; be accountable for their actions; maintain account security.

I do not see actions by or investigations in to other parties (e.g. Fram, WJBscribe, the WMF Foundation) as germane to determining the consensus of this discussion. The only WMF related item that I would have deferred to was the 30 day prohibition on having admin access, which has expired.

I do not see debate over if this request should have been at BN or RFA as very relevant, there is no policy reason that Floquenbeam should not have been allowed to request administrator access at Requests for Adminship, no editor was required to participate in the discussion so any 'waste of time' considerations are of little consideration to me as well. We do not have a 'reconfirmation' process for administrators, and I don't consider the strength of consensus required on this RfA to require a higher standard then any other RfA.

I am still evaluating the hundreds of comments against these criteria, and am open to feedback from my fellow 'crats regarding these or other weighting factors. — xaosflux Talk 13:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have finished reviewing all of the discussion. Thank you to all of the editors who took time to contribute in this matter. As I called out above, the primary purpose of this discussion is to determine if Floquenbeam can be trusted in the factors relevant to adminship. This RfA is unusual in that the candidate has a lengthy and recent history of administrator actions to refer to - but so do other editors via slightly different mechanisms (NAC closings, assisting users in various forums, anti-vandalism, etc etc etc). The primary supporting rationale's that I found most relevant were those that spoke to Floquenbeam's trustworthiness to exercise administrator access appropriately in the future. The primary opposition rationale's I found most relevant were the opposite - those that do not currently have such trust. An additional emerging concern from the opposition is regarding concerns that Floquenbeam may fail to maintain a high standard of conduct. While this conduct concern was not insignificant, there was not a consensus for this to be a deciding factor. I did not find concerns about article contributions to be a significant factor in this discussion. After applying a weighting criteria to each comment, I believe that a consensus to promote exists. As with any RfA, the candidate is encouraged to review the opposition's feedback carefully to help guide future interactions. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useight

First, to state the obvious, this RFA finished at the high end of the discretionary zone, at 74% (or 73.7% if you want to get technical). However, I found this to be far closer than that percentage would be in a vacuum. When I read RFAs for consensus, I always start with the Oppose section. I like to get a feel for the strength of the opposes first. In this case, I'm pretty confident that this is the strongest opposition I've ever seen - both collectively and individually. That is to say, yes, the sheer volume of opposes is on another level. But more than that, the number (both raw and percentage) of solid, well-thought, oppose rationales completely impressed me. I wanted to even specifically thank some individuals in the oppose section for taking the amount of time to write up their thoughts so well, but the list got too long and I was afraid I was going to forget some people. Not to mention the fact that there was only one self-proclaimed "weak oppose" in the group.

After reading the Oppose section, then I read the Neutral section. People in the Neutral section often talk about leaning one way or the other, so I like to know if it's sprinkled more with "semi-support" or "semi-oppose", for lack of a better term. While there was certainly some of that in this RFA, I found the Neutral section to be surprisingly, well, neutral.

I go over the Support section last, knowing whether or not the supports have to be exceptionally strong to "overcome the opposition," if you will, to achieve consensus for or against the promotion of the candidate. In the case of this particular RFA, the support needed to be off the charts. Reading the Support section took a very long time. In a Support section, there are often a lot of very simple supports. Perhaps even just a word and a signature. And that's fine, that's been accepted as "per nom" for ages. But there were a lot (not all, obviously) of those kinds of supports that then came back and expounded upon their reasoning, which is atypical. The supports weren't unanimously trumpeting the candidate, but many noted they were willing to look past the past for one reason or another, and there were many walls of text explaining their reasoning that I don't normally see so frequently in the support section. And, like the oppose section, only one person's opinion was self-described as "weak" (though, to be fair, there was also a "reluctant.")

TL;DR: Long story short, the opposers were very opposing, the supporters were very supporting, and the "neutralers" were very neutral. It was a very long read, though a read that thoroughly impressed me with the effort and consideration put in by so many people.

So, that all being said, my assessment is that consesus exists to promote. Now, it required a monumental amount of support (both in quantity and quality), and I believe it got it - but not by a lot. Not by nearly as much as one would think with the 74% support rate. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany

First, I would like to make it clear that my role here is to determine whether a consensus to promote exists. It is up to the community, and not the bureaucrats, to evaluate the candidate.

The vast majority of the opposition was related to the candidate's actions in re the matter of Fram. Though in my capacity as bureaucrat I neither agree nor disagree with the rationale expressed in these !votes, I believe that the !votes are based on a reasonable interpretation of WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK, and WP:OFFICE. I note that WP:OFFICE was tagged as policy at the time the events in question took place. As such, I give these "oppose" !votes full weight.

There are a handful of "oppose" !votes that stem primarily from prior interactions with the candidate while the candidate was acting in good faith as an administrator. I am discounting these votes since most former administrators attract such opposition. There are several other opposes that are not firmly grounded in policy that focus primarily on the manner and timing with which the RFA was initiated.

This places the support/oppose ratio at the very top of the discretionary range. I think that the widespread participation makes the community's will clear, and therefore believe that a consensus exists to promote. UninvitedCompany 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warofdreams

Several bureaucrats have already written considered summaries of their analysis of the discussion, and I feel it's superfluous to reproduce what has already been said several times. Having reviewed the discussion and associated talk page, I find a consensus to promote, with Xaosflux and Useight's summaries in particular representing my views. Warofdreams talk 10:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acalamari

Save for less than a handful of really weak or outright troll comments, the opposition are united in their reasons for opposing Floquenbeam; to summarize my thoughts about the opposition, I agree with what Dweller and Useight stated. By contrast, a non-trivial number of the support comments appeared to be more anti-WMF rather than offering an argument to restore adminship to Floquenbeam; I found it difficult to give such supports the same weight as well-thought out, policy-backed opposition. There were several of those supporting who expressed strong misgivings about Floquenbeam's conduct; Ymblanter's support, for example, backed up several of the opposition's points and was constructed in such a way that at first I thought it was an oppose placed in the wrong section before I read the last sentence. Other supporters, such as AGK, also agree with many of those in opposition, even if he himself chose to express a seemingly hesitant support. Overall, I felt there was an enthusiasm gap between the camps, in that the opposition were much more confident in their decision than the supporters were in theirs.

This combination in the support section mixed with the well-argued opposition leads me to interpret Floquenbeam's candidacy as no consensus. Acalamari 01:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz

Similar to WOD, I will not restate what others have said. I have read and re-read the supports, opposes, and neutrals. Reasonable minds can differ, and there are certainly many reasonable minds on all three sides of this discussion. That said, a difference of opinion is not the same thing as a lack of consensus. Based on both the substance and weight of the supports, I find a consensus to promote. MBisanz talk 02:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals

WTT recused
  • Well this is rather a pain. As an arb, I'm currently looking at the Fram case. I've also made a few statements on the matter, including one stating that I expected Floq would sail through an RfA. Looks like I was wrong on that count. I'm happy to read through and weigh up consensus, but will consider requests for recusal too. WormTT(talk) 22:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm, I've always appreciated the chance to read your opinion on things, but as a previous arb, I was frequently subject to more information about situations and users than the public. It's why I rarely ever voted on RfAs as an arb. Given this has one particular situation that arbs have on their docket exploded into detail, I think recusal is the best. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Amanda (and to those on the talk page). I'm good at spotting when I have an actual conflict, but prefer advice in situations where I have a perceived conflict. I'm happy to recuse. Have fun fellow 'crats. WormTT(talk) 06:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now moved myself into the recuse section. I don't envy the task of the 'crats, weighing consensus over such a large number - and trying to extract the question of "should this individual be an administrator" from the "should the Foundation have blocked Fram". Combine that with the old "reconfirmation RfAs" dilemma, you have a perfect storm. This is what the 'crats are here for - and why we need them. Perhaps I'll go and nominate another one WormTT(talk) 07:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've voiced opinions on the topic of Fram's ban, and on the status of the people who took admin or bureaucrat actions related to the case. In light of my involvement, I think the most appropriate action for me here is to recuse. --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Consensus to promote
Dweller, xaosflux, Useight, UninvitedCompany, Warofdreams, MBisanz
No consensus to promote
Acalamari
Recused
Deskana, Nihonjoe, xeno, Worm That Turned
Indicated intent to participate in Bureaucrat chat but have not yet done so
DeltaQuad
Other
Primefac (opened discussion, will likely close)

Moving to closure

With Deskana @DeltaQuad: being away, no indication of future participation from @Primefac:, an no other 'crats joining - I'm moving to close this out in favor of promotion in about 8 hours, barring any continued discussion or crat objections. While in a minority objection, I do agree with some of the points that Acalamari has made: that the opposition was more focused on factors directly related to the topic of RfA review (by percentage of participants in the section) and that there were contributions that strayed a ways from that question throughout. Despite, or perhaps because, of some of the discussion swaying off-topic I feel we kept the focus of this closure on the primary objective of determining if there is a community consensus meeting the traditional levels of strength required for administrator promotions. — xaosflux Talk 03:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fix ping to DeltaQuad, errantly entered Deskana above initially. — xaosflux Talk 03:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Xaosflux's move to close. Acalamari 09:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not voiced my opinions specifically to allow for closure. I will be doing so later today barring any oddities. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: sounds good, you can put the bow on it. — xaosflux Talk 11:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were contributions that strayed a ways from that question throughout. Agreed. Useight (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close

There is a strong consensus between the bureaucrats that the RFA to restore Floquenbeam's administrative privileges was successful. I've been thinking about witty, pithy, or "deep" statements to make here, but I think there have already been enough words spoken across this entire process. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread is preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of this discussion or the related nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2/Bureaucrat_chat&oldid=909118950"