Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MelanieN

A bizarre reason for opposition. Can you explain your rationale. Please use English. Irondome (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

People who pledge to be open to recall are doing it to win over the masses, and pledging to do so is an inherently untrustworthy act. Because the last step in any recall action is "convince the person holding the tools to give up the tools," the ONLY step in recall is "convince the person holding the tools to give up the tools," and thus every admin is "open to recall." Until such time as recall pledges can be made binding, they define a promise made in either reasoned bad faith or inexcusable ignorance. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable. I love the concept of "the masses" by the way. Irondome (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll want to review the history of pledges to be open to recall - you should probably start with Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_164#Recall_blanket_voting, which leads to the major citations of people saying that pestering RFA candidates about recall is disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Same reply. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not my habit to badger opposers, but I find this line of thought very difficult to follow. I can't fathom why somebody would criticise a prospective admin for being open to recall because they don't trust their word, but then equally (indeed, more stridently) criticise an admin (yes, me, for the purposes of full disclosure) who actually puts their money where their mouth is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see my name on the linked page? Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think hipocrite is criticizing the candidate for being open to recall. Rather, they are (a) making the point that recall is a meaningless concept (a fair point imo if you think about it though this is not the appropriate forum to make that point), and (b) expressing their dislike for the response the candidate made. No response at all would have gained hipocrite's support (other things being equal). I serious doubt if this !vote will be counted by crats (mostly a sensible bunch of people!) so beyond our gaining an insight into hipocrite's thinking processes this is all quite meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 23:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite messaged me earlier today and told me that asking candidates about recall is considered to be "disruptive and unhelpful", but I'm still not fully convinced... --Biblioworm 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought recall questions are asked at about every RfA. It's certainly a common question. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the last year of successful RFAs. There were 24 RFAs excluding one reconfirm. Of those, 3 candidates mentioned recall without directly being asked, 7 were asked directly, and 14 were not asked and did not proffer. That's not "about every," it's "a minority." If you excluded one habitual asker of the question, it skewes even more to the prior consensus that "this question is bad and should not be asked." Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a question that's been asked a lot, but I don't know that it's at all helpful. At this point, it's essentially a question of the user's policy preference and has little relevance to actual practice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a better reason for objecting to the recall process. If someone is genuinely open to recall (which I firmly believe is possible), they've already proven themselves to be willing to modify their behaviour in response to criticism; why not just tell them to shape up or take a hike, rather than restricting them to "taking a hike"? Suppose there were a similar process for non-admins called "editor recall". This is obviously silly--because you don't tell an editor to leave (or request a block, which might be a better analogy) if they're being disruptive, you tell them to stop being disruptive; and if they don't listen, you take the issue to the relevant noticeboards (that is, if just blocking them isn't an option). Encouraging a different standard for admins makes little sense, especially since it's non-binding and therefore just a nice-sounding promise that, yes, could be done in bad faith as a slimy-politician-style move to win over the voters. All that said, Occam's razor and AGF would seem to dictate that most people pledging to be open to recall are doing it because they believe it's a good thing to do. Given that, the only negative thing it might indicate is a lack of ability to think things like this through, and even that is hard to prove with such thin evidence. I would rather we try to draw a conclusion from the candidate's other contributions before we factor in recall pledges. Unlike with real politicians, this isn't a situation where we have nothing to judge her on but her platform. Finally, keep in mind that "winning over the masses" isn't always dishonest: RFA standards are high and sometimes border on arbitrary, so candidates who know what they're doing try hard to meet voters' expectations, no matter how silly or empty they may seem. Such efforts indicate someone who is either knowledgeable or slimy; lacking other evidence of sliminess, AGF suggests the former. ekips39 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand the recall process, why get into all that stuff and the "criteria" nonsense before you're an admin. Of course when it comes to my !vote, the candidate's views on recall means very little to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest we cease discussing this. This is neither the time nor the place. After the present RfA's are concluded, we can take this to the RfA board. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like we got carried away with our opinions on recall questions, not having direct connection with the !vote. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I got carried away. I should have put my wall of text on the talk page to begin with, but everyone else was commenting on the project page... oh well, live and learn. ekips39 02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Questions about recall are counter productive. Whatever the candidate says is going to be met with an oppose vote. FWIW I can't recall in recent times when recall was invoked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Hypocrite You have several times spoken about a consensus. I have dug up a relatively ancient thread Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:ANI). Is this the consensus you are referring to? Irondome (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the question other than it being a silly question that will not tell you much about the person. Pretty much any admin candidate is going to say something along the lines of being accountable to the community. Recall is voluntary anyways, if you don't trust the user to be a good admin then why would you trust them to step down voluntarily? If a person is not trustworthy then they will just tell you what you want to hear and then refuse to follow it if it every comes up.

It is beyond my comprehension how opposing someone for answering the question is in any way based in reason. Chillum 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What's it based in, then? I state that anyone who pledges to be open to recall is either pandering, which is bad, or uninformed about what they just promised, which is bad. I'm looking for the third alternative. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they understand that despite their best efforts to act in good faith that they may fail to be a good administrator in the eyes of the community and are willing to step down if that is the case? Did this really not occur to you as a possibility? Neither of your two possibilities assumes good faith very well, you assume they are either vindictive or uninformed. Chillum 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A candidate saying "I know I'm fallible, and if I fail, I'll resign," is a very different thing then "I promise to be accountable via this false mechanism that actually avoids any accountability." Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you did your homework and read Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests you would see that plenty of admins have in fact voluntarily stepped down due to these recall requests. I think you are being a bit cynical about our candidate. Chillum 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That page is a farce. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So what would be your proposals on attempting to fix the situation? I am aware there was activity on this some years ago, but there is no point just passively bemoaning it. What are your proposals, or can you no longer be arsed to improve the situation? I'm serious. I tend to agree with the element of cynicism showed mentioned by User:Chillum. Are you burnt out on the issue or do you wish for change? Irondome (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets see - from most recently proposed to least recently proposed - community de-adminship, a deadminship panel, time-limited adminship, junior adminship, and arbcom enforcing campaign promises all seem to be workable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: At first I said I could not see the oppose rational being based on reason. I will amend that in now I see that the reasons include cynicism and a dislike of a voluntary process. I will also say that opposing someone's RfA because they answered a question about a process you don't like is very poor taste.

For the record several admins have signed up for the recall process after RfA. You act like it is a campaigning tool when the candidate did not even bring the subject up. Chillum 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I could care less about the people who sign up after their RfA's - I mean, the huge, vast majority of them will merely say "Oh, I'm not open to recall anymore" when the heat is on, but yeah, once they have adminship for life, who cares what pretty letters they put on their user pages? Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot reconcile myself to your line of thinking. Chillum 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when that would come up. Adminship is not "for life", as various people (incl. myself) pointed out at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn. If you want to criticise the RfA process, don't do so by criticising a RfA candidate. That gets you nowhere. More so, don't knock a candidate on the grounds that you don't see an easy means to desysop them if they get elected. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The number of people listed here should lead to the conclusion that, indeed, adminship is not for life and can actually be taken away. Continuing to assert that adminship is for life even though many admins have had to return their keys is basically saying that admins, arbcom, or both are doing something shady in order to avoid desysopping enough people, and that would take a great deal more evidence than has been presented here. Also, what Redrose64 said--whether or not adminship is for life doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether a particular candidate would be any good. Finally, the current ratio of supports to opposes is a pretty sure sign that Melanie will pass anyway, so this discussion probably won't affect the result (so why am I bothering to add more words to it?). ekips39 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Ekips39 The discussion has gone beyond Mel's RfA. Upthread User:Hipocrite suggests some proposals for repairing or at least discussing certain approaches to dealing with this issue that we can maybe take to the appropriate board. If some actual good can come out of this, it would be a huge result. Your words are not wasted at all. Regards Irondome (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I take these points seriously, and would like to see them as a basis for more constructive discussion on this vexed subject. I paste the proposals verbatim.

Lets see - from most recently proposed to least recently proposed - community de-adminship, a deadminship panel, time-limited adminship, junior adminship, and arbcom enforcing campaign promises all seem to be workable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we run with any of these? I would like to initiate a more positive dialogue. I would be interested in User:Kudpungs input as well, if Chris can spare a moment on revisting what is obviously a well trodden path. Consensus can always change colleagues. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would only be in favour of community deadminship if there were a fixed set of criteria used to determine whether a !vote should be counted (similar to WP:ATA and WP:AAAD, but officially enforced). Enforcing campaign promises could be good too. Don't know about the others; I'd need more details. ekips39 02:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place, though I'll have plenty say after the event, and so I think should anyone else. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrew has bought up a legitimate point about the candidate's track record at AfD. I thought it would be useful to examine the recent record of activity in this area. The stats for MelanieN's AfDs are here, and from examining that, we can see the following calls that differed from the final result:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White - Andrew's covered that one. Withdrawn by MelanieN after notability demonstrated.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Courrier de Floride - rescued by doncram, withdrawn by MelanieN
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Somerville - weak delete !vote though a search for sources was undertaken. Closed as keep by czar.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind Tour - improved by Noyster, withdrawn by MelanieN
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Allen Chapman - closed as keep by J04n. Disagreement over the level of standard required for WP:CRIME.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill (2nd nomination) - withdrawn by MelanieN in favour of a merge with other articles
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Marie Somers - as above
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ContentBridge - a lengthy debate, closed as merge. MelanieN did not believe there was any legitimate merge target.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartnett House - closed as "move"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Chaney - closed as delete, MelanieN believed there was a borderline case for WP:ENT
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathon Pharmaceuticals - closed as keep by Davewild, who noted the notability was borderline
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Hospitals - closed as delete by Drmies as consensus was the sources MelanieN provided did not provide significant enough coverage

Others may disagree, but in my view, although these AfDs can all be considered "mistakes", they are all what I would consider to be marginal cases, where individual editors dispute the application of a particular policy, such as a level of "significant coverage" in sources or an appropriate alternative action to deletion. In several of them, MelanieN withdrew her nomination and apologised. I'd be interested to hear other views on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your 'mistakes' comment. If we had editors who could correctly predict the outcome of an AfD, we could merely let those editors delete at will without going through the AfD process, confident in their accuracy! But, I believe Andrew is more concerned about the mistaken deletion prods and AfDs of articles created by newbie editors. That concern is a valid one. Combined with MelanieN's response to Q5 it does appear that the candidate has a sort of newbie bias that they might want to bear in mind as an admin. Disclosure. I was a newbie editor who registered on Wikipedia to create a few new articles. All of those articles are still here! :)--regentspark (comment) 11:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to Ritchie for providing a systematic analysis. I had skimmed some of these cases myself but it's quite a chore to lay out the detail like that. My impression is that Melanie is quite a regular new page patroller and, as often happens, has been hardened by having to deal with so much dross. When the occasional deserving case comes along she is perhaps then too mechanical or brusque in dealing with it. The new editor has quite a different perception, as it's the first time for them, and so they are outraged by such treatment of their good faith, but naive work. Getting the balance right is quite important in such cases as it's easy to drive off hundreds of new editors if their handling is too rough. See Encyclopedia Frown ... Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them. This attitude comes from the fact that some of these intruders are indeed trolls, partisans, paid hacks, or incompetents. Many, however, are not dangerous and run screaming from Wikipedia after receiving a hostile welcome.

  — David Auerbach

Sorry to crash the talk page, but I appreciate the detailed analysis of my editing patterns you have done here, and I wanted to respond to this discussion with a couple of "lessons learned". It's true that with the article Thomas Blanco White, I was too quick on the trigger with PROD and again with AfD. In part I was distracted by the fact (irrelevant to notability) that the article was in terrible shape. But the real problem was the one identified by Andrew D.: you have a different perspective while doing New Pages Patrol. You get into a kind of rhythm, with the result that you may not give an individual article the attention it deserves, and you may resort to Twinkle too quickly. I'll watch out for that in the future.

Also, regentspark and others have suggested that I may have an anti-newbie bias. I don't think I do in general (you should see how gentle I am with newbies who ask why their page was deleted; Peridon often asks me to come to his talk page and counsel them). But I do have the pattern that if I am trying to locate problem edits or articles, I look first at those contributed by brand new users. (Most of them, 90% or more, are OK or fixable; but some are so bad they are the reason why Speedy Deletion was created.) Maybe that approach has tainted my feelings about newbie contributions in general, without my realizing it. I'll try to watch out for that also.--MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We're probably all overthinking this. More likely, we all exhibit some impatience with newbies (like when we revert a new editor's hopeful contribution without comment) and should all pay more attention to how we deal with people who may not know the importance of sourcing or the need to clearly demonstrate notability. I shouldn't have singled you out as an anti-newbie editor (especially considering Jim Carter's impassioned plea!). My apologies. --regentspark (comment) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To back Melanie up on this, I wouldn't expect a 100% record at AfD. In fact, I'd worry about it. I've taken things to AfD myself and been quite happy for them to be kept - after someone added some refs I hadn't found, or explained the reason why it was actually notable, or even done a complete rewrite. To my mind, it should be Articles for Discussion, not Deletion. Calling it Articles for Deletion biases some people. I spend a lot of time here deleting things, but I also give a lot of advice and explanation to newbies, and as Melanie says, I call on her because I know that she enjoys the challenge of rescuing things, and will be gentle with the newbie if the thing is beyond hope. Unlike some, she doesn't fight tooth and nail for a deletion. Anyone who can ask for an extension to a discussion in the hope of a rescue isn't attacking newbies. I'm also sure that if someone asks for something to be restored, she'll userfy it for them (subject to the usual no-nos of attack, hoax, copyvio and pure spam...), and give good advice on what to do to with it. And before anyone says that if it can be rescued later that it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, it's amazing what gentle discussion over a few days can bring out that wasn't obvious in the first place. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I accept that Melanie may usually be quite reasonable but it does little harm to be reminded of our fallibility. Please take my words in the way described by Tertullian, "Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ei a tergo: Respice post te! Hominem te memento!" ([the emperor] is reminded when riding in his triumphal chariot, 'Look around you! Remember that you are just a man!') Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I had just assumed this !vote was jokingly labeled "Oppose", given a rationale like "Should have run for rfa earlier given obvious aptitude for the job".—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I totally agree. And I also want to highlight that an RFA sometimes makes a person "un-confident". As my own RFA is going on at the same time, I have been thinking twice-thrice-(or many more times) before replying to it. But, I feel, it was as joke comment, and not an actual "oppose" - Tito☸Dutta 23:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm sure I saw a few pseudo-opposes that weren't taken literally at my RFA. Oh no, time for a recount.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've restored it to the support section, where Tito put it originally. By all means trout me if I'm mistaken. --Stfg (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Apparently HJ Mitchell beat me to it by around 60 seconds. Funny that: if two people make the same edit, the software appears to accept the second one too, but doesn't register it. So, trout HJM instead, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)