Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SashiRolls (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 16 December 2024 (cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Leaving a !vote whose entire rationale was deemed a policy violation

@Theleekycauldron: you've made the determination that no part of Tony's !vote could/should be preserved. Given current community expectations I don't think there's a basis for leaving it for voting purposes without it. Instead it could be removed entirely with a "there's a version of this that doesn't violate expectations you could make; this wasn't it but you're welcome to revote in a way that respects those expectations" message rather than the community monitoring saying that for whatever it gets left behind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm only empowered to remove the !vote as a monitor where the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position. My judgment is that it was impossible to preserve the core argument of the vote while removing the inappropriate text, but not necessarily that the core argument was inappropriate. I would have probably preserved an oppose that looked something like:

I oppose Hog Farm becoming an administrator because I consider the act of starting an RfA when one has right of resysop to be conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

If TonyBallioni wants to write something like that, they're more than free to do so. If you don't think that's a reasonable rationale and think the vote should be struck, you're more than free do to so as well per WP:MONITOR. I'd be neutral on that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not better, it's more vague, which is worse. Levivich (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

TonyBallioni's oppose

1. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   Tony, I would greatly appreciate it if you struck your implication that this is out of arrogance or that this is intended to be an "ego boost" - I can promise you this is not the case here. As I partially noted at Barkeep's talk page, I truly expected opposition over the issues with the roads discussions (in hindsight, the editors who objected to me there have mostly left for their own wiki, which is probably why there aren't more concerns arising from that), so it didn't feel right to ask at BN. Hog Farm _Talk 19:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   I stand by my comment and opposition on those grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   This seems like a straightforward violation of WP:AGF, and for that matter an aspersion without the required evidence; can you supply any evidence that this was HF’s reason? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) This is a basic failure to assume good faith, and as such I've removed the rationale. I was very close to removing the !vote itself, but I don't think the reasoning is entirely irrational, even if it's mostly irrelevant to Hog Farm's fitness for the mop. Note that this is a monitor action and WP:RAAA applies. Feel free to rewrite your vote in a way that does not violate any conduct policies, and this should also be considered an informal conduct warning. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   @Innisfree987 and Theleekycauldron: I had written a reply before the removal, but there's no AGF violation here and I really do not appreciate my comment being removed for a "conduct policy violation". AGF does not prohibit us from providing critical feedback. I disagree with the waste of time argument, but it is getting at the same thing: someone with the presumed right to go to BN and request the tools back instead asking the community to spend time proactively supporting their resumption of the tools is not acting with humility, they are acting with arrogance. Even if that was not the intent, the conduct itself is arrogant.I don't mind assuming that HogFarm didn't intend for it to come off that way, most of the time people don't plan to act that way. We all think that our actions are perfectly reasonable when we do them (or at least I would hope that we do.) That doesn't change the fact that people can perceive them in a different way, and commenting on that is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. So, I'll repeat: I don't consider these to be a waste of time. Rather, I consider them to be demonstrating an arrogance that makes someone unfit to be an admin. People are free to disagree with me, you both apparently do, but saying Someone filing an RFA with strong opposition not reasonably expected is not a waste or time or an act of humility, its an act of arrogance and more or less amounts to the candidate requesting an ego boost is absolutely not an AGF violation. It is a criticism of the candidate that should be a part of the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: Hog Farm presented you with the opportunity to say you didn't think his nomination was intended to be an "ego boost", but you instead said that you stood by your original vote. And if you think he wasn't intending to be arrogant, are you just opposing the appearance, or do you have something substantive to comment on? I left some thoughts in the talk thread above this one on what I think a preservable version of your core argument would look like; if it's amenable to you, feel free to use it. I don't think either of us wants to cause any more back-and-forth than there needs to be. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   theleekycauldron, and I do stand by it - I consider the action to be arrogant. The intent is largely irrelevant if the conduct itself is objectionable. Like I said, most people don't intend to act in an arrogant manner, but often after the fact we learn that others perceived it that way. My core contention is that acting in that way is a problem because administrators should be humble and respectful of community processes. I'm not really sure how to reword my comment to be suitable to you, as the example you provided doesn't actually get at what I am trying to say. I don't think there's a policy prohibition on saying that conduct is arrogant and describing the impacts, and I think we should be able to say that in an RfA as it does have implications on suitability for adminship. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   I respect Hog Farm, Tony, and leeky. I also think everyone needs to calm down. In no way did Tony's comment rise to the level of a policy violation, and removing his comment seems to me to be, well, snowflakey. I also do not think that Hog Farm has acted in an arrogant manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   Not only was it not a policy violation, but we currently have the misleading impression that Tony opposed with no rationale at all. I knew that Tony wouldn't do that, but only after going through the article's history did I find his original rationale. This is a mess. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   I have to agree. I certainly participated in the debate about whether the RfA is necessary, but I don't see this particular discussion solving any problems. Unless someone thinks there's something that can come out of this, I ask everyone to consider taking it in stride and decide it's not important enough to start a huge dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Theleekycauldron — I added a much longer comment. I’d originally kept it short to avoid unnecessary unhurt feelings and to avoid giving the impression I was more opposed than I actually was, but here we are. I agree with Tryptofish above that this isn’t a huge deal and everyone should move on, but I would appreciate if you struck the warning you issued above. There wasn’t a policy violation and if I ever get back to editing more frequently I’d rather not have someone citing a diff saying I’d been warned for user conduct violations by an arb. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Well, I made my warning based on what I saw at the time, although your new comment is better and I appreciate that. Hog Farm said to you, I would greatly appreciate it if you struck your implication that this is out of arrogance or that this is intended to be an "ego boost". Do you regret the way you responded to that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: the problem is that nothing I said is a violation of any policy as the consensus both here and on the main RfA page shows. You shouldn’t have removed the original comment to begin with and the warning was uncalled for because there wasn’t a policy violation on the page by me then or now. And no, I don’t regret my response - while HF might have not meant it that way, I gave perfectly valid reason to oppose and was trying to avoid a long back-and forth. Like Levivich noted above, your actual proposed solution was worse as it didn’t give any reason to oppose. The policy allows you to remove votes when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position. There was no policy violation, much less a significant one, you didn’t revdel as it doesn’t fall under that policy so the redaction clause isn’t true, and now in spite of basically everyone saying you overreacted you’re asking me if I’m sorry? This really isn’t that big of a deal, but it is concerning that you’re not willing to admit you’re wrong in face of a pretty clear consensus otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• I really agree with what Tony said (and Barkeep on the main page). These sort of vanity re-RfAs are only ever done by users who are obviously still in good standing, and while the intent behind them can be nice/democratic/whatever, it ends up being a poor use of volunteer time and just unnecessary. I don't believe there is any AGF violation here, AGF doesn't apply if Tony is talking about the impression that an action gives rather than the intent behind it.

I also think it is somewhat ironic that people, including the candidate, are taking issue with this comment. Hog Farm has created this re-RfA presumably to get feedback, they get feedback, but I guess this wasn't the type of feedback they were looking for? On-wiki or elsewhere in my life I would take a comment like Tony's pretty seriously, especially if it seemed like someone was interpreting my actions differently than I thought or if it seemed like I was unintentionally stepping on toes. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I supported this RfA because Hog Farm is an excellent contributor and the time wasted on reconfirmation is fairly trivial. However am pretty disapointed at the rapid censorship of opposing viewpoints which has become the standard for RfA's. I don't mean to criticise theleekycauldron, who is simply enforcing current RfA norms. But surely we as a community can agree there's no policy violation in giving critical feedback to an RfA candidate, especially where it takes exception to an action relevant to adminship. Are we really that snowflakey (to use Tryptofish's word) that such feedback must be immediately blanked or relegated to a more obscure page? It's not good for comunity consensus-building and it doesn't help the RfA candidate in explaining their actions or establishing confidence in their approach. Again: Hog Farm was/will be a great admin and theleekycauldron is just doing their job as the communtiy expects it done. But overall, the way we're currently handling critical feedback is a net negative to the RfA process. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Concurring with Ajraddatz. I also support Tony's comment above and I criticize the monitoring. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes) - to prevent further subjective and/or excessive interpretation of the new monitoring policy, maybe its wording could be tightened up to be less vague; 'admin discretion' is also subject to accountability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Read to me as a personal attack which was doubled down. No one was *required* to attend this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Everyone's (except Goldsztajn, who hadn't commented at the time I wrote this) saying that they support the edited comment, but has anyone checked the page history to see the original stricken comment? Here it is for context:

Not because I necessarily consider it a waste of time, but I’ve always found these as a show of arrogance rather than humility. The only reason people submit these is because they know they’re going to pass and it more or less becomes them requesting an ego boost. This will pass, but I think it’s worth publicly stating that this is a negative recent trend.

The original version deserved to be stricken, and leeky's warning shouldn’t be retracted, as it directly accuses HogFarm of "show arrogance" (a WP:NPA violation in both the comment and the edit summary) and seeking an "ego boost" (a failure of WP:AGF). The poster doubled down when asked to retract. The new version is better because it critiques RRfAs in general, without accusing HogFarm of showing their supposed arrogance by starting one, and removes the ego-boost comment. I’m glad the commenter improved their phrasing, but I endorse the original removal and keeping the warning. MolecularPilot 03:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You’ll note that the one that was removed specifically critiqued RRFAs in general, did not accuse HF of seeking an ego boost (I said RRFAs more or less become an ego boost, not that HF was seeking one) and was worded the way it was to intentionally avoid being a personal attack, but rather a criticism of the actions. The new version in my opinion is actually worse because it’s longer and makes it seem like a much stronger oppose than this actually is. The other issue is that the fact that so many others don’t view it as a PA means that it’s not a clear violation of any policy — monitors shouldn’t be removing valid opinions that aren’t clear policy violations. The disagreement on this shows it doesn’t meet that standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think saying it's a "show of arrogance" implies that one has arrogance to show, and by opening one, is displaying it, but just saying "RRfAs are arrogant" isn't pointed towards someone directly. Regardless, I understand your point, but both monitoring and issuing warnings are subject to admin discretion - and how would we define what a "clear policy violation" is? MolecularPilot 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there’s a pretty big distinction between “HF is arrogant” and “RRFAs are shows of arrogance.” The former is a personal attack, the second is a criticism of an action, which is not and has never been prohibited by any of our user conduct policies. We’re supposed to be commenting on the actions of the RfA candidate, in this case, yes, I think the way they acted displayed arrogance because of all the reasons I listed in my comment on the main page. That’s why I opposed. It’d be silly for me to oppose if I didn’t think my general criticism applied in this case.Re: clear cut, obviously it’s discretion but the policy only allows removal for significant policy violations. If this was a PA, which I maintain it wasn’t, it was a relatively mild one at worst phrased in what I would consider a pretty civil manner. Monitors have discretion, but were allowed to criticize their use of it and argue that they didn’t use it well, as I think was the case here.What it comes down to are that people disagree with me on this — which is reasonable and fine. I understand why people disagree. The solution to that is engaging in dialogue like we are now, not removing an oppose that was specifically worded to focus on actions and somewhat ironically assuming bad faith of someone while removing what they wrote claiming an AGF violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The only reason people is ... ... an ego-boost. What if we substituted "make and then double down on personal attacks that would get most folks blocked" for "do x"? -- SashiRolls 07:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)