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.

Is this simply due to the length of tenure for the user, Foxnpichu? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Your criteria says "You may be thinking that my RfA criteria is far too low, but you have to take this into consideration- it is just a few extra buttons, and is not a trophy." which seems to contradict what you've written here. In my vote, I implied a couple of reasons I could have opposed but didn't because of their response here. Come on, let's have some decent opposes that make people think "hmm, they've got a point there", because these ultimately result in a better admin who has good constructive feedback. Coming out of an RfA with no criticism beyond "not enough edits", "not on long enough", "favourite colour is blue" doesn't mean anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

That's reductio ad absurdum commingled with appeal to ridicule, straw man, and false equivalence. Someone being a recent and/or inactive editor, without much of a track record, is an entirely reasonable opposition rationale, and not in any way comparable to nonsense like favorite color. Let's not be silly.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm supportive of discussion in RFAs, but hasn't anyone ever noticed that opposers will receive snarky or defensive replies but supporters never do? Watching people complain over the lack of substance in someone's opposition but having no issue with a support that is void of content or simply says "per above"/"looks good" is something I find extremely odd. From the perspective of a "relative newcomer" (I've been here for about a year now, but still feel relatively new) there seems to be some unspoken "romanticization" over getting perfect RFAs, otherwise I don't know what it is. I would be much more comfortable if Hog Farm became an admin with some opposition (so I'm able to read why people oppose) than passing with a perfect score – because in my mind, we all make mistakes, and perfectly passed RFAs sometimes give me the impression that people haven't looked close enough to a candidate. Aza24 ( talk) 02:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Revert me if it's not really okay for me to make a comment here on my own RFA, but I'd like to see the oppose voters not objected to unless there's an actual real question regarding the statement. From what I've seen, RFA can be a toxic place at times, and I think making an environment where you can speak your mind about issues with the candidate without being heckled will go a good deal to helping the situation. I'd like to see RFA a less heckling place, even if it means more opposes for me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Aza24: Speaking as the most recently passed unopposed RfA candidate, I can tell you that I do feel that despite the lack of opposition I was scrutinized. Interest in my userpage tracked six+ times higher on the first day of my RfA, and went even higher the next. See this. My log, which I referenced in my response to question #2, similarly saw a significant increase in views [1]. Making mistakes is perfectly normal. An unopposed RfA doesn't mean the person didn't make any observed mistakes, but perhaps rather that the editors commenting on the RfA didn't find the mistakes to be worth opposing over. Just some thoughts. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 03:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, sorry Hammersoft, I wasn't trying to say that unopposed RFA candidates are flawless, but I can't think of anywhere else in my life where I've seen 233 people support something with out a single dissenting voice. But comments like the ones on this RFA, and many others in the past, are likely a part of why something like that can happen. Sometimes I want to oppose on some answer to a question right at the beginning of an RFA just to give people who do actually oppose confidence to say so — and I wouldn't do so, because everyone would hate me for it ;). And well, I can speak about this personally; there have been at least 2 candidates in the past few months who I felt expressed no real need for admin tools, but by the time I read through the RFAs, there were 100+ supports, what's my opinion against 100 people, especially if I expect to be criticized for it? Aza24 ( talk) 04:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

    Thing is, just because there's no explicit opposers doesn't mean perfection. It can just be that nobody found a substantial enough mistake to hold the opinion that an editor shouldn't have access to sysop tools. Which is exactly what an oppose should be imo, not a compensation for supports. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 08:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Aza24, I think there's an expectation that people will !support for "I don't see any problems" rather than "I feel very good about this candidate for the following reasons..." (a sort of rebuttable presumption I guess). If "no problems" is the default, then there's something of an expectation that !opposers should be able to point out specific problems. That's how things look to me, at least, having been on both sides of the process. GeneralNotability ( talk) 04:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

GeneralNotability there certainly is, though I'm not sure this is a good thing. Since we have those big numbers here for # of supports/opposes, the idea of consensus building gets thrown out the window. In fact, the RFA page says adminship is first and foremost, a consensus-building process – so then why do we even tally the votes? We've never done such a thing at RM/TFD/CFD etc. Aza24 ( talk) 04:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

What other way do you propose as a way to determine if there is a consensus or not? It's clear that this is not a !vote but by declaring you Support or Oppose a candidate and having that tallied up makes it easier to determine it. The RfA page also says Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Jay Jay ^{What did I do?} 05:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't know; and I suppose I've been veering off of my original intent with this post, which was to note what I see as unfairness towards opposers throughout RFAs. But surely it says something about RFA that we even have a percentage mark; if numerical value was really so inferior to actual consensus I don't know why having one would be anything but a distraction. To this point, I recall somewhere that kept track of unopposed RFAs, something which I don't know why we'd really be proud of. This is why it seems a bit ingrained in the mentality of the process that numerical value is considered more than is supposed to be. Aza24 ( talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Past practice is that an unqualified support statement agrees with the rationale in the nomination statement. Since there is no opening oppose statement, those opposing are expected to provide a rationale, in order to have a discussion and not just a straight vote. As a result, disagreements with support rationales generally end up appearing in the oppose statements, and so discussion takes place there. isaacl ( talk) 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Aza24: Having been in a number of RfA's on both the opposing and supporting sides I'd say it is fairly common for those who are on the opposing side and against the majority to be scrutinized. When you think about it, what more needs to be said if you support the nomination? Clearly people have done their due diligence, read the nomination and questions and see no reason reason to oppose. There have been cases where there was a sizeable opposition to the RfA and my oppose !vote was still scrutinized. As long as the discussion is civil and stays on topic I see it as a healthy discussion especially since people often piggyback off of others oppose !votes. Just my two cents. Jay Jay ^{What did I do?} 04:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I understand entirely why people would like to scrutinise Oppose votes. As quite a new User (I was a casual IP editor for a long time and only logged in for certain reasons) it's the first time I've participated in this process, and the questions have made me realise that I need to sharpen my argument a little, or maybe I wasn't ready to wade into this (lurk moar dammit...) But, let's be honest here, a few of the replies to oppose votes have been quite harsh and non-constructive, not really conducive to a healthy discussion and could easily put off editors from getting involved. This isn't meant to be a judgemental process, it's nothing personal. Needs more cool heads Vitalis196 ( talk) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually, personally I think this is a good RfA in terms of opposes, except the very first (now struck) one. They're mostly reasoned, respectful and well worded. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree (Well I wrote one of them so I ought to agree), I'm referring to a couple of the replies to oppose votes. Vitalis196 ( talk) 13:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Those seem fine to me too, especially for iffier opposes. Generally speaking, particularly given the pile-on phenomenon, plus the whole 'discussion' part, people should expect a discussion to occur, and weak or dubious opposes especially to be challenged. A socially higher bar to opposing, as BMK refers to, is a good way to discourage frivolous opposes. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Aza24: You're right, and it's also not fair to the candidate if they see people being in effect told to sit down and stifle their concerns. I'm impressed by Hog Farm's demeanor in this RfA, including by their response to you above, for which I just thanked them. It should be the candidate's demeanor and qualifications that are on display at RfA; a good candidate doesn't need a posse intimidating those who raise issues, and isn't helped by the implication that their friends think they do. However, there was one RfA in recent history in which opposers raising valid concerns were bludgeoned unmercifully, following which the Bureaucrats went out of their way to set aside the discussion and crown the candidate even over initial disagreement by some of their members. There was then an RfC affirming that despite numerical thresholds, RfA is not a vote. So, there is no disincentive for bludgeoning opposers, and I am glad that we have had so many good candidates in the past couple of years, who have quite evidently done their best to answer questions honestly and to respond to issues raised with their candidacy. Yngvadottir ( talk) 04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not a fan of people replying to opposes with an argument, rather to have a question (see the original oppose #1 for this RfA). I think it's worth remembering how stressful an RfA can be, specifically for the candidate. For one week, you are the sole candidate for the whole of the English wikipedia to investigate. So it is important that there isn't rushed opposes based on weak reasoning, or simply because you dislike the candidate. If you dislike them, it's better to not get involved at all. The opposes in this RfA are clearly all in good faith, and the only question is that if the mistakes that have been made are a deal-breaker for someone to get the tools. In my eyes, someone being a good communicator and hard worker is much more important than the ability to not make mistakes. We all gain more experience the longer we go, but demeanour rarely changes. Looking at my RfA, the opposes were jumped on pretty hard. I'd rather these were an open discussion away from RfA conducted in good faith. As the nominator here, I obviously think Hog Farm is a fantastic editor who would be great with the tools, but certainly wouldn't want to downplay any issues that someone might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• my explanation is going to be totally out of place, as I am not sure what exactly the OP is asking as the header and content are different. But here are some of my observations (also, I did not read all of the responses):
  1. In the old days of RfA, supporting was the default AGF stance. It still is. Regarding current "per above"/"looks good" supports: a lot of the "per above" votes are actually well researched votes. Some of them think "xyz has already said what i was going to say" or "there's nothing new to add", some of the "per above" voters research the candidate very well for flaws, dont find them, and then are too lazy or dont have anything to oppose the candidate for, so they simply add "per above". Rest of the "per above"/"looks good" voters see some other well put supports, or just "support" from experienced editor(s), and they follow. These are called as "pile-on votes".
  2. @ Aza24: regarding unspoken "romanticization" over getting perfect RFAs: it is not romanticisation, but on the contrary, it is the fear. It is always said RfA is a toxic place. The candidate's every mistake will be brought forward and whatnot. Every now-and-then, there are discussions on how to bring more candidates forward. If one sees Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year, they will clearly realise candidates are not coming forward. So in recent days, if the candidate is approched by someone else, or if someone accepts to nominate the candidate, that means the candidate is already inspected by at least one person. If they get even a single doubt, the candidate is advised to work on the issue, and to run for RfA after a while. In other words, only such candidates who have almost nothing to be opposed for; are coming forward. This explanation should also explain RFAs sometimes give me the impression that people haven't looked close enough to a candidate. —usernamekiran  (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Controversial candidates are not uncommon. (Perhaps because they are braver and more likely to put themselves forward.) The problem with opposes is that they are supervotes, worth twice as much as supports. Moreover, the bureaucrats have indicated many times over that they weigh them more heavily above and beyond that, simply because opposers are often more passionate, threatening to rend their clothes and beat up their wife if the candidate is promoted. Whereas supports without comment are considered "pile-on votes" to be discounted (although pile on opposes just as common). Thus, the bureaucrats have rendered it important for supporters to provide their reasons and indicate their enthusiasm in their support statements, and to rebut the opposers in order to indicate that they have considered the issue being raised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply