Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues.

First outing for new template: @Bureaucrats:  :) SN54129 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it looks like no consensus to promote, because more supports switched to oppose or neutral, and some more (including mine) sympathised with the opposes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the crat chat closes as no consensus, this will be the first time a crat chat has ended in failure since 2018. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree as well. I did not vote and am not really familiar with the candidate, but I have been watching the progress of this RFA and there was a clear, quite serious downward trend in the net support percentage that pushed this from a clear pass to the lower end of the discretionary range over the course of the last two days it was open in particular. I think it can be reasonably inferred from that if it were still open the percentage would still be dropping and possibly would have dropped out of the discretionary range entirely. On top of that, the flipping of votes and the failure to refute the opposes leaves the 'crats little choice here in my opinion. I'd like to remind the candidate that many admins, including myself, failed RFA on their first attempt, took on board the criticism received there, endeavored to be responsive to that criticism, and successfully ran again in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've expressed previously, I'm not a fan of extrapolating what may or may not happen with an extension, as there can be counter-balancing reactions. If the bureaucrats feel additional time is required for the community to establish a consensus view, I suggest it be provided. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Beeblebrox writes I think it can be reasonably inferred from that if it were still open the percentage would still be dropping and possibly would have dropped out of the discretionary range entirely That's not necessarily true. Many opposers tend to wait till the last couple of days to add their oppose and it is quite possible that the opposition has exhausted itself and that the ratio would have either stabilized here or moved in the opposite direction (toward 70%). Of course, we're not going to know which reality would have occurred, so it would be better if the crats ignored the trend entirely and focused only on the arguments. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the lateness of some of the opposes was to give MB the time to respond to points being made, and see how they coped with later questions. That's certainly the case with me - and it wasn't until time was running out for MB to respond, and I saw persistence with their stance, that I could decide. Whether the downward trend would have continued is something that only extending it could show for sure. Supporters and opposers would most likely argue in favour of the two opposite outcomes, I think, so I don't think crats should pay too much attention to how people here think it might have gone. Use your own judgment, crats, it's what we don't pay you for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using judgement is what we don't pay admins for. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the late responses maybe wanting to give him time to answer 20 and 21. At least one person specifically said they were waiting for that.Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say huge weight has to be given to the fact the candidate essentially checked out of their own RfA, which isn't exactly what you want to see in an Admin. While one can maybe be generous and assume they were sleeping or shell shocked, but if they remain silent going forward, leaving the community gathered here at the Inquest to guess what they have learned or think about the things said about their alleged temperament/judgement issues, it must be weighed against them, and heavily. What is an Admin after all, if they lack a willingness to communicate, especially if that potentially derives from a fear that doing so would harm their own interests? No Administrator should be afraid of walking up to a hole armed only with a spade. Whisper it quietly, but one could say the entire point of RfA is to see whether the candidate has the skills and experience to know how to deal with exactly those situations. If you're not faced with a hole at least once a day as a Wikipedia Administrator, one not of your making but which you are duty bound to fix somehow, ideally by using your words not your cheaply issued blunt instruments, then you're probably one of the estimated 800 of them here who are doing pretty much nothing to earn their pay. Radio Sterling (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're engaging in some form of good-humoured trolling, but in case you're not: MB has answered all but the last 3 of the 21 questions posed to them. You can't expect them to be present here throughout the day every day. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and it is established convention that candidates don't get involved too much in the nitty gritty of their own RFAs. Indeed if MB had been there replying to every Oppose, they'd have likely been flagged as badgering and suffered even more as a result. Of course, with Radio Sterling on their first day as a Wikipedian and with four edits to their name, they may not have come across this sort of nuance yet 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:::He completely checked out for the final 48 hours, the precise period where his actual answers to questions seemed to have ruined his candidacy, and his supporters seemed to only be making things worse. One thoughtful reflective well composed note could have seen him over the line. Was that beyond him, and if so, does that need to be considered here and now? If convention says no, Wikipedia needs a new convention. Radio Sterling (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I don't think you are correct about The community has made clear that they prefer discussions regarding admin requests to finish exactly on seven days, even when - like now - the consensus is not clear, and having Crats decide the consensus rather than extending the discussion to see if consensus becomes clearer. In fact, I think the clear community consensus is exactly the opposite. The RFC proposal said This would not affect the ability of 'crats to extend the duration of RfAs, if they deem it necessary. So if the 'crats want it to go longer, the 'crats can extend it. (Frankly I'm kind of surprised that didn't happen here.) Levivich (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that it didn't happen here, but I do agree with Levivich that had it happened here it would have been consistent with the community's consensus in the recent RfC and that crats retain the ability to extend past 168 hours. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, my understanding is that there is software in place which automatically stops the RfA rather than letting a Crat make that decision. Though, I suppose a Crat could over-ride it? My assumption in the RfC was that Crats could opt to extend during a Cratchat - though I'm unclear if that has ever been done, or would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A template activates a closing box when the scheduled end time is reached. Bureaucrats are free to edit the text to re-open the discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, and other crats, I encourage you to read/re-read the RfC in question. The proposal specifically says "This would not affect the ability of 'crats to extend the duration of RfAs, if they deem it necessary" and multiple participants specifically indicated this open possibility as part of their !vote rationale. I see clear consensus for continued crat extension discretion, and I think most readers will see the same. If you'd like, you could ping that discussion's closer for another (likely better informed) opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular opinion: good. The behaviour people were concerned about was on exhibit *in the RfA*, which does not lead to confidence that it will be addressed. It is too hard to recruit and keep new editors already. Elinruby (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not rehash the RfA on the cratchat talk page. We've all had a week to stick our oars in and now it's time for the bureaucrats to wade through it all and decide whether a consensus exists. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I don't like being threatened or bullied. Yes I am pretty upset about it, and no I am not going to apologize for that. But don't worry, I will have no further comment in this venue. Elinruby (talk)

Could those commenting please section their comments if they are not related to previous comments? Thanks. Feel free to tweak, adjust, or otherwise remove the "untitled" headings I've added in the interim (and/or move your comments to the proper locations). Primefac (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the bureaucrats, as others have done before, not to give any weight to the direction the support percentage was moving in the last few days/hours. All that will achieve is to give every !voter who doesn't have any new points of substance the incentive to wait till the last moment before casting their !vote. Note that I'm not saying timing of comments should be ignored altogether; clearly there is value in seeing if there was a shift after a previously unconsidered point had been made; but trendlines in and of themselves are a different matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may have oversimplified my above comments. To my mind this was a fairly unusual RFA, in that it was doing fairly well for the first four days, even with some strong statements of opposition. It was still well above the discretionary range, at 82%, then it rapidly dipped into the discretionary range, and then went into the lower end of that right at the end. I think it is worth looking at what caused such a dramatic shift, especially considering that a portion of it was due not to new opposes but to users striking their support, while no user struck their oppose. At least some of that appears to be in reaction to the candidates behavior during the RFA, rather than people just waiting till the last minute. If we're looking for an indication of a consensus (or lack thereof), that seems like the right place to look. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. How it might have gone had it remained open longer is not so much the issue. The question is why the trend turned downwards at the end - and I think that is an important factor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, Beeblebrox, and I do agree with you; reactions to a specific concern should indeed be considered. To be quite honest, though, I had missed that comment above, and I wrote this more in response to SiltTork in the crat chat. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Repinging SilkTork, since I fracked that up the first time. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I struck my oppose[1] (the problems started appearing blown out of proportion to me, given the sheer amount of MB's constructive editing). Not that it made a difference anyway. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the RfA report, the downward trend in support percentage is fairly consistent, if not entirely linear, from the 3rd of January to the end of the RfA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons I personally wouldn't find consensus to promote, given the community split once the temperament concerns became a focal point of discussion. I agree that in the usual case this would give undue weight to late-breaking feedback, but with the switch of so many in support to opposition once the issue came up, I think it's an entirely legitimate basis for leaning towards 'no consensus.' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I'm inclined to agree (noting that my oppose !vote deliberately downplayed the BEFORE arguments, rightly or wrongly). Can, for the purpose of clarification, UninvitedCompany state that conversely, those opposition !votes (and several supports) that based themselves on issues of temperament were therefore based soundly in policy: admin accountability and conduct. Both of which, as far as admin candidates go, bear far more weight than BEFORE or the general exigencies of NPP. SN54129 20:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping on behalf of SN54129: UninvitedCompany. HouseBlaster^talk 21:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I don't see consensus to promote here either, notwithstanding my objection to some of the reasoning. I just don't want us to get in the habit of looking at trendlines, and creating perverse incentives thereby. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent to ignore trends. The RfA for RexxS was slowly bleeding support on grounds of temperament when it landed at a crat chat. This was ignored by (some of) the crats, who chose to dismiss these concerns as not grounded in policy. Worth noting that RexxS is no longer an Admin, or even an editor, and it seems pretty clear to me that this might not have been the case, had the crats taken note of where the RfA would have likely ended up at, had it been left open for another few hours. Radio Sterling (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been indeffed as a sock, see their talk page Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from denying their unblock request, but given that I was following this RFA closely and agonizing over how I would have !voted before it closed, I offer where I was as evidence of how this trendline was going: I started out, despite not much real familiarity with MB, supporting because a lot of good admins that I know and trust vouched for him, including Blade, who I've met in person a few times. I was going to join them, especially after the interaction tool showed that I had not had any problems with MB, but then I noticed the opposes continuing to mount and held off, particularly because I agreed there was some concern about the attitude underlying the Q12 answer even if it was technically correct. As they continued to mount, I noticed more and more of our newer admins, whose RfAs I had supported, joining the opposes. This made me think more. I began seriously considering whether I should at least !vote neutral. Toward the end, especially when SandyGeorgia raised the question about the candidate's minimal efforts in actual content creation, something evident from my own research, I started seriously considering opposing, and had planned to finally cast my !vote but then I misjudged the closing time to think I would have had time to do it yesterday.

I don't think I was alone in this. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings as to whether Radio Sterling is blocked or unblocked. I just pointed out the blocking because the editor's comments were crossed out in another section of this page but not here, which seemed inconsistent. Moving along, it sounds like you are saying you had actually planned to change your vote, but stuff happened and the deadline passed? And that this might apply to other people? Hmm. I would prefer not to comment any more on this until there's a decision and the chat closes, as I think people already know my opinion and I am not up for further drama from the nom at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde, I understand the wish to not look at trendlines for the reasons you suggest (I don't want to encourage any pile on either), but I also understand the wish from the community that we hard stop at the end of 7 days. How do you resolve these two factors? RfA is meant to judge the confidence of the community, and since information is brought up during the discussion period, the effect that the information has on the tone of discussion is relevant, as is the speed that the votes are coming in at the end of the period. The alternative would be to close 24h (or more?) after the last vote, but I don't think that's fair on the candidate. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'd have to wait a long time for a "last vote" of that nature, typically you get trickles of votes coming in every day even on straightforward RFAs and you might have to wait a week or more longer for the pool of voters to finally be exhausted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be mostly remedied by having a one week discussion, question, and answer period followed by a one week securepoll vote. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree @Amakuru - and I don't think that's fair on the candidate - hence why I believe looking at trends is important.

  @ScottishFinnishRadish if only someone had suggested something like that. Worm^TT(talk) 12:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Must have been a pretty smart feller. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, (and apologies if this is veering off topic), I had some reservations about that during the RFC, mainly on the grounds of (a) possible gaming / undetected socking in an anonymous poll, and (b) the possibility that someone might fail RFA without actually knowing why people opposed them (if the discussion goes well but the poll does not) and unable to act on it; and (c) there's a much-increased possibility of random drive-by opposes based on whimsical rationales. Opposing in the current system is hard, you know it's going to be scrutinised in full and you know you're risking falling out with someone or it being taken the wrong way; which is a good thing, because nobody opposes lightly. I can obviously see the advantages of the SecurePoll system as well though, so if there were a way to get around the issues above then I wouldn't object. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: (a) Secure poll isn't the same as an anonymous poll. These issues are usually dealt with by scrutineers that oversee the election for socking/gaming issues. Having activities requirements could also prevent brand new accounts from participating in the poll. (b) as far as I know, zhwp has switched to using securepoll for admin elections and optional oppose/support rationales can be submitted and recorded. See this as example, which should mitigate this issue. (c) is definitely true, so the success cutoff probably needs to be decreased to cope with this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh thanks, useful info.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Worm That Turned, to me the resolution lies in the difference between (A) the effect a given comment (usually an oppose, but exceptions occur) has on the trend, and (B) the direction of the trend at the time of closure. Graphically speaking, (A) would be the change in slope of a support-percentage-over-time graph, and (B) would be the slope at the end of 7 days. Considering (A) as a substantial factor in assessing consensus is entirely appropriate; and considering (B) is not, I believe. To elaborate on what I said before; if you are considering A to be a factor, you are encouraging people to !vote promptly if something decides them, and to make explicit reference to their reasons; and these are entirely good things. The crats generally do take (A) into account, as I see it, by weighing which !votes had a substantial effect on ones that came after, and I think reading the voting history makes it easier to parse. However, a couple of comments have implied that B is also a consideration, and this creates a perverse incentive. Moreover; an RFA that has a crat-chat is essentially guaranteed to have a negative trend over time, including at the end, as the rush of initial support creates a very high baseline. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde Thanks for explaining. I do think the angle of (B) is relevant, combined with the rate of comments at the end of an RfA - they show how "settled" the community is on the final result. It's not the be all and end all by any means (I would be annoyed if a crat extrapolated across many days to say that a trend was moving away from success), but it is a factor that should be taken into account. Worm^TT(talk) 15:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worm That Turned: That's fair; I can see value in considering whether a trend is steep or not; but what prompted me to make my first comment was comments that go something like "the trend was downward, so this was moving away from success, and so if we'd kept it open the support percentage would have dropped, so the RFA should be [kept open/closed as no consensus]." That argument is, I think, entirely off the mark. I'm not trying to caricature what either Beeblebrox or SilkTork have said here, I know there's more nuance to their thoughts; but similar things have been said in the past. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean I think all RfAs are kind of guarenteed to have a negative trend assuming there is any oppose because the first couple of !votes are supports (often from the nominator(s) who clearly support and have done their homework). CaptainEek's RfA does present a different trendline where it basically held steady at 76% support after dipping there. If it had instead held steady at say 73%, I think that too would have been informative as a trendline for crats to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps ironically, my own RFA is one of the few I'm aware of where there was substantial opposition but a definite upward trend towards the end. But yes, once you're down into crat-chat territory, reversing a downward trend is going to be hard. Unless of course everyone reads this discussion, and decides to hold off of supporting early in the future. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry not to have responded earlier, I think I responded to another ping. I think there are a variety of ways of considering consensus in a RfA, and trend A or B may well be part of them for some Crats but not others. I am comfortable with there being a range of Crats who will assess consensus in a variety of ways, because each then will bring into consideration a nuance the others may not have noticed. There is, of course, the possibility that one or more Crats may use methods that may appear to be (or actually are) dubious (both to the community and to other Crats); however, the more Crats we have looking into an issue, and the more independent and free thinking those Crats are, the more likely it is that the outcome will be rounded and comprehensive. If all Crats decided to use one singular method (everyone ignoring a trend, or everyone considering a trend, for example) then I feel the outcome would be less reflective of the diversity of our community. I think the real answer to concerns about the methods a Crat may be using in establishing consensus is to have more Crats. SilkTork (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Another point to remember is that a well researched oppose with diffs demonstrating a problem that is repeated and recent can derail an RFA, but only if it is relatively early in the process. So if you wait to the point where your vote might influence the apparent final trend you may still have less effect overall. Especially if your oppose is based on actually spending some time checking the candidate's edits, rather than just reading the RFA and maybe some statistics. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote in this one, as I found myself torn (but without anything novel to add that would justify registering in the neutral section). I just want to say that if "WP:BEFORE is 'just an essay'" weighs into consensus here, as perhaps telegraphed by UninvitedCompany's comment, I'll be disappointed. While there are a small number of people (most of whom have been topic banned, I think) who wield WP:BEFORE like a weapon to avoid discussing actual issues, or use it when it doesn't actually apply, I find the "just an essay" argument to be empty wikilawyering. WP:BEFORE is "just" an information page, and the important parts (i.e. "look for sources before nominating something based on notability", which is what most people mean when they reference it) are simple extensions of WP:DP and WP:N. Information pages are where we get into the details of how policy applies to certain procedures; of course there won't be consensus to turn it into a policy because it's not that kind of page. I dare say the handful of people responding to deletion-related oppose votes arguing that "it's just an essay" are at least as responsible for some of the oppose votes as the candidate's own comments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the arguments over the status of WP:BEFORE strange. It's like showing up to WP:FAC or WP:GAN and being perplexed as to why your nomination is expected to meet the GA or FA criteria, and then arguing that because those criteria don't have 'policy' status that the nomination doesn't need to be assessed against them. WP:BEFORE doesn't need a policy or guideline status, it is part of the instructions at AfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This. I hope the next user whose report is removed at AIV doesn't complain about the AIV header being an information page instead of a policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing WP:FAC to WP:BEFORE is a false equivalence. Featured articles have very specific criteria that must be met for an article to gain that status, whereas WP:BEFORE is more of a loose guideline. You don't have to go to the trouble of ticking off literally every box if an article is clearly not notable. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am comparing BEFORE to FACR and GANI/GACR (the criteria/instruction pages). FAC and GAN are processes akin to AfD. WP:FACR and WP:GACR do not have policy or guideline status. So, why 'must' those criteria be met when there is not widespread support in the community to instantiate them as a policy?

The claim that WP:BEFORE is a 'loose guideline' is also demonstrably incorrect. Its opening clause is [p]rior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to. The section of the instructions that caused a stir in this RfA – searching for sources – opens with the words [t]he minimum search expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple Anyone who strong believes that WP:BEFORE is policy may go and formalize it at the village pump. We don't need to discuss its status. If you truly believe as you do, then put your money where your mouth is. If it's not at village pump by the end of the day, we'll all know where you actually stand on the topic of if the community views it as policy or even mandatory.--v/r - TP 20:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You've ignored everything in this section, and this absurd-yet-confrontational line of argumentation has probably done as much damage to the candidate as the actual deletion nominations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguing doesn't matter. One person cannot determine the will nor be the voice of the community. If you believe consensus has shifted, you know where to go and I don't see you at the village pump--v/r - TP 20:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have our policies and guidelines in place. Information pages apply them to a process. Nothing in there isn't based in policy, because we already have the deletion policy, the notability guideline, etc. Processes don't become policies. If you believe consensus has changed, and that processes based on policies must themselves be policies to function, VPP is that way, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We certainly do have policies: WP:N and WP:V. Articles that fail them are susceptible to deletion regardless of someone following a checklist. Frankly, I don't see a WP:Listed of Completed WP:BEFORE checlists before nominating at WP:AFD anywhere so theres no way for you to definitely know if someone followed WP:BEFORE or not. Only if they did a shitty job of it.--v/r - TP 20:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember WP:N being policy either, no... See how pointless this is? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meanwhile, WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, upon which BEFORE is based, are policies. But then again, this is not RFA 2.0 or RFA: After Hours. The question before the crats is not whether BEFORE is a policy per se or "just an essay" but whether people participating in the RFA felt that the adherence was important, especially whether they thought that "not a policy therefore it can be ignored" is a valid stance for an admin to take. Regards SoWhy 21:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your last sentence is what I am confused about, since it seems like some are advancing the argument that those opposes themselves should be weighted lower due to a perception they do not align with global consensus (policy). I don't have a horse in this race (and I'm too green to vote really), but I did not appreciate how contentious applying WP:BEFORE was before this RfA. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It shouldn't be contentious, and I don't really know why "policy" has been brought up in the crat chat. People frequently look at aspects of an editor's history in RFA that aren't related to policy, for example how many edits they have or whether they've done sufficient content work to understand life at the coalface. There's no reason why applying due care an attention when nominating deletion discussions shouldn't be a similar area on which to assess their suitability. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Second that. This talk of "policy" has been odd, and one of the latest opinions in the crat chat gave me a head-scratch. When they say that the opposes (presumed to be specifically the ones that cite WP:BEFORE) aren't policy-based, then the obvious question is: what sort of policy basis is there for the supports? How about the other opposes? What's the policy basis for people opposing based on temperament and attitude, or, for other RfAs, due to concerns around integrity or competence? – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...or content creation, or experience, or understanding of policy, or literally any other common criteria for adminship. Definitely a head-scratcher. Levivich (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct answer to "Is WP:BEFORE policy?" is "Mu". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TParis, you acknowledged in response to my talk page query that there has been no recent widely-advertised RfC on BEFORE. I don't disagree, although I suggest that this well-attended RfA has demonstrated that a substantial number of editors believe it to be sufficiently important for its mishandling to in part generate an oppose for an RfA of an otherwise qualified candidate. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but it should not be overlooked that this RfA itself demonstrates that the community more strongly values BEFORE as a best practice in AfDs than the participants in the years-old discussions you cited. WP:POLICY notes that Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. and as such it seems incongruous to dismiss the substantial concerns expressed here, whether or not a current RfC has promoted BEFORE from essay to guideline. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be reading that RfA wrong then. It is a minority of editors pointing to WP:BEFORE concerns. And guidelines and policies are prescriptive - but you have no evidence that the community widely supports it as mandatory. You only have about 40 editors in an RfA. Discuss it at the village pump if you want to really test it.--v/r - TP 22:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, go nominate something for AFD with the nomination statement, "I haven't checked to see if there are any reliable sources for this topic, but I'm nominating it for AFD anyway" and see what happens. Levivich (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is Wikipedia policy. Notability is not. I would therefore most definitely be interested in hearing any argument anyone cares to offer that would explain how sending articles to AfD on notability grounds as a matter of routine and indeed personal editor convenience, without performing what most reasonable people consider a reasonable BEFORE compliance, could ever be said to be in the business of improving Wikipedia or being a collegiate good faith editor of a collaborative encyclopedia where the principle that nobody owns articles is also actually policy. It is impossible to argue that BEFORE is not policy without also acknowledging that neither is N. At least not in good faith anyway. Radio Sterling (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is blocked as a sock, see their talk page. Just pointing it out to the closers because the editor's comments in a different section of this page have been struck but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

• FYI, here are some other pages which are not policy:

1. WP:RFA – it describes itself as a "process"
2. WP:CRATCHAT – it's an Information page
3. WP:NPP – it's a WikiProject
4. WP:BLUDGEON – it's an Explanatory essay

I often say that Wikipedia has many conflicting and contradictory policies, guidelines and essays. And that is why WP:CIR (essay) is often cited. I think before is important and that was the opinion of many in the RFA. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the idea that an admin has to pay attention to a WP:space page *only* if it is explicitly a policy page, and can freely ignore any guidelines, essays, instructions, procedural descriptions, or anything else that commands wide community support... to be beyond absurd. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa? So now every essay is mandatory now too? Geeze, ya know some of those contradict? There is no proven wide community support. At this time, it's only a few editors insisting it has it - no one has pointed to a discussion to prove it. And the two discussions that do exist actually go against your narrative.--v/r - TP 22:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on TP, you know perfectly well I'm not saying everything is mandatory! It requires balance and judgment, and admins need those skills. Read the crat chat - it appears to me that they agree it's all about being open to community feedback and expectations, not solely the black and white letter of policy, and not dismissing that feedback out of hand. Anyway, it's over and it didn't go the way you wanted - you need to accept that and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      In fairness I think we all probably need to move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely right - good night to one and all :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: regarding your I didn't see anyone actually mention WP:ADMINCONDUCT; I mentioned it in my comment of 18:31 on 7 January (a lack of ADMINACCT or ADMNCOND). Of course... if I'd spelled it right, you could have seen it too. D'oh! SN54129 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I did a Ctrl+F before I typed to make sure no one had actually said it, I should have known! The main point is that people were talking about that policy, without it being linked (much). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I just had to complicate things! SN54129 15:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]