Your GA nomination of Adele Spitzeder
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adele Spitzeder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Adele Spitzeder
The article Adele Spitzeder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adele Spitzeder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Checking to see if I'm missing something
I agree that RFA uses the phrasing:
"In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail)." (emphasis added)
Referense to "general" or "generally" played a material role in the response of many to the Arbcom case proposal. However, I am puzzled about how that word came to be in the guidance.
The RFA itself does not use the word.
How did we get from RFC wording which says:
"We could expand the discretionary range to 65–75%, making it a 10% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%)."
to the different standard in the RFA guidance?
(FYI, I have been active in Wikipedia, mostly in copyvio work, and not as close to arbcom/rfa issue for the past few months, so wanted to see if I was missing something before jumping into the discussion.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: The wording using "in general" was added by Biblioworm with this edit after the RFC. However, it's not really a change in policy, merely a different phrasing. As you can see from the diff, the previous wording instead used "Historically" and clarified that the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion (which has been the wording since 2008). While the wording has varied over the years, almost any version of the instructions included some kind of reminder that these are not fixed numerical values but subject to crat discretion, e.g.
- Version as of 10 July 2006: The bureaucrats who handle admin promotions review the discussion to see if a general consensus is present (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support) (emphasis added)
- Version as of 22 June 2007: The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining consensus. Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support. (emphasis added)
- Version as of 7 April 2009: At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. (emphasis added)
- Hope that helps. Regards SoWhy 19:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- SoWhy, I don't disagree that the history of RFA was that the ranges should be viewed as rough rules of thumb rather than hard and fast, but a case can be made that the December 2015 RFC changed from "soft" rules of thumb to a more definitive range. Note that a number of participants preferred two-thirds (66.7%) but accepted 65%. I only noticed one participant who suggested that they could support a value less than 65%. Many of those opposed felt that 65% was too low. A plausible interpretation of the RFC is that no value lower than 65% would be acceptable.
- I'm conflicted, because I want the 'crats to have some latitude. However, I think 'crats have been fairly universal and noting that they are supposed to enact the will of the community rather than superimpose their best judgment if it doesn't conform to the clear statement of the community. I would be happy to support the notion that the community ought to add a qualification that the 'crats should treat it as guidance rather than definitive, but that doesn't seem to be what happened. I think it was Avi who suggested that if the community wants an explicit range they should say so explicitly or words to that effect. it seems to me that an RFC establishing an explicit range would be worded virtually identical to the one that happened in December 2015. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Addendum - I subsequently learned that the wording in the RFA guidance was changed with this edit. I haven't yet figured out how I think about the Arbcom case (leaning toward saying that's not their function), nor how I feel about the crat chat, but I am troubled that so many people are leaning on the word "generally" when I'm not convinced that's a fair summary of the RFC. @Biblioworm:. (But I can take this discussion elsewhere, if appropriate.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- We edit-conflicted there probably. See my reply above. Long story short, a variation of "in general" was in use for a long time before that. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- SoWhy, Yes, and my reading of the December RFC was that the community changed from "in general" to an explicit range. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- SoWhy, I'll stop now. My goal was to see if I missed something fundamental. I'll now figure out whether I want to make my point somewhere but this isn't the place. Thanks for your prompt and in-depth response. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Ahh, I understand. Still, I don't think that was what the community intended in the 2015. The question, as you put it, was merely whether to expand the discretionary range numbers but had no other suggestion to rephrase those parts I mentioned above, so I don't think one can successfully argue that the community wanted to change the "in general" part. Also, reading the supports in that section, one notices that a significant number would also support less than 65% and quite a number also opine that RFA is still not a vote. Any "strict" enforcement of these numbers would turn RFA into a vote and that would certainly require an explicit RFC consensus. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Deletion review for Persian Medium Fiona
User:Markiemark123 has asked for a deletion review of Persian Medium Fiona. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 08:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)