Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
**Ah. "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." That, indeed, is evaluating the candidate on his merits rather than evaluating consensus of the RFA. ] 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
**Ah. "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." That, indeed, is evaluating the candidate on his merits rather than evaluating consensus of the RFA. ] 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
*** Haukur, your misgivings seem to be fully justified. Within a fortnight after this hugely controversial promotion, we have , now discussed . --]<sup>]</sup> 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus seems clear that any bureaucrat who stops by would be justified in delisting this RfA; it's a self-nomination for a user who apparently has 87 edits and hasn't answered any of the mandatory questions. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm closing it myself; there's no need for 'crat-specific intervention on something this painfully obvious. I've left my standard notice on the user's talk page, as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You can understand, though, that as neither a sysop nor a 'crat, I didn't feel any action on my part would be appreciated. :)
Mandatory? Strange, it clearly reads in the form: You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants. Errabee20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
While true, they aren't actually mandatory, the RfA instructions do specifically state to answer the questions before transcluding the page. Maybe we should call them "!optional" questions... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure some of the 'crats have noticed this already, but his contributions show, as far as I can tell, an unvarying pattern of supporting every single RFA with nonsensical/catch phrases. -- nae'blis06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and closed it as a failed RfA; no way in hell someone who registered today could pass RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please may I respectfully request that upon closing, the bureaucrats enter into a bureaucrat chat in determining the consensus for Gracenotes RfA. There have been a lot of strong feelings on either side of the arguements, and I can see a train wreck ahead if one bureaucrat acts unilatterally - it certainly seems like an RfA where a consensus between the 'crats should be gained before any descision is made. I know this is a couple of days early, but for real life reasons (exams) I may not have chance to request this again, but also it might be a good idea to get things organised. Ryan Postlethwaite16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was coming here to request the very same thing! I still believe that this chat à la Danny's RfA would be a good idea for any RfA which is not clear cut. Pascal.Tesson23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Pascal, you're 100% right. Any RFA which has less than 80%, but it isn't clear or not (ie. 71%) should have a discussion. Not just Danny. --RContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether that needs to happen for all request for adminships in the so-called "discretion zone," Gracenotes' request for adminship in particular is a good candidate (no pun intended) for a bureaucrat chat. This is due to the large amounts of turnout (over 200 total, and not done yet), the fall from high percentages of support to what is considered "borderline," and the fact that many supporters and opposers might change their rationales if they saw the newer comments, but have not seen them (or are wilfully ignoring them.) All that suggests determining consensus will be murky, so a bureaucrat chat would really be quite helpful. Picaroon(Talk)01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with User:R about mandating it for EVERY one w/in certain percentages - I think that's sort of process beaurocracy, but I too would be in favor of it in this particular case. In most cases, I'm quite content with leaving that to b'crat discretion. This one's a bit different because of the high number of !votes involved, and the quite high passions around it, as Picaroon pointed out well. Philippe03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan and Pascal; whatever the outcome, things will be much clearer if a couple/three 'crats can discuss this case and examine the issues involved. There's been a lot of emotion, 'swinginess' (percentage fluctuated down, and now up based on the Will Beback incident possibly), and the number of supporters/opposers makes a strict numerical tally perilous. -- nae'blis15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
One Bureaucrat's Impression
While I understand the desire to have the bureaucrats thrash this out among themselves which, on the face of it, is not an inappropriate solution, I don't believe that it is an appropriate solution in this case. Going by the principle that consensus decides a nomination and that bureaucrats are charged only with determining whether consensus has been reached, having a "'crat chat" (something I discourage for reasons, inter alia, presented in my recent bureaucrat reaffirmation) this case would tend to put the bureaucrats in the middle of a highly emotional issue and put them in the position of binding arbitrators. This is not desirable if there is any chance of the community itself coming to consensus.
The "voting/consensus discussion" is currently in the area where, without intervention or deep analysis, consensus has not been reached. I think it is demonstrable that the opposers have deep and legitimate concerns. I also believe that the candidate has tried very hard to engage the oppositions concerns in a reasonable and civil manner. A problem is that the arguments have perhaps unavoidably taken on a life of their own separate from the central issue of the candidate's fitness to execute the responsibilities of an admin.
It is a disadvantage of the process in a case like this that argumentation and expressions of opinion (and "votes," if you will) are occurring concurrently. In virtually any other situation (an election, a legislative act, a referendum) the issues are argued first, and then the sentiment is polled.
Therefore, I propose the following subject, of course, to the candidate's willingness to follow this course and a consensus to approach the issue this way, rather than move the argument to the 'crats "arena":
Cancel and archive the current discussion without prejudice;
Reopen the nomination at (0/0/0) as soon as the candidate is ready to present his nomination and views again;
Since the lack of consensus hinges primarily on a single, important, and emotional issue, have the candidate explain, as fully as he wishes to, his developed stand on the issue;
Allow the community to question the candidate back and forth on the issue, and have all of the discussion under the same heading. The reason for this is to prevent the piecemeal argumentation in many places that makes it difficult to understand the whole of the candidate's position;
Again allow the entire community to express their support or opposition as in a regular RfA with a new 7-day period. As with any RfA the community can express its opinions for or against or comment for any reason, not just the links issue, but I would ask that the arguments about linking to problem sites but kept in one place so that none of us are arguing past each other.
At the end of the 7-day period with all the issues on the table, and everyone being able to express a "fresh" opinion, any bureaucrat hopefully will be able to determine the consensus of the community. -- Cecropia16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And have it go just as badly, if not worse because some people who supported before it got so "controversial" might change their mind? I don't see why Gracenotes would want to extend 7 days of agony to 14 – Gurch16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This particular RfA is one for which the current RfA process isn't really working all that well (Cecropia's solution to reboot it seems sensible in this particular case, but probably wouldn't be overall in most cases). I'm worried that if there is a community consensus either way, the current RfA won't reveal it. --ais523 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the analysis that consensus has necessarily not been reached. At present 73% of those who have expressed an opinion have supported him. Candidates in the past have been promoted with lower numerical support levels. Taking an non-numerical approach - the opposes are almost based on a single issue. One that Nichalp felt was insufficient to prevent promotion in his analysis of a recent RfA. This falls well within the ambit of bureaucratic discretion and I hope Cecropia will consider that Community consensus is much more in favour of that being exercised (and not just in "special cases" like Danny or Carnildo) with open discussion between the crats than was the case last year. WjBscribe16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You are revealing the problem I have identified numerous times in the course of my 'cratship. When 'crats are not on the same page in the parameters of RfA, the rest of the community looks for "precedents" to play one 'crat and against the other. In the case of Danny, at the least, the process failed, IMO. -- Cecropia16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why should you need to be all on the same page? There's no harm in admitting that you as a group have differing ideas. That way on controversial RfAs the candidate doesn't have to face the lottery of "which crat gets there first". Instead if you combine as a collegiate entity, that should dilute the problem and provide a more consistent result. WjBscribe17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By "on the same page" I mean in understanding how consensus is to be determined, rather than in the view of specific issues. -- Cecropia17:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
But that is also a specific issue. I don't think you can separate it from the others. There is no one view that I can see of how consensus is to be determined, either among the community or among the bureaucrats. WjBscribe17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wonder how much would really change in the second round. The single-issue !voters are likely to remain that way; only a handful of supporters at the most would go the other way, and vice-versa. Johnleemk | Talk16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but I'd rather find out then have the 'crats just pick up the community's responsibility in the form of an appeals court. -- Cecropia16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I really believe that there is a consensus to be had in this RfA, as WJB stated, there have been candidates promoted with much less support (speaking in percentage terms), the only thing that is needed here is for the 'crats to remove the fire from this and discuss it amongst themselves in an open environment for us all to see to work out the result, I disagree that we need to restart it. Ryan Postlethwaite16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand, but what I am trying to avoid is having the 'crats (cool heads though you think we are :)) hash out the exact same issues among 3 or 4 or 5 us that 200 Wikipedians are trying to determine in a more appropriate forum. -- Cecropia17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
But we're here to give our opinion, not determine the outcome, your here to decifer that opinion and come to a conclusion as to what the consensus states - quite simply in this case - is the argument strong enough reason from the opposes that would suggest Gracenotes will make a poor admin? Ryan Postlethwaite17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Ryan, but I believe in this case that the way the argumentation has gone has muddied the sentiment of the community, because the arguments and cross-arguments are emotional and fragmented. I would like the community to have another shot at trying to demonstrate its own consensus with the issues laid before it in a coherent fashion. -- Cecropia17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
They're not trying to determine it in a more appropriate forum, they're trying to determine it on Gracenotes' RfA. It would be nice if the bureaucrats could determine whether the primary reason for opposition is even true (I don't think it is) – Gurch19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so. If "the primary reason for opposition true, a calmer restart and a clear laying out of the issues may produce a clearest result from the community; and, if it does eventually go to a Bureaucrat Discussion, the 'crats would likely have a firmer baser to finally decide. I'd like that. The current RfA has too many fragments and cross-arguments for clarity. -- Cecropia19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is quite a comprehensive course of action, and I am not sure what to make of it. I appreciate your acuteness in the matter, Cecropia. One issue with it, however, is that the proposed forum for discussion would cast more of a single-issued cloud over my RFA that still has little to do with what I plan on using the mop and bucket for. On the other hand, it may enable me to more effectively answer some of the concerns of those who may feel that they cannot trust me, but I doubt this. I would appreciate an opinion on the matter from someone who has opposed me. Gracenotes § 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Good thought. I will post a note on SlimVirgin's talk. I know and respect her and I believe she asked the question that started this thread of discussion. I would also comment that in a reboot you could again bring up all the other reasons you should have the mop and bucket. But the link issue is like the cat out of the bag, I imagine. -- Cecropia17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. One thing I want to stress is that the decision is up to the bureaucrats, and even if we disagree with them, we should respect their decisions and move on without a fuss. So however Cecropia and the others choose to handle this will be fine with me.
Second point: Gracenotes, what you intend to use adminship for has no bearing on the issue, because there's no such thing as adminship that can only be used to help with templates. People are genuinely concerned about promoting someone who has posted sympathetically to Misplaced Pages Review, and some of your replies have seemed evasive (on bot approval, on the links issue, on the inflated edit count issue). I'm not trying to rehash things here, but simply pointing out that it's wrong to dismiss this as single-issue opposition.
If it were up to me alone to decide how to proceed, I'd ask the key commentators on both sides to stop posting their opinions, which are now entirely repetitive, and allow new people to vote and comment without further interference. I'd wait until the closing date and I would base my decision entirely on the percentage, after checking for any obvious sockpuppetry. If it's still in the yellow zone at that time, I'd support Cecropia's proposal, assuming Gracenotes could bear to go through this again. As for the prior discussion, I think I would ask anyone who wants to comment, including Gracenotes, to make one succinct statement on the talk page outlining their position, and then not comment any further, with no threaded discussion, and no comments on the voting page; otherwise, the current emotionality and fragmentation Cecropia identifies may be repeated.
But this is just my opinion. I'll support the outcome of the RfA whatever it is, and I'll support Gracenotes as an admin if he's promoted. SlimVirgin18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If it fails and Gracenotes decides to go through this again, I will begin to think that he may be a masochist. :-) Slim makes a point that the discussion has gotten repetitive in places, and I am not entirely sure if it isn't necessary or it may be proof that the current RfA format is not designed to accommodate "controversial" nominations. That said, I know more about this candidate than I have any other RfA candidate I've seen in my short time here. Asking or suggesting that this candidate go through this again, especially in a short amount of time, seems unfair to me. If a bureaucrat is determined to close this on pure numbers, then so be it, but I'm not sure what it will achieve to start anew and see if others have changed their mind over a very divisive and emotional issue. This is especially true if the new RfA is just to be closed on pure numbers. daveh4h19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing is that people are using the RfA as a bandwagon to settle personal scores. I know of several voters who only turned up because a particular person they oppose voted a certain way. I know of other votes that I'm fairly certain are sockpuppets, also there only because they want to oppose certain others. Any repeated vote is likely to see the bad-faith or sockpuppet accounts turn up more readily than the genuine ones, because the genuine ones make their point and then stop (and at some point get fed up), but the bad-faith ones are there for the conflict, and so are highly motivated to reappear. There's nothing we can realistically do about this; we can only hope that people vote and comment in good faith and if they don't, we're stymied. My only point is that the bureaucrats have a very difficult decision to make in such cases, which is why I feel we should support them no matter which way they swing. SlimVirgin19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Sympathetically"? Can you please reconsider that comment, as it appears to be nothing more than a personal attack? I have reviewed Gracenotes' posts to Misplaced Pages Review – all five of them – and I see nothing, whatsoever, that could possibly considered "sympathetic" to someone who intends to make personal attacks – Gurch19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, people have to be allowed to form opinions without other people turning up to say they're wrong. These are not factual issues. They are judgment calls. We can agree to disagree. SlimVirgin19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. At the very least, then, can you identify which of Gracenotes' comments caused you to form that opinion? I can't believe that the purely factual one about oversight did, or the mildly humorous one about disambiguation, so... which? – Gurch19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, I don't exactly agree with SlimVirgin's analysis, but it's important that people can feel free to express their opinion on an issue, knowing that those reading it will assume good faith. I ask for the same thing, and there's no reason why SlimVirgin shouldn't. Gracenotes § 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Gurch, there are other users participating in the RfA who have posted to WR (not me). Even though I speak on behalf of the bad-faithed sockpuppet faction, in my opinion, the qualifier sympathetically just makes a careful and necessary distinction between them and Gracenotes. —AldeBaer20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your argument there. You're saying that because Gracenotes has posted to Misplaced Pages Review he is automatically "sympathetic" to their cause, while nobody else commenting on the RfA is? – Gurch20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And if it looks like I'm picking at words, I am. Gracenotes has first been labelled as "supports attack sites", then as "opposes the attack sites policy" and now "sympathetic to Misplaced Pages Review". Enough; I will not let these blatantly false comments go unquestioned – Gurch20:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If this fails after Danny's succeeded it would leave the impression that rfa is not worth anything neither are the views of teh community, but that we are a hierarchical community giving all power to the crats. I trust this scenario will not unfold, SqueakBox19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Only if you believe that raw percentage is the only way to gauge consensus. Two people in favour and one against is not the same as two hundred in favour and one hundred against. One hundred people all arguing the same point is not the same as one hundred people each arguing a different point. Arguments vary in strength, coherence, significance and sometimes truth – Gurch20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You might also consider, SqueakBox that, in hindsight, it might have been better if Danny's rather unique case had been decided differently; take that further to the concept that an error or a misjudgment does not require that cases deemed similar by some take the first case as settled precedent to compound the mistake in the future. As to your leap of rhetoric that the "wrong" decision (in your view) would make the rfa and the community "not worth anything," I would say that the bureaucrat system was started specifically to make decisions on which there may be passionate disagreement. -- Cecropia20:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I voted against Danny but accepted that decision, and based on what I see they should say yes to Grace too and hope they will, SqueakBox20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This has generated a lot of discussion, but if discussion is to continue, it should do so on the RFA talk page. This conversation is heading towards arguments not strictly interesting to bureaucrats. Gracenotes § 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is on the question of how to proceed on the nomination, not the on the issues. Thank you all for your perspectives. -- Cecropia20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposed steps, but I see well SlimVirgin's concerns about it regarding people willing to show up for the conflict. I also think a bcrat only discussion is a decent way to go as I don't share your objections to it. We would get a decision that way in a shorter time period, but that's fine, the above outlined method will get a result too. I chose not to close this myself as I'm rather biased on the issue and I think it would be better if I abstained without impressing my bias on the current discussion. - Taxman21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't object strongly to a re-run, but reconsidering the strain this RFA has brought upon my wiki activities and in real life, I'm not sure if I'd personally be so fond of it (esp. doing it so soon after the first one). If it's the only way to determine consensus, though, it should be fine. Gracenotes § 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It;s not the only way to resolve the nomination, but it could give us a firmer grasp on whether community consensus, rather than bureaucrat consensus, can be reached. If this worked well it would be a good precedent for the community to resolve it itself, IMO. Two 'crats other than me are willing to try this, but see if you really feel up to it just now. -- Cecropia01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see at WT:RFA#Gracenotes that there is the beginning of some sentiment against a re-run. Let's see if community sentiment really wants to throw this into the 'crats lap in a 'crats chat. So let's relax until the sentiment is clearer. -- Cecropia01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not going to be impatient about it; the situation is tense enough. 'Crat chat might set up a less-than-helpful precedent, but the way that this RFA has worked out has yet challenged my expectations. (I hope that, as the candidate, my comments are not unwarranted.) Gracenotes § 02:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just got back from the beach from several days with no internet access, so I came to this as a blank slate. Frankly, it's a mess. I agree with the arguments against re-running the RFA. I think we, the bureaucrats, have to decide one way or the other on this issue. I know Cecropia doesn't like it, but I think a bureaucrat chat is in order, unless someone else has a better way of deciding it in mind. Raul65402:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Raul, two reasons strike that a bureaucrat chat is not the best solution: (1) is my feeling that this RfA focussed on the wrongful suffering that some Wikipedians have encountered because of stalkers and harassers, rather than on the Candidate's actual stand on the issues. I would hope that a sensible re-examination would give everyone a chance to reassess the nomination; (2) there is some sentiment that every RfA that isn't crystal-clear be the subject of a 'crat chat. I'm not sure that would be helpful. However, if the community is satisfied that the results of a chat will result in an unimpeachable decision, I'm not averse to go that route; albeit some number of RfA participants seem to remain less than thrilled with the outcome of the Danny chat. -- Cecropia04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Cecropia, you were (re)elected to be a b'crat because the community trusts you to make your best judgment with the available information under circumstances like this. The community has spoken once more, and hopefully for the final time, against a re-run. Whether your decision will be vilified by the few vocal editors or not, you have been selected to disregard popular opinion for the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community and the encyclopedia. —Kurykh04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll second Kurykh's comment above. Whether you decide to promote or not, this is squarely in judgment-land. On your bicycle, spaceman! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people will always be less than thrilled with any decision. That's not a criteria to decide the best course of action. The sentiment is clearly against re-running, basically for making a decision, with much of the expressed opinion asking for bcrat discussion to come to that decision. My thoughts would be you should either make the call yourself if you're prepared or better would be to set up bcrat discussion. - Taxman12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My assessment is generally that Rfa is broken, and this is just another example. We are now too big for people to know they candidate they are voting for so people vote on party or tribal grounds. I think candidates should be judged on temprement and not whether they have a connection to the hated Misplaced Pages Review or whatever. However as a Bureaucrat my job is most defintely NOT to evaulate whether the opposition's arguments stand up. I presume the electorate (using the duck test) are sane and of sound mind. I am much more of a returning officer and a teller.
There are two ways of doing this - one is to evaulate the arguments and have what could amount to a casting vote. The other is to say that the community have spoken - but it's kind of mumbled and incoherent. I think this is 'no consensus', not to be confused with failed - although the results have tended to be the same.
I think a re-vote, with a cooling off period, may be the way forward. People should keep outside politics to a minimum and things should be referenced. If someone has posted to[REDACTED] review - link to the posting. If someone has inflated their edit count via a bot then give the edit count before and afterwards. If someone says they will be an admin on X state (for those who may not know) that there is no such thing as an admin just doing X.
It could be taken that we are nannying you - not trusting you to make your own minds up. Do you need that amount of bureaucrat intervention? Do you want us to be in charge and decide for you? Secretlondon07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Protect/Unprotect
I thought I was protecting the page, but the edit history seems to indicate I have now unprotected it twice... er, can someone sort out whatever it is this newbie admin has (or has not) done? Sorry. LessHeard vanU22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Is protection needed? Discussion on the talkpage usually is allowed to continue after RfAs are closed... A crat can always protect it if they think its a problem... WjBscribe22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think he was wanting to protect the main page, but I don't see it as nescesary given that it has archived templates round it. Ryan Postlethwaite22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if anyone adds anything to the main page at this point, it will have to be reverted. If it becomes necessary to protect it, that can always be done. Point is the content shouldn't change from closing time. -- 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It was the talkpage I was hoping to "preserve". I don't know what Bureaucrat action is, but I thought it might entail sifting through both pages and that by continued adding to the discussion matter may be further confused. Since I don't seem to have actually done anything like I intended I suppose this is all moot. LessHeard vanU12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand the reviewer status would only be given to a few people (staff?) to pseudo-protect a page, while editing still goes on in the background. So really it would be a one time thing, if that is how it would be used. Prodego03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Likely to come up in en:" - that's pretty much certain. As for when, expect it to come soon-ish, as the extension is complete now, and just waiting there to be turned on. Titoxd04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's recently been found out that Runcorn was using several sockpuppet accounts (AN thread) to votestack, including votestacking on several RfAs. In at least one of those I've found so far, Jreferee's recent RfA, discounting the sockpuppet votes (six socks voted oppose in the RfA) would bring the total into discretionary range, and the outcome may have been different if not for the socks. What would be the best way to handle this situation? Reevaluate the previous RfA, run it again, nothing at all? Has a case like that ever come up before? Seraphimblade01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would probably best to let things go. It was a while back, and consensus can change. It's just sad it wasn't noticed at the time. I'd advise Jreferee to run again though. Majorly (talk | meet) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that it was noticed at the time. There was a user who tried to warn several people but no one would follow through for various reasons, and I believe Runcorn then indefblocked his account(s). SlimVirgin06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I second Majorly above. Reassessing these RfAs will only cause unnecessary drama. And it's not like those admins are abusing their tools and their cabal membership (crap, a paradox. oh well). —Kurykh03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"And it's not like those admins are abusing their tools." I don't know anything about this case, or even if I would want the unsuccessful candidates to be admins, but I imagine the suggestion was not to desysop people who have been admins for a few months, but to consider sysoping those who were unsuccessful because six sockpuppets voted to oppose. ElinorD(talk)08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That was indeed what I intended. If someone passed due to someone else's sockpuppetry, that's obviously not their fault, and it would be entirely unfair to desysop them later just because the RfA might've failed with sock supports discounted. But it sure seems a little unfair that at least one RfA may have failed due to sockpuppet opposes. Seraphimblade21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Third party comment: I didn't participate in the RfA, nor am I a sysop, 'crat, or the like. I'm a normal user. Searphimblade has a very good point, it doesn't seem fair that he failed the RfA because of socks. But Majorly does as well, and there's something else I noticed something on RfA main page: "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." To me, I think it boils down to this: regardless of sockpuppet votes or an RfA, does Jreferee have the qualities to be an admin? Whsitchy23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't want to see a reassessment, but I am indeed a little frustrated with this whole situation. As Jreferee's nominator, I was surprised to see his RfA had failed. He is a great editor, and I felt he was a great candidate for adminship. If all six of the Runcorn's socks votes were discounted, that would put the RfA at exactly 75% support, which would leave the decision up to the bureaucrats. Hopefully, this can be noted in his next RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Question/request: why don't the 'crats start a dicussion similar to the one for Gracenote's RfA. Whsitchy18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Random checks of RfA nominees
I've put up a proposed addition to the checkuser policy on meta that RfA nominees may be checkusered at random during the nomination process. I'm suggesting this in response to Henrygb, Runcorn, and some other alleged cases of Trojan or sockpuppet admin accounts. Input from bureaucrats would be welcome. The issue is discussed on Talk:RfA too. SlimVirgin20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I oppose this as well. It would be easy to get around a check, would require a policy change, and is a waste of checkuser time. Prodego21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if others do not agree with having pro-active RfA checks, I would like to note that this is good reason for candidates to only be those who have edited for a longer period of time, so that there is a higher likelihood that a vandal, sockpuppeteer, etc. who requests RfA will have in that time been incidentally discovered during other checks. —Centrx→talk • 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for what "a longer period of time" should be, in your estimation? I'm not being at all hostile, just looking for definition. Thanks! Philippe23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For the purposes of being caught in check user, the longer the better, but of course there may be diminishing returns after a certain period of time and it becomes less feasible. This is similarly the case if people are looking for "experience", or waiting until a user flips out or shows his true colors. Three years on Misplaced Pages may serve the checkuser and the experience purposes well, but only marginally so and would be rather infeasible. Personally, I think admin candidates should have been active for at least six months. It might be difficult to get statistics on the average duration of an undetected sockpuppet. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Might" be difficult? In the same way that "might" be an understatement? /me grins. I would tend to agree with a general "six months" suggestion, but the second I do, someone's gonna come along and say "ZOMG! Then ADMINXYZ wouldn't be an admin!" and, invariably, it'll be one of my favorite admins and I'll owe someone dinner and cocktails. I think 3 years might be pushing it a touch, as you suggest... I'm not totally opposed to the suggestion, and in fact, the mere suggestion alone might carry weight (doesn't mean we'd have to actually do it, but just the occasional random application might be enough to scare Willy-junior off; of course, it would only work if you actually caught someone and made it public, so there might be not a great deal of point). Philippe23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok I really oppose the 10 year idea, seeing how Jimbo wouldn't qualify. :). Misplaced Pages has only been around for six years, which means if all admins had to wait 3 years, we would only have about 200 admins. I think mandating a certain period of activity is not very productive, the RfA community can (and does) apply it's own 'soft' deadline, which can handle the exceptional users. Prodego01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how about we mandate 3 years and allow voters, if they so choose, to oppose if the candidate does not have 10 years? I think that is a good compromise. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly is that relevant? Perhaps we should "WP:AGF" and just let every user who registers have admin tools? or steward for that matter? —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How? Because the 3 years figure is exorbitant. Most of our admins don't have 3 years in the project (heck, I don't), and how many complaints about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/whatever do you see? Trying to modify a system in response to one incident that has no indications of repeating itself is what engineers call a Bad Idea. Titoxd08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd said exactly what I meant by that. When a user applies for adminship, assume they're doing it for good reason. If they go bad, then deal with it at that point. Every admin action is reversible. ^demon16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My two cents: Arbitrary time limits that people have to wait to apply for adminship are pretty much... stupid, to a point. I mean, there's an RfA going right now for a user who has been here for less than 3 months, and it's hovering around 70-75% right now. But I see where people are coming from, so people will have experience in editing here. Personally, I'd say 1-2 months could work (definitely none under a month), and 6 months tops. As for the checkuser? Personally, I think it can be done like "random drug tests", to make an analogy. I mean, don't do it for every RfA, but for people who have had "problems" in the past, a checkuser couldn't hurt that much. Just do it on a random admin, and if something comes back, contact him or her via email, asking for explanation. Of course, if the other accounts haven't made edits in months, I wouldn't worry. But that's just me. Whsitchy23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The CheckUser wouldn't return any meaningful results for old accounts. It's not just the correctness of this idea that is disputed; it is also of doubtful usefulness. Titoxd06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I requested desysopping in April (meta link) to study for exams. They're thankfully over now, and I would like to request resysopping so I can get stuck into abusive blocking clearing some backlogs. the wub"?!"09:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there are 6 bots at WP:RBA#Approved_Requests needing a bot flag, hopefuly a bureaucrat (Why did you have to have such a hard-to-spell name?) can flag these bots, as they have all been approved.
Thanks! Matt - TheFearow04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Note: If I did this incorrectly, please tell me, it's my first time posting here.
Actually 5 bots - AMbot was listed twice. As for our name, just be grateful we don't make you write it in triplicate. We are bureaucrats you know. -- Done. -- Cecropia06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Weber
User:Kmweber, with a signature of "Kurt Weber", is starting to get to a lot of people with his "opposes" on RfAs. I'm neutral, but Kurt is opposing with reasons along the lines of "The request is a self-nom, so they must be power hungry". Some examples include here and here. There are more, but I just found these pretty quick. I know that users are entitled to their own opinions, but how do bureaucrats treat these kind of votes? What action should be taken, if any? Weber's votes don't usually alter the chances of passing/failing an RfA, but a lot of users are getting really annoyed and angry with this. Cool Blue19:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Bcrats take this kind of "vote" FWIW. But before wondering how 'crats would view it, how do the other participants view it? If there is some compelling argument underlying this opinion, it might persuade others to express similar opinions. In that case, there might be something to it. OTOH, if the opinion stands alone (or nearly so) it won't have much impact, will it? The community has a full week to bat these things back and forth, so they should really say whether Kurt Weber will be taken seriously or not. If what you're looking for is a reason to remove the opinion, I will introduce what I think is (but shouldn't be) a new concept: WP:WHATNEXT, meaning that if we summarily dismiss (or remove) certain kinds of opinions, what will we be looking to dump next? -- Cecropia20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're asking, I'm a big fan of dismissing anyone's opinion that is different from my own. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always held the opinion that it is not necessary to strike out or reply to every oppose comment. I've seen many cases where the comment tally will be similar to 60/1/1 and editors are hassling the one opposer and the one neutral to change their opinions. It really is irrelevant whether someone passes an RFA with acclamation, it just matters that they pass. Definitely do not strike out votes by anyone except anons (per policy) and socks (again per policy), but never strike out someone else's comment for being different or even what you may consider to be trivial reasons. Reply if you must, but, as I implied, and as I read in Cecropia's response, consensus will really rule the day anyways, so don't get torqued up about it. Save the angst for the RFAs that are borderline consensus and just let the others go. --After Midnight20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Monkey business at WP:CHU
Please note that after The Sunshine Man requested a name change to User:Qmt, someone created the account and made one edit. Likewise with 5minuteautoloan and Neo6486. Maybe others. I suggest bad faith, and these accounts should be usurped. A checkuser might also be a good idea. If this is a registered user, he needs a stern talking to. Otherwise an IP block might be in order. Thatcher13118:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith or not, an edit is an edit, and the accounts can't be usurped. Making exceptions to the rule would cause far more trouble than it's worth. A checkuser is a good idea, though. --Tango00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly withing the Bureaucrats' discretion to usurp these accounts, certainly when it is almost certainly bad faith after looking through the new users contribs. Ryan Postlethwaite00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I get what Tango's saying, but we need to block the underlying IP, at least for a while, before more disruption is caused. Cool Blue00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If these were created in bad faith - and there doesn't appear much question of that - there is precedent for usurping them. At the time, we even added a specific warning "Account names requested here are regarded as being "reserved" until the request is accepted or rejected. If someone else registers the account while the request is here, it will be renamed if necessary to allow for the requested move" - although that seems to have been removed as part of a "clean-up". I've added it back in, as I doubt this will be the last time someone tries to disrupt the process. Warofdreamstalk02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Warofdreams observation. Obvious bad faith. "Cybersquatting" comes to Misplaced Pages user names. -- Cecropia03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't usurp an account will an edit, as that's incompatible with the GDFL (same reason why the BJAODN was deleted, can't attribute to the original creator). However what can be done is the the 'crats can rename the distruptive accounts first, and then usurp Qmt and other accounts and then rename. --Evilclown93(talk)10:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what usurping is. (Renaming a user registered just to block a WP:CHU request has precedent from before usurpation was 'allowed', though.) --ais523 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Which do you think it better, would you prefer to delete the userpage so the edit goes with it and then usurp (preferably without using the template incase they are checking for this and to prevent further disruption) or to rename User:Qmt to a completely different and junk name and then usurp, both will take the same amount of time, which do you think is better? The SunshineMan11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We have another problem, User:Qmt left a message at my user talk page, I responded with this, would it still be possible for the bureaucrats to rename the Qmt account and then for me to usurp it, if necessary then you can delete my talk page and I'll just re-create it, would it still be possible. The SunshineMan12:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You should not feed the trolls; there was no need for you to respond to the "namesquatter". The 'crats are smart, they can take care of this. --After Midnight12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, this user blocked me indefinitely without comment; appears to still be semiactive (today). Someone may wish to look into it. Thanks El_C17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is. Shreshth91 may have told Friday by e-mail to remove his sysop flag, but the bureaucrats still can't do it, only Stewards can desysop, either at the request of Arbcom or the admin himself. Shreshth91 needs to post a confirmation on his talk page from his own account, then you can go to m:RFP and ask a steward to desysop the account. (They generally won't do it unless they get confirmation from the user himself.) Or if you think the account is compromised, you can ask a checkuser to check it out, but you will still need to get a steward at m:RFP to actually pull the switch. Thatcher13100:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
NHN - I think that Thatcher's point is that an email to you isn't adequate. Shreshth91 needs to either post a note when they are logged in, or they will need to email a steward directly for verification. --After Midnight12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington immature support for Shreshth91's attempt to retire as a user in good standing is unseemly, considering the role Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington played in provoking me erlaier on. El_C19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is the wrong venue. Perhaps arbcom would be willing to issue a quickie desysop order. Coming out of retirement to issue a pointmaking block on a longtime contributor, and then refusing to discuss it is an obvious case, in my opinion. If arbcom sees it the same way, problem solved. Friday(talk)19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeking desysoping, only an answer. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's tactics are intended to provoke and inflame the situation. El_C19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's support for a user who issues inexplicable blocks & edits protected pages (not to mention his earlier support for a block-evading user) can be exposed anywhere. Here's a good a place as any. El_C19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
By "editing a protected page," I think you meant to say "reverting the blanking of his talk page." As to "inexplicable," all he did (and is continuing to do) is giving you a taste of your own medicine. You're demanding a comment on the block from him after you acted the exact same way towards the fellow you blocked a couple of days ago. Double standards much? Picaroon(Talk)21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
....and this is here why? It's not an issue that the 'crats need to involve themselves in (especially as they quite frankly can't do anything about it except voice their opinions about it elsewhere, making this canvassing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, who are you talking to? This is the first time I've ever voiced an opinion about this, as far as I know... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm lost... I've got no idea what is wrong with my summaries (well, aside from a possible objection to the "what the fuck" one, but it aptly describes my response, so I stand by it). How did this become about me? My ego may be pleased, but the rest of me is confused... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As for convassing, I find that to be a rather bizzare claim, but, otherwise, I have no further comment at this time. El_C22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Does a 'crat potentially need to look into closing this early? DrKiernan appears to have left the project after having his userpage deleted and then leaving a seemingly final edit summary. Didn't know what the policy on closing one like that would be. ^demon02:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've closed it; usually it's not a problem to close withdrawn RFAs as a non-bureaucrat, and it would certainly seem that he's withdrawn. Ral315»03:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. As posted on your talk page just now; is it not a little premature to assume DrKiernan has withdrawn given that, only yesterday, he stated, "Consequently, I would prefer to see this out to the end."? He hasn't officially stated that he has left - Alison☺03:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! Hold on here. Who can point me to a diff in which DrKiernan says that he has withdrawn his RfA? -- Cecropia03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the RfA. It is going a little too far for non-crats especially to begin removing RfAs on an assumption. In real-life elections (at least in the U.S.) even dead candidates may remain on the ballot if the election has gone past a certain point. Leave this up and let the community decide if DrKiernan's nom will pass or fail on the information they have, including that he may have left the project. -- Cecropia03:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If the RfA passes and if the candidate has not reappeared to make a definitive statement of his intentions, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Either way, we will know what the community has to say about the nom in the time they have to say it. -- Cecropia04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone emailed him? I think it's pretty obvious that his intention is to leave (as some of us who have left before know, that's often easier said than done) ... at any rate, I think it would be worthwhile to email him and try and retain a good editor ... regardless of his RFA status. --BigDT05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it shouldn't have been closed, but unless anyone thinks that basically all of the next 40 editors were all going to tender their support (thus getting the RfA to around 70%), reopening the RfA was an unnecessary process. Dekimasuよ!07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the time that it was 13/22/9 and Pascal.Tesson gave his comments, it has gone to 31/23/8. If such a trend of nearly unanimous support continues, the situation you describe could happen. This RFA could be a turning point where people see the folly of the "he doesn't need the tools" argument and become more willing to sysop anyone who is trusted. Also, as a minor speculative point, what if the RFA were to end at 50/25/8? That would fall short of 70%, but it would mean that 37 of the last 40 !voters had supported. Consensus isn't always a numerical percentage ... --BigDT13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some pie on my face due to the way the RfA has turned out, but we've had that discussion several other places. My comment wasn't meant to reflect the way things should be, but to reflect the usual course of affairs. We know that if someone has 40 supports before getting an oppose, and then the last eight people oppose, the chances of the RfA failing are next to nil. There are some graphs floating around that show an RfA's chance of passing when it's at a certain percentage at a certain time, I think you'll remember. If an RfA is at 100% after three or four days, I can only think of one person who hasn't passed. That's probably why we had to go through the Misplaced Pages:Proposed adminship thing again recently. Dekimasuよ!03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the one oppose that made me turn this into something of a personal affair was the one which read "we don't need more admins, we need more active admins". This is probably the most absurd RfA I've had the pleasure to participate in and I can't blame DrKiernan for getting ticked and considering leaving the project. Some of the opposes bring slightly stronger arguments but for the most part, the comments left by opposers are almost comical in their failure to assume good faith (my favourite being ) and I don't think people realize how much harm they're doing to Misplaced Pages with frivolous opposition to RfAs. Pascal.Tesson13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You did the right thing initially, Demon. You asked whether a 'crat should look at it. Twenty minutes later, it was already closed, and not by a 'crat. I know 'crats aren't here every minute of every day, but it would have been seen to. -- Cecropia15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Following up a comment of BigDT's above, if an RfA is still attracting comments and is tending strongly in a direction counter to the current !vote count, would it be appropriate or within the bounds of bureaucrat discretion to extend the duration of the RfA because it appears that equilibrium has not been reached? Obviously that could be relevant to DrK if this trend continues, but I'm asking the more general question about what the limits of bureaucrat discretion are perceived to be in such cases. I could see arguments in both directions, I have to say. Mike Christie(talk)01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Extensions have been made at bcrat discretion if a result is unclear and the 'crat(s) believe an extension of time can clarify the situation. Sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't. Usually 48 or 72 hours is the extension. Extensions have also sometimes been used because an extraordinary event changes the complexion of an RfA and participants need time to react. Most rarely, an RfA has been nullified and restarted. However, it is too early in this specific case to anticipate the "end game" as it were. This may very well close as a normal RfA. -- Cecropia01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
And indeed it did. That's a nice one for the books. A complete turnaraound after a very bad start. As someone said over on WT:RFA, maybe this shows that if RfA regulars (and other experienced editors) take it on themselves to point out the fallacies of several oppose arguments, then the correct 'tone' can be set for an RfA. Carcharoth13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe what happened here. DrKiernan was failing at something like 13/22/4, and all of a sudden Pascal.Tesson throws in a loud "Protest support" and the rout is on. The net voting for the last five days of this RFA was something like +60 support. I have to eat my words when I wrote in the neutral section, "I suggest withdrawing this RFA because it is not goint to pass." Score one for the good guys! YechielMan18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It probably won't succeed, too many people who think that Charlotte is the devil for Tor usage and her reaction to a CU revealing information about her. Okay maybe "the devil" is a little too far. FunPika19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for restoration of access
Hi guys, I requested desysopping a few days back in order to deal with exams and some personal matters. The worst of my exams is behind me, so I was wondering whether I could have my hoover back? :) Thanks! Riana⁂05:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Riana, can you explain for a noob (i.e. me) why "exams and personal matters" necessitated you asking to be desysopped? Is it de rigeur for an admin to ask for a desysopping every time he/she is preoccupied and cannot respond to admin requests?
It seems like quite a reasonable request, and I know I would be asking the same thing of the WMF if I found myself in a similar situation gaillimh19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, if there's a bureaucrat around that has time to rename an account but is without OTRS access, please e-mail me for the username in question or if you would like an OTRS account please contact Mr. Cary Bassgaillimh19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If someone has a minute, would they mind checking WP:USURP. I put my request in on 6 June and was just hoping it could be processed soon. Plus, I'm on the top of the list of usurps so am the next to be done. Many thanks. --Bren07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers. If you leave, come back under a new name and are nominated for adminship, it is expected that you will give up admin powers on your old account. (You may do this quietly with your old account and not have to show a link between accounts.) You should have only one account with powers greater than those of a regular editor. The only user known to have had a secondary account with legitimate administrative powers was Dannyisme, which Danny used for Foundation work, but Danny resigned in March 2007.
Should Dannyisme be de-sysopped/de-cratted? He no longer has a need for the account. I know that b'crats cannot de-sysop, but this seemed to be the best place to discuss it as it involves de-cratting. Greeves20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to flag up that since Secretlondon hasn't been around for over a week the rename backlog is of similar length. There about 50 outstanding requests at WP:CHU and about 10 at WP:CHU/U that are due. I know its far from the most exciting thing one can do on Misplaced Pages, but if a crat has a minute to swing by and ease the backlog it would be much appreciated... WjBscribe15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
And every RfB ends up in that "there is no need for bureaucrats". Sure, there are 20 of them, but Cecropia and Secretlondon do the most work... Maybe you should try an RfB, WJBscribe. You're Secretlondon's assistant... Evilclown93(talk)15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Who the most active bureaucrats are has fluctuated quite a bit over time. Before Secretlondon took over, Nichalp and Rdsmith4 did most of the renames - unfortunately all 3 are away at present. If you want to see the statistics they can be found here. As to your other comment - I think people expect bureaucrats to have been around quite a bit longer than I have. But it may be time to look into having a new crat (its been a while - Cecropia is far from new to the job :-) ), especially one who could help out with renames fairly regularly as it doesn't seem to be a popular task... WjBscribe15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a specialized 'crat process. I'd be happy to start doing these, but I see that some renames are accepted and some rejected, and I don't fully understand the process reasoning (as opposed to RfA, which I've been following for years). If you anyone knowledgeable can help point me in the right direction, I'll do my part. -- Cecropia15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of it is pretty much common sense and I saw that the reply Secretlondon gave you here when you enquired was pretty comprehensive. Its by far the area of greatest crat discretion and from my experience each crat approaches it slightly differently. You could always just do a few that you're comfortable with - that would ease the backlog at least. In most cases you should find one of the "clerks" will have flagged up anything unusual about a given request. I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on another matter recently but I've been helping out with those pages for a few months and have a good idea of what's going on. If I can help answer any questions do drop me a note... WjBscribe15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing other things including working towards a release of Tux Paint this week. It does annoy me whenever I go away for a few days that ALL the bureaucrat renaming work is waiting for me. Renaming is pretty dull, especially when it takes all evening. Secretlondon14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
YAY! I'm sick of all the grunt jobs being left to me. Of course the more you do the more people expect you to do it all. Secretlondon14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help, Secretlondon. I hesitated because I saw you have a way of doing things that I didn't want to mess up, but now I see that WJB and others vet the entries so well that I can do most without worrying too much. -- Cecropia16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that it is incontrovertible proof but if you look at the contributions of both accounts the editing pattern, and writing style are consistent as well as usage patterns. (That's why I said to help prove, there really isn't any solid proof in a case like this that I can think of). Anynobody00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually now that I think of it, when I voted for Image of the Year on the Commons I had to make a note on my account here (both accounts are named Anynobody) in order to prove I had enough edits to qualify for voting. Does that work both ways? Anynobody01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Brion is really the person who can help you - I suggest you chase him up in case its slipped his mind (he is pretty busy). If you still have access to your account on Commons (it seems you do - ), a post from that account confirming that it is both User:Anynobody and User:Anyeverybody on en.wiki would probably help confirm your identity (as User:Anynobody expressly acknowledged the Commons account was his with this edit- ). WjBscribe02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering, with the fixing of bugzilla:6711, did the interface that bureaucrats use to grant users the 'sysop' and/or 'bot' rights change? Are there still separate special pages for the two, or have they now been combined? Or is it the case that the old interfaces still work, but Special:Userrights is now accessible by bureaucrats when it wasn't previously, and is also capable of the same changes? --ais523 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A side note concerning the tool Special:Userrights: it is exclusive to Stewards, yes, but the Board of Trustees has decided, although not in the form of an official resolution, that there shall be no local Stewards. That is, the only Stewards that are supposed to exist are the ones on the Meta-Wiki. Currently, the only exception to this rule is Jimbo, who holds the status of a local Steward on this Misplaced Pages (en.wiki). We have suggested to the developers that Special:Userrights be removed from the interface, since it is not supposed to be used locally and it is redundant with the Steward tool on Meta, but it seems that there are technical obstacles to doing this that have caused the proposal to be put on hold for the time being. Redux19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm told a crat normally closes BAG joining requests after 7 days, and my request at WT:BAG#Joining has been there for over 10 days. Could someone please close it? Thanks! (personally, I don't see the need for a crat to close, however it is the norm so I am requesting anyway) Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This is something I don't think any 'crat watches unless a request is made. I imagine if this is a "tradition" it is so there is no internal argument over the results, as there are no buttons to be pushed. Which 'crat usually closes? -- Cecropia15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter they just want a third party user with a high level of trust (Bcrat) to close so that people cant scream injustice. 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note about late voters (of which I am one) - comments are valid until the nomination is actually closed. This is in line with the stance taken at WP:AFD and WP:RFA, and every other !voting process I can think of. Martinp2309:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:BAG does not have a hard-limit to the time these things can run, sometimes they are fast, and other times not. Many times they are unanimous and we close them internally. On this particiular request 'crat judgement as to the state of the consensus is being asked for though. Thank you, — xaosflux17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe they were talking about me. But actually, in the past this happened only once: at a time when there was a larger election, with multiple candidates, to add a larger body of BAG members. I then offered to close that election in the capacity of Bureaucrat ad hoc. As Xaosflux mentioned, there are no hard rules governing the election of new BAG members, and 95% of the time they are handled locally, usually by current BAG members. Since this time we are being asked to act on this particular candidate's request to join, I'll look into it and close it. It will just be a little while, so that I can read everything that has been posted and decide. Redux13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and closed this for you - a bureaucrat doesn't need to do it provided the candidate is withdrawing and it can be quite a long wait for a bureaucrat to drop by. WjBscribe17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while since we've done bureaucrat promotions, so I'm a bit rusty. If memory serves, it's basically 10% higher than a normal adminship. Everyone agrees that 75%-80% is in the range for bureaucrat's discretion for an RFA, so presumably that means 85%-90% is in the bureaucrat's discretion for an RFB. Correct? Raul65402:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. No, not really. Try and ignore the numbers. Do you think there is sufficient consensus to promote to bureaucrat? It's not a vote count, and should not be treated as one. Majorly (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's how I see it as far as the reasoning goes - half the opposition to Andrevan is that he's not particularly active at RFA. Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. My interest in RFA waxes and wanes. That there are periods when I'm not particularly active there doesn't mean I'm any less competent to do the promotion when I am paying attention there. Raul65402:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think you should personalize it that much, Raul. Is this a community decision or the bureaucrats' decision. -- Cecropia02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's personalizing it to make judgments about the quality of the reasons to oppose. Of course those judgements are going to be informed by my experiences here - the same is true of any user in a position to make judgement calls. That's the very reason we pick the most experienced users to be admins and bureaucrats. Raul65402:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. " -- Cecropia02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite the wishful thinking of everyone else, RfA/B is a vote, as it is currently operating. Just look at what happened to any canditate hinting that they would apply more discretion. The problem with RfBs is that one !vote can completely change things. For a 90% support rate, one oppose nullifies 9 supports. So I would be discretionary in my discretion on an RfB. :)Prodego02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the second party. As operating those requesting Bueracratship must run a fine line, between those who want RfA to be a pure vote, and consider anything else heresy, and those who want the ability to have common sense override the mass of the people. Obviously I belong in the second camp, after all, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. However, as it is operating, go either way, and... Prodego02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That 1 Oppose to 9 Supports ratio is really wrong, in my opinion, there's no way one editors opinions should outweigh nine editors opinions, but that's what effectively happens here. Nick02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We've had some slippage in the standards over the last year. Someone under 75% on RfA was almost never promoted, now that slipped to 70% (with the range expanded up to 80%). In practice, I don't think anyone under 90% has been promoted to bureaucrat. I think you need to look at RfB as a thing in itself, not in relation to RfA expectations. My personal take on Andrevan is that the support is not there in the sense that it was for Deskana, who I would have promoted if you hadn't. I don't object to Andre if you decided to push the button, but I don't see compelling consensus. As to Ral, I have opposed. The core question was whether the Signpost could affect RfA and vv. I think it already has, with the flood of more than 30 supports against one oppose after the new edition. By contrast, in the two days before, I think he received 6 supports and 2 opposes. -- Cecropia02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Since July 2004, the lowest pass was 89.94% Support and the highest fail was 85.3% Support. There have been no other test cases between 85-90% in the last three years. Dragons flight02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Because as Dragonsflight said, it's in the untested middle ground, Deskana seems to support the idea it's in the discretionary range, you said you woudln't object to promotion, and I think half the objectors are objecting on weak grounds (and one of them agrees with me). Raul65402:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ral's RFB is over in roughly 4 hours, at 3:00 AM my time. I plan to be soundly asleep by then, but (since I'm reasonably sure there will be no big swings between in the next 4 hours) it will no doubt re-hash the same issues discussed above. That being the case, can we discuss and agree on a course of action now (presumably to put that one into deep freeze)? Raul65403:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe Ral has 87%, just as much as Andre whom you promoted. If decided that Ral's should fail, there's got to be an extremely compelling explanation from the closing bureaucrat for doing so.
In short, while RfA/RfB is not about numbers per se, consistency and appearness of fairness do matter. Any decisions which may imply bias or unfairness may not bode well for people's view of bureaucrats or Misplaced Pages in general. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ral315's is about the same as Andrevan's, and another support just came in. Unless Ral315 gets pile on oppose in the next four hours, I see no reason to not to grant him bureaucrat status. Acalamari03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a more difficult case. I find the opposes slightly more compelling here, than on Andrevan's. However, I do think the general consensus again is to promote. Majorly (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to discuss teh specifics of Ral's RFB while it's still open. That being said, however, I would like to note (A) in response to Oleg, that nominations that end in the discretionary range do not necessarily have to be consistent. A nomination with a lower support percentage (which ends in the discretionary range) may be promoted while a nomination with a higher support percentage may be failed, based on bureacrat's discretion. I would also like to note (B) that Cecropia has suggested simple extending Ral's RFB, which I consider an even better idea than freezing the nom. Raul65403:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But then again, one should think extremely carefully as to why this RfB deserves to be treated differently than the other RfBs. We've had too many ill-thought or ill-justified promotions which caused damage long-term I believe. Whatever the decision should be, it should be taken with great care and be well-explained (and no, the chat at Danny's RfA is not the gold standard). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
By voted they're pretty much the same, but if we go by discussion then, like what Majorly said, the opposes are different and could be more compelling. As for extending the nom, I dunno if that would work. Certainly one would have made their choice by now, if not they may be going in the "we need/don't need more bcrats" camp, which are votes we don't need. Wizardman03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It would *ahem* be inappropriate for me to say much here :) but I'll just say that whether the nom is closed, frozen or extended, successful or unsuccessful, I'll respect the decision. Ral315»03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I really feel bad about opposing you Ral, but I think my concerns are legitimate. I would support you in virtyually anything else. -- Cecropia03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to reinforce a point Raul made, if a discretionary range is 85%-90% (for example) it stands to reason that one person might be promoted at 85% while another fails at 89.9999%, otherwise it is not a discretionary range. -- Cecropia03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Argh wtf? Why is that suddenly an oppose has to be "compelling" while a support can be crap like "no concerns?" I'm really disturbed by Raul's disregard of opposes for Andre because he doesn't like the reason. (For the record, I opposed because he's not active enough *at all* - for my taste, not *just* on RFA.) Really seriously? Why is that supports are never questioned, but opposes are? pschemp | talk03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So it's easier to write an oppose than a support, I don't agree with that at all, it takes people two seconds to write "no concerns" and some serious thinking time to put together opposes...still that has nothing to do with treating the two things by completely different standards. It's morally inexcusable to be so flippant about opposes. pschemp | talk03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with easier or not. It has to do with the fundamental reasons why people support or oppose someone (as I explained in the law). Asking someone why they support someone is equivalent to asking them to prove a negative - they (generally) support due to a lack of behavior, whereas an oppose is due to an affirmative behavior. So of course it's easier to scrutinize an objection. It's rather difficult to find anything to fault about a support, which is pretty much equivalent to saying "I haven't seen anything that gives me doubt about this user". Raul65403:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's difficult to find fault with supports does not mean opposes should be treated with contempt. pschemp | talk03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Given how many years it's been since we've promoted a bureaucrat, I think we can safely say that the opposes are being given fair weight. Raul65404:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Deskana made it, even under the old rules. If the discretionary range for an RFB has changed, that's fine. It isn't fine however, to disregard half of the opposes because you personally don't like them. If more than one person expresses that sentiment, it certainly is not an outlier. pschemp | talk04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the case for RfAs and RfBs is that a candidate is assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise. Please correct me if I am wrong. —Kurykh03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking from the individual !voter's standpoint. You're looking at it from the big-picture view of the entire discussion. —Kurykh03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In the original concept of RfA it was assumed that what we now think of as the admin tools were just a restricted area that you didn't want everyone to have until we got to know them, and that they wouldn't use the tools badly. So yes, it was definitely expected that someone meeting minimum qualifications would become an admin unless there was positive evidence that the tools should continue to be upheld. I would compare it to the extra conveniences you get when you edit under an account rather than an IP. All you do is commit to the project by making an account, and BINGO! you can edit semi-protected articles. Things have changed because a lot more is expected of admins now and I also think that, if Jimbo really wanted to make sure that adminship was "no big deal" than the privilege should not have had a technical sounding name like "admin" or "sysop." It might have been better if we were called something like "IP editors," "restricted editors" and "unrestricted editors." In RfB OTOH it became apparent very quickly that since b'crats were making judgment decisions, no matter how much honestly and in good faith, some proportion of the participants would complain, ask questions, accuse one or another 'crat of something. So it fast became a requirement that 'crats be people who would be able to engage the community in such a way as to build confidence in the process. BY doing that, it became much easier for partisans of this or that prospective admin to accept that a decision they didn't like would have been made fairly and non-prejudicially. This is prehaps the core reason that RfBs have traditionally been much more stringent than RfAs and that prospective 'crats demonstrate why they should be 'crats rather than simply expect that they should get the bit unless people can find enough wrong with them. -- Cecropia06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This RfA for User:R is scheduled to close shortly. I am one of the co-nominators and was the nominator in the most recent prior RfA for the candidate (then known as TeckWiz) in April. In the current RfA, on a numerical basis, support for the candidate is at 71-72% as I type this. The vast majority of the !votes on both sides have presented good-faith, colorable arguments; I think that a small handful of opposes have presented weaker arguments that the closing bureaucrat may wish to afford a bit less weight.
In addition to colloquy on the RfA itself, there has also been an interesting and very useful interchange on the RfA talkpage about a primary concern that has been raised against this candidate (i.e., whether an editor's focus on "maintenance" or "janitorial" tasks rather than article-writing renders him or her unsuited to be an administrator). For whatever reason, this candidate has become something of a lightning rod on this issue, although other candidates with reasonably similar records have passed RfA from time to time without incident.
An editor who recently commented in the RfA supported with the observation, "Multiple RfAs and respected editors on both sides of the discussion with reasonable views. I would like to see the 'crats decide this with published reasoned arguments." Under the circumstances, I thought I would call attention to this suggestion as the closing bureaucrat(s) review this RfA to determine whether consensus for R's promotion has been achieved. Newyorkbrad02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No, closing bureaucrat, don't determine if there is consensus for R's promotion. That is not what RfA is. RfA is to determine if the candidate can be trusted to use admin tools properly. RfA has become too political, and this nomination is a prime example of that trend. Instead determine if there is consensus that R can be trusted. Prodego02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that this RFA is very clearly at >70% now. Other RFAs with this level of consensus have been very clearly cut unsuccessful. -- Anonymous Dissident03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It actually is at ~70.8% support as of this point, which does (to some point) fall in the b'crat discretion range, but I really don't have high hopes for this particular RfA. —Kurykh03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Its now ready to be closed. I wonder what will happen. I think it may cause a little bit of a drama if promoted. Its a good 5% off what is normal. -- Anonymous Dissident03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) This one has been trending downward, slightly, over the last day. A short extension to determine where that trend ends up may be helpful to determining consensus, otherwise I agree with AD. -- nae'blis04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, if it's extended, I won't be able to comment at all. I'll be away til Friday night. I guess it's not a major problem. Just saying. RContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The only two RfA's that passed around this % both were over WP:100, plus they're still being debated every so often. I supported, btu better safe then sorry on this one I'd say. Wizardman04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's <70% now. There should be no reason to promote this candidate, as this decision is not within the general discretion range and there are no other unusual circumstances. Daniel06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I stated in my closing rationale, I don't see any irregularity with this nomination. There is no consensus to promote. Andre (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the published reasoned arguments. Now I am not just happy that you became a bureaucrat but really happy. I think if more RfA nominees near the low end numerically receive such published consideration - irrespective of the outcome - we might be able to move past the idea that Danny received special treatment. -- Jreferee15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Should RfB promotion reasoning be posted in the RfB?
Within the bureaucrat consensus determining range (such as 85-90%), I believe that Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats requires an explained reasoning by bureaucrats on the face of the RfB. However, it appears that the bureaucrat's reasoning for the promotion are not tied directly to Andrevan's RfB, for example. In judging consensus, bureaucrats are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request. In addition to the RfB nominee requesting promotion to bureaucrat, the participation by editors in an RfB process is a request that bureaucrats judge the consensus of that RfB. Rather than merely being judges of consensus such as by posting a conclusion, bureaucrats are expected by the RfB participants to be capable judges of consensus. It is this expectation that is the request in each RfB for a formal statement from a bureaucrat of the reasoning used in reaching a decision the RfB. While it is fine that the discussion and reasoning regarding RfB promotion appear in a bureaucrat chat, on this page, and/or on a bureaucrat's talk page, it seems to me that Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats requires that the ultimate reasons for promotion (such as a summary of those reasons) be tied directly to the request made for those reasons. Since the request for those reasons comes from the face of each RfB, I believe that explained reasoning by bureaucrats should be posted on the face of the RfB. -- Jreferee17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have two concerns with this. First is that there is a high likelihood that this would become a fighting-ground for criticizing the promotion, something that could cause acrimony. Second, that unless it is messaged properly, it might turn into a 'vote' on the appropriateness of the b'crat decision. Considering the high bar set for RfB candidates already in terms of promotion target ranges, I would expect it to come with a commensurate level of trust in their actions except for the most controversial, and there exists remediation for those in the form of RfCs and Arbcom inquiries. Is a Bureaucrat someone who is expected to implement the decision of the community? Or are they part of a 'promotion board' that vettes the appropriateness of what the community has decided? If the first, then we must WP:AGJ (Assume Good Judgment, something that perhaps should be an existent policy) in all but the most outrageous. If it is the latter, then the Danny RfA Republic approach seems to be the model for the future, and that is both somewhat controversial and should probably be formalized by community policy development. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
To put my two cents into this, in my earlier 'crat days, I made voluntary explanations of just about any slightly discretionary RfA decision a standard practice when I pushed the button or removed. After a time, I found this to be a mistake, because even the best unsolicited explanation seemed to be a magnet for argument among a certain subset of RfA participants. I came to agree with some of the other regular 'crats that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This implied to me that, if the bureaucrat is generally trusted, most are inclined to accept the decision unless some feel it's really wrong (or at least questionable). I still stand ready (as all good little 'crat should) to explain any decision in response to a civil questioner, but I now feel that there are enough focii of dispute in this process without chewing over every single issue. -- Cecropia
What I'm noticing is that bureaucrat's discussions about RfBs/(some RfAs) are becoming a magnet for argument and that the bureaucrat's themselves are being disparage because the free flow nature of discussions make them an easy target for others to imply that the bureaucrat has not given the matter much thought. This is very bad in my view because a significant aspect of being a bureaucrat is that the validity of a bureaucrat's opinion relies on a lot on the perception of trust/respect for that bureaucrat. Bureaucrat are judges and if officials who preside over a court published their in chambers discussions instead of their reasoning, you would see the same disparagement for court judges. Judges typically circulate an opinion amongst themselves for revision before publication as their explained reasoning for their decision. One or more editors with significant Misplaced Pages experience will usually find bureaucrat decisions controversial. With their experience, they will know how to make every effort to challenge the decision. The question is whether the bureaucrats should hold out as the target for their criticism 1) the explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB, 2) the bureaucrat's discussion about that reasoning, or 3) the bureaucrat(s) themselves. It would be nice if there were a way that no target was available to shoot at, but that is not reality given the importance of each decision the bureaucrats make. However, it is within the bureaucrats hands to decide a course of action to take to minimize the disparagement of any bureaucrat and I think that explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB (when needed) would be the way to go. -- Jreferee20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. There has been a bit of discussion over here about a usurpation request (by Betacommand) that appears to be within the guidelines for non-Latin usernames, but which has run into resistance because of the difficulty the requested username (Δ) could pose to users of browsers which might not render the requested username properly. Several users on that page (including myself) believe there could be an option, as recommended by WP:U, to allow the usurp request, with the understanding that the usurper will include a link to a Latin username redirect, as well, in his signature. No bureaucrat has commented on the suggestion yet, but I believe (and hope) reconsideration may be productive at this point. Thank you. user:justen talk 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Since this message was posted Andre agreed with another editor the rename shouldn't be done and Deskana essentially closed the request.--Chaser - T00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Can any bureaucrat with a spare minute check whether they have access to Special:Userrights? Yes, I know, it is the steward interface, but there was a recent change to that page's behavior, as described on Bug 6711, and I was wondering whether access had been allowed, or whether changes need to be done to the site configuration. Titoxd00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. The issue here is that the new Userrights supposedly has a newer, more granular interface, which allows bureaucrats to access it, making Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot, among others, unnecessary. All it takes for that to be enabled is a rough consensus that bureaucrats would like to use it. Titoxd00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it that it doesn't allow bureaucrats to do stewardish things like removing permissions? If it doesn't give bureaucrats extra permissions, then I support the change. To be honest, I think it'd be okay even if it gives bureaucrats extra permissions, since I strongly doubt they will abuse it. --Deskana(talk)00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There does need to be an addition to LocalSettings.php to allow Bureaucrats access. Specifically:
Also, the Makesysop extension is what creates the 'Steward' group, the Makesysop part of it must be disabled, leaving only the Steward group. The Makebot extension must be disabled. Prodego00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the bureaucrats have to decide to stop using Makesysop and Makebot and use Userrights instead - they can't have all three? WjBscribe00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If we go this route, we will likely disable Makebot and Makesysop as they will be unnecessary. There's nothing technically problematic with using all three, however. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deskana, it allows bureaucrats to remove certain groups of access specified in the site configuration. It also allows admins to add and remove groups of access, if so desired; again, those can be added when desired/needed, but the other two extensions need to be disabled first. Titoxd00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You should either: (a) install a local wiki (these instructions (-the stick) can painlessly have a wiki running for you, (b) let me get AmiDaniel to make you a crat on his testwiki, which I can do for you as soon as he is available. Prodego01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd support the change as well. As far as removing permissions, I think we'd need more than just consensus here for that. Andre (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
One note, using Special:Userrights allows a Bureaucrat to be created who lacks the sysop right. Shouldn't matter, but just so you know. Prodego00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I considered that and don't see a problem. If anything, it's a slight improvement, because it allows us to promote a bureaucrat on the infinitely-close-to-zero chance an RfB passes for someone that isn't a sysop. --Deskana(talk)00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
He has two edits, both to his userpages, and has no logged actions. I don't think he's that important... no offense Rob! --Deskana(talk)00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
His one logged action being making himself a crat on en.wiki on July 12, 2007 - presumably to test this interface change? WjBscribe00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh that? Isn't[REDACTED] great, talking about screens of deaths made me rediscover Sad Mac, something I haven't seen since I used a mac classic at school eons ago. Viridae00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I am neutral on the proposal. I'm OK with things as they are now, and I'll be OK with things if we switch to userrights instead. I support giving bureaucrats the ability to de-op people within the project on which they are a bureaucrat. Raul65401:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Desysopping will not be enabled--at least not without a great, great deal of discussion. The reason for this is deeply rooted in Misplaced Pages's history (see, for example, the case of Ed Poor). AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify things -- the mechanism that has been implemented for allowing per-right addition and removals via Special:Userrights is very new, untested, and likely quite problematic. At present time, the discussion of the developers is tending toward the removal of this functionality and its reimplementation as an extension, which may or may not be installed on Wikimedia wikis. In any case, it will likely be quite some time before any such changes are made on Misplaced Pages, and before implementing any such changes, we will certainly have an in-depth discussion with the Bureaucrats here and on other projects. At present time, I would suggest just keeping it in the back of your mind that these changes made take place at some point, but not to worry about it right now. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the current setup is OK. On my localhost testwiki I set up steward access for myself, and then sysop access on my other 2 wikis on localhost - and found that doing it the "steward desysops on remote wiki" way works best. The current set-up seems OK for now. As for enabling desysopping, I agree with AmiDaniel's point. --SunStar Net16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have simply archived the discussion. Both you and Oldwindybear seemed to be escalating the non-issue to an issue beyond all reasonable proportions. --Deskana(talk)01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It has long been understood that in determining community consensus bureaucrats can dismiss the opinions of people offering absurd arguments (say, "I don't trust Polish people") but I would never have thought that people opposing an RFB candidate on the grounds that he was not active in RFA would be blithely dismissed as offering a "pretty weak reason". I'm hard pressed to find a fairer and better reason to oppose an RFB but since Mark has himself been criticized for RFA inactivity he feels this just isn't a good reason. This is not a bureaucrat determining community consensus, it's a bureaucrat evaluating the candidate on his merits. Haukur11:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not evaluating the candidate - I'm not the one making the claim that Andrevan is not active enough at RFA. I'm evaluating the criticisms of the bureaucrat candidate (that is, the claim that he's not active enough at RFA). I can say, as a bureaucrat myself who has been accused of this very thing, that it's just not all that big a deal if Andrevan (<- or substitute anyone else's name here) is an irregular participant in RFA. That is what we expect the bureaucrats to do when exercising their discretion - to weigh the pros and cons accordingly. That is why we choose bureaucrats who have been here a long time - because we expect them to use their judgment rather than being bean counters. Raul65413:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand what you believe bureaucrats should do. Should they normally attempt to determine the consensus of the community except when the support/oppose percentage falls into a certain range in which case they should evaluate the candidate on his merits? Haukur10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a serious issue with the promotion of Andrevan. I was surprised though. I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective. Instead, reasons for support and oppose need to be evaluated by the balancing contrary views; if two people said "oppose lacks experience" but twenty people said "experience not a factor", then I can see reason to discount the opposes. 7 people either directly or indirectly referenced inexperienced/inactivity as a reason for opposition. Using a liberal paint brush, 9 voiced support for Andrevan despite RfA inexperience. That's hardly consensus that the inexperience is a non-factor. I can see reasons for discounting opposition based on factual errors (using extreme example, "oppose - was blocked for incivility" and the nominee was never blocked. I can see reasons for discounting opposition when the community voices consensus that a given opposition reason is not a factor. A bureaucrat deciding from their own perspective that a given rationale for opposition is wrong? Flat out, undeniably wrong. Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus. Period. They are not empowered to discount support/opposition based on their own criteria, only on the criteria of the community. They are free to publicly voice displeasure with a given rationale for support or opposition. They are not free to close nominations based on that displeasure. Raul was out of line. --Durin13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective" - then what exactly is a bureaucrat supposed to do when a nom falls into the discretionary range? It sounds to me like you favor discretion, as long as the bureaucrats exercise it in exactly the way you would. Raul65413:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear I wasn't the only person disturbed by this. If you are lucky, he'll quote Raul's 10th law at you for justification, as he did to me above, without actually addressing the concern. pschemp | talk13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to say that, though I opposed Andrevan's candidacy, I'm not particularly unhappy that he was promoted. I wish him the best in his new job and nothing I say here is meant as criticism of him, only of Raul's actions as a bureaucrat. Continuing on the topic of opposition reasoning, while Raul found Durin's carefully reasoned and researched view to be a "pretty weak reason" he apparently found nothing weak about my somewhat vague philosophical disagreement with the candidate.Personally I think Durin offered a much stronger argument than I did. Haukur13:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not upset about the Raul's action nearly as much as his reasoning behind it. As I said before, it is one thing to say, the rules have now changed, and 85% is acceptable, and another to discount oppose votes on whim, especially when more than one person feels that way. An RFB is here to gauge community trust after all. pschemp | talk13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to make it clear that my stance above in this section has nothing to do with whether the bright line for promotion is 85% or 90%. It strictly has to do with opposition being discounted based on personal views of the closing bureaucrat rather than consensus (or lack thereof) views of the community. --Durin15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to voice alarm at this statement by Raul. Thus, we find another personal view of Raul's; since we haven't promoted anyone in a while, give all opposes less weight. This is ignoring the community in whole in support of promoting a bureaucrat, regardless of what the community says. This is flat out wrong. Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats says bureaucrats are "bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" It does not offer bureaucrats the discretion to discount opposition based on how long it's been since the last promotion or based on personal perceptions of the weakness of an argument, but based on consensus. You are expected to evaluate consensus, not apply your own metrics. --Durin15:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I read Raul's comment as saying "the fact that it has been so long since a successful RfB has passed it is evident that the opposes were given importance by the bureaucrats." You don't read it that way? -- Cecropia16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a possible interpretation, yes. I retract my statement barring clarification from Raul. My concerns regarding disregarding opposition based on personal metrics stands. --Durin16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I read that like Durin did, except that I felt "fair weight" was a way of Raul saying that he weighted the opposes according to his personal opinion (the opinion being previously stated that he disregarded half of them) in response to the question of why opposes were so easily discounted. Certainly if he means something else he should clarify that. pschemp | talk17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my above comment. Many, many bureaucrat nominations failed prior to these two succeeding, and we basically went years without any new bureaucrats. Clearly the oppose votes are not being ignored, your own insinuations to the contrary not withstanding. Raul65413:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My statement isn't an insinuation. Forgive me if you thought I was attempting to be subtle. To make it less subtle, I state that based on your prior comments you gave considerably less weight to opposes related to Andrevan's lack of experience with RfA based on your own metrics of how valid that argument is. Is this accurate? If it is, why did you do this when there was no consensus that this was an invalid reason to oppose? --Durin13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not the lack of experience but rather the recent inactivity, I think, Durin. I have plenty of /experience/, that isn't the issue. Andre (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oy, Durin, isn't it clear that he used his discretion, as it was in the so-called discretionary range? Am I really worth having a big argument over? Andre (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you. It also has nothing to do with the discretionary range. As I noted above, my question has nothing to do with the percentages. I made a statement regarding how Raul appears to have closed the RfB, and asked him if it was accurate, and if so why he chose to do this. Despite being active, he's not responded. A number of people have voiced concern about this. A response is warranted, given how bureaucrats are expected to behave vs. how it appears Raul behaved in the closure of this RfB. --Durin13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose by "being active" you mean the single edit I made this morning before leaving for work (where I am sitting as I write this, FWIW). Raul65422:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"To make it less subtle, I state that based on your prior comments you gave considerably less weight to opposes related to Andrevan's lack of experience with RfA based on your own metrics of how valid that argument is. Is this accurate?" - I gave them less weight, yes, because the stated reasons are inconsequential (and, to reiterate my above comment, at least one of those objectors agrees). Does this amount to giving those opposes "considerably" less weight? Well, if those objections had not been raised, then it would never have fallen into the discretionary range to begin with - the promotion would have been automatic. And had there been more of them, the nom would have failed entirely. So no, I do not consider it accurate to say they were given "considerably" less weight.
If it is, why did you do this when there was no consensus that this was an invalid reason to oppose - because, to reiterate my above comments, that is the nature of a bureaucrat exercising his discretion. Raul65422:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making it clear you used your own discretion and criteria for promoting Andrevan than that of the community. This is not what bureaucrats are empowered to do. I'll raise this issue now at WT:RFA. --Durin13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah. "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." That, indeed, is evaluating the candidate on his merits rather than evaluating consensus of the RFA. Haukur18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why VoABot shouldn't archive done requests sooner, instead of waiting 24 hours? They're done, after all, and the changes are obvious to the users. Also, WjBscribe mentioned that there seems to be something wrong with the archive function, as it doesn't seem to be moving the removed requests to the archive page. Andre (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would really like the bot to keep the page cleaner. Right now it still looks like it has a backlog even though everything is finished. Andre (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. The account has been renamed (see user rename log for more details). Redux 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
