Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2

message: Nihonjoe's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: For what it's worth, I as a crat wouldn't have advocated the promotion of Danny due to the strength of the opposition, but I can't in all good conscience oppose an RFB candidate who says they would have promoted him, provided they can justify the decision. Nihonjoe has said he agreed with the procedure and would have abided by the consensus of the crats' discussion, which is good enough for me. A number of oppose !votes here seem to be solely based on the possibility that the user would make one decision they disagree with, not that he would do the job badly. From what I can see, Nihonjoe is a well respected contributor, and there's little to no evidence that he would make a bad bureaucrat. With Essjay's departure, we need another crat, and imho we should never turn down willing, qualified volunteers. In conclusion, then, I feel that if this RFB fails it's a very good sign that the system is broken, because we're not likely to get many better candidates than this editor. --kingboyk 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably no good admin who'd make a bad bureaucrat; so long as they're interested in the RfA process, have a good eye for consensus, and a level head, there's no reason to not have another. See also the common criteria I listed here. People who oppose because of one incident are forgetting that Nihonjoe did not make that decision. This should be no big deal. Majorly (hot!) 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfB isn't promoting any bureaucrats, whether or not that means its broken is up for debate. I think it probably is broken. I just hope someone can prove me wrong. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 12:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're slowly coming up to a year long gap of no new 'crats. Next month will be the longest time without a promotion ever. Majorly (hot!) 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, a lot of them were sunk by the "we don't need any more" opiners.  Frankly, if there are any opinions in RfB or RfA that should be ignored, it is "we don't need any more".  We do.  Even if we don't right this instant, people are going to depart, reducing the supply, and hopefully we are going to grow, increasing the demand.  I do think, however, that it will be nearly impossible to get anyone to 90%; either people participate in WT:RfA and are sunk for what they say, or they don't and are sunk for not saying enough.  GRBerry 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially if you talk percentages. There's a camp of people here who go ballistic anytime anything related to numbers is mentioned in connection to RfA. It's somewhat frustrating when people don't see the connection between the number of people expressing an opinon one way or the other, and consensus. They are so blinded by an objection to any mention of votes and percentages that they can't see past it to what is actually being said. I begin to wonder if anyone will ever again achieve the necessary consensus to pass RfB in the current climate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they're one of a handful of our most respected contributors (and I mean literally a handful, i.e. not the likes of you (no offence) and I), they'd probably be wasting their time even trying. Now, who wants to propose RFB reform?? :) --kingboyk 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a crowd that goes ballistic if you mention percentages as a way of closing RfAs and a crowd that goes ballistic if you say you'd not use percentages. Broken? Nah. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mackensen stated he would not use perecentages, he was opposed for it. Nihonjoe, myself and other recent RfB candidates have stated we'd use percentages. We were opposed for it. So, now that the "no need for more" argument is dying out, we have another catch-22 situation. Majorly (hot!) 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what are we going to do about it? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know! All admins are bureaucrats! Been suggested before, why not try again eh? Majorly (hot!) 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I quite like that idea. Imagine how much of a fit "no need for more bureaucrats" people would have when we have 1000+ :-p --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another potential problem is the crats themselves. I've seen some RfBs sink because a crat would drop in and say, "We don't need more; the three of us shove each other to promote RfAs", leading to a parade of opposes "per ____". We should ban crats from voting on RfBs. — Deckiller 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_14#Poll_on_making_all_sysops_bureaucrats I think we should move this to the main RfA talk page. Majorly (hot!) 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deckiller: You're right, I've seen that happen too. I think that may be a good idea. Majorly: Lets do it. Lets have a discussion though, not a poll? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote we do that :) Be prepared for the opposition to it... Majorly (hot!) 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I expect it will get nowhere but it's probably worth a try and maybe another good idea will come out of it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All admins as crats might be a bit much, in terms of numbers and in terms of "safety". I'd be happier with a proposal for "all admins of (say) 1 year tenure". I.e. serve as an admin for a year, get the crat flag. However, both of these proposals are vulnerable to the obvious problem: the more crats there are, especially if we're talking hundreds or over a thousand, the more chance there is for a "robdurbar" incident. We don't want Willy on Wheels being given the sysop flag! :) --kingboyk 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's at least two ways of dealing with a broken system. 1) Change it (see above). 2) Boycott it. --kingboyk 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be a good measure of whether RFB is broken or not