Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 97

message: Hello. I have recently started participating in RfA's, and I came across an RfB. I would have liked to participate, except I didn't know if there were stricter expectations. I am personally against editcountitis, but edit counts do help to judge experience. I would like to know what to look for in a 'crat. Does it depend on Edit count, or more on sysop duties? J-stan Talk 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the minute, it seems to depend on everything the person has ever done, rather than being specifically related to how the person would use the bureaucrat tools. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, RfB is impossable to pass. Heck, it's unlikely that any Wikipedian would pass with the current standards, including the current crats. — Deckiller 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And everyone complains how few admins we have. Apparently it's a sin to even consider an RFB. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 02:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't impossible, contrary to popular belief. We just haven't found a good enough candidate yet. There are admins out there who I know would do a marvellous job. To the question: it depends more on sysop duties than edit count. Majorly (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfB

message: I noticed in Requests for bureaucratship/EVula a comment by Shalom which led me to Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything in that essay, but it suggests to me that there is a desire for more bureaucrats, and there is something of a backlog in WP:CHU. As you can see from Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan (Nov 2004) and Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan2 (Sep 2005), I'm ready and willing to serve, but I don't want to seem overeager or powerhungry -- 3 nominations is a lot, after all. Thus this vague, open-ended question. Andre (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not endorsing a potential RFB by you but its been nearly two years since your last one.  That doesn't seem to eager.  Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual fact of the matter is that you failed to pose a question. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, that is true, but really I'm asking for general thoughts on what I wrote. Andre (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Well, personally, I think that we do need bureaucrats, lots more, but that the community at large seems shall we say, very defensive of the extra tools. We collectively seem to be caught in the paradox of both agreeing that we need more bureacrats but making it very difficult for a candidate to possibly pass. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note: No wonder we need more 'crats, RFBs can fail even if 83% of votes are to support. And as a second side note, I guess the amount of question asked at RFAs (or RFBs) has increased greatly in less than two years. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfBs have historically required 90% support to pass. Since RfXs aren't treated as strict votes anymore, I think the standard is generally higher for RfBs. We do need more... watch this space ;) Majorly (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Shalom, I have to disagree with at least part of your general perspective on the stringency of RfBs. As we have observed, even a single controversial call (Danny, outstandingly) by bureaucrats can create an uproar that not only creates problems and conflict for the closing bureaucrat(s), but for all active bureaucrats; but, much more importantly, they chip away at the confidence of the great body of Wikipedians in the entire process. The heart of the problem, as I see it, is that one big part of bureaucrat duties is fairly uncontroversial: username changes; the other major part, promotions, requires straightforward and active engagement with the community, often in the face of attacks that can rise to the level of personal attacks. We don't currently have the ability to make someone a namechange 'crat without making them a promotion 'crat. Is this a danger? Consider the instances in which crats who don't usually promote (or do any crat work, for that matter) sometimes surface to make a controversial "push of the button." To paraphase an old expression: "if we want new bureaucrats in the worst way, that is exactly how we will get them." The impression I get from those who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" is that many are really saying "we don't need more bureaucrats just for the sake of having more bureaucrats." If the former case were the real sentiment, then I suppose my own re-RfB would have encountered a lot more opposition. It is evident that as popular as some users are (and we can usually assume justly so) Wikipedians want to be comfortable and confident with new bureaucrats, which is different than that a person is smart, or nice, or funny, or popular. If the community can feel comfortable with any decision that any bureaucrat makes, without demanding logical justification and firm, straightforward engagement with the community, then I guess it doesn't matter what our bureaucrat standards are, does it?
Now if you were ask me what one thing caused EVula RfB to fail is that I believed he hasn't yet acquired the temperament that most are looking for in a 'crat. Humor is good, very good, I have a dry sense of humor which would have gotten me into a lot more trouble in real life if I weren't so big. (My size buys me time to explain that I'm making a joke before the offended person finishes considering whether trying to punch me out is a good idea). But humor when people are asking you a straight question and you are occupying a position of trust can be very off-putting. I don't think his responding to individual opposes was bad, but the argumentation definitely was. -- Cecropia 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing that needs to be said from that, though: making "promote" bureaucrats and "name-change" bureaucrats is really easy, from a technical standpoint. If the community desires to do so, there's no technical hurdle to it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things -- I think the RFB standards should be lowered to say 80% support, because those admins asking to crats (which we need more of) just cant pass. Another thing - who would make such a decision as to lower such standards? Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous, remember it's not a % vote :) Majorly (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course -- my mistake. :) I'll say 4/5 support then? ;) Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No according to the RFA main page "the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a consensus of at least 85%"  so it is in actuality a % vote.  Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think Black Harry is right. So 4/5, 80%... chalk and cheese. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 85% bit was added in by myself a while back, when I was uninformed. Taken from the Guide to RfA, which was added in without any consensus whatsoever. Black Harry read correctly, but believe me, that info is wrong and ought to be removed. However, we do go by a consensus on RfBs. Just not measured in %. Majorly (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Got it. We should really new in dent soon eh? :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) The Wikipedia community. Bureaucratship is just a technical ability granted by the community (whether it is a political ability as well is an entirely different issue), so it is the community's role to decide what standard should be use for approving candidates. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the bureaucrat's job is just to push a button, and the community accepts that a bureaucrat pushes the button (or not) without complaint or seeking a reason, then bureaucrat is just a technical ability, and we can easily write a bot to do it. -- Cecropia 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an important difference between a bot and a human - humans can actually reason. If what Cecropia says is true, every admin and crat, for the good of wikipedia, should now abolish their tools, and thats not an impingement on Cecropia. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I was just speaking from the MediaWiki point of view. The reason we don't grant those technical abilities to everyone is because they're sensitive. Originally they were granted a bit more liberally, and then standards just kept toughening up... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucratship Again? 

message: I'd like to bring further attention to my idea about clerking an RFA before it goes live, to make sure that any nominations that enter the "mainstream" (which would be the actual RFA page) are not blatantly premature, have an actual proper assessed chance of passing or  otherwise are authentic requests for the tools. This clerking system I am proposing would be "clerked" by a group of users designated (probably crats, but possibly sysops and, maybe, if people thinks its a good ideas, normal users) and would act as a filter, allowing good nominations as defined by a certain criteria that would have to be designed by consensus to pass and go live and disallowing "bad" (sorry, I am looking for a better word here!) or "unlikely" nominations from entering the RFA page proper. Done this way, new users, "troubled" (again, please feel free to chance the previous word if you can think of a better and more tactful one) users or users otherwise unlikely to (even get close to) pass(ing) their RFA would be able to be notified in a friendly manner that "submitting an RFA right now is not really a good idea" by the clerks, and would not have to go through the stress of having their RFA bloodbath-ed. I think that such a clerking system would almost completely resolve some of the issues we are experiencing with biting in premature/unlikely requests. I just want to know what the community thinks of my idea. Obviously, even the idea is not rock-solid, and is welcome to complete discussion/criticism or changing. Thanks, Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This only introduces a new level of unwanted bureaucracy to the RfA process (yes, that argument again). RfA noms are easily added and removed; if you are trying to protect candidates from "having their RFA bloodbath-ed," then the ones that ought to change are the editors pouring torrents of blood on candidates, not the process itself. Also, this leads to diffusion of responsibility on the part of the RfA commenters; any absurd oppose comment could have a rationale along the lines of "It's not my fault. The RfA screening committee offered up such a patently unfit candidate," which exacerbates the other "perennial problem" of RfA: absurd oppose comments. Another point is that this splits RfA into "round 1" and "round 2," both equally harsh, both equally intimidating, etc. —Kurykh 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This requires that we decide on a set standard for applicants, which just isn't happening. Obviously, there is some disagreement about what "bloodbath" qualifies as; you called DOSGuy's RfA a "bloodbath" which the applicant themselves disagreed with. Nothing personal, but you've got a solution looking for a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition to the other problems cited, such as adding another layer of *cough* bureaucracy, there is also the problem that this "clerking" will inevitably require judgment calls. What happens when someone is irritated that one RfA was "clerked" out of existence while a similar one wasn't? Now we'll have two RfA issues to fight over: the initial cut and then the closing. -- Cecropia 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I suggested to you in a thread above, Anonymous Dissident, when newbies are being bitten, we ought to work to prevent people from biting them rather than keeping them out of the way. --bainer (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Thebainer -- but why not try to do both, as my proposal suggests? Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **I, too, am wary of the idea of adding another hurdle to the process. I especially cringe at the idea of quantifying eligibility or leaving judgement calls to the discretion of a select few. I think the only problem with the process is people's expectations. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization; our only currency is trust. People need to be able to trust the content of the wiki, therefore we need to be able to trust the people who have editorial power. If a candidate has been doing good work for some time, and not doing any harm, and possibly made a comment or two that shows a reasonable level of thoughtfulness and maturity, they've met my minimum expectation for any applicant requesting a position of trust. We all have different standards before someone earns our trust, but I don't measure my trust in TOEs (thousands of edits). My trust is earned by demonstrating a history of contributing quality edits, and not causing conflicts. Earn my trust and you've got the gig. Again, keep it simple. I have no objection to any part of the process, except for the criteria that someone people use to justify an opposing vote. Anyway, no sense in beating a dead horse; I've made my point. DOSGuy 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **Well said! Grandmasterka 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerking idea 

message: I run a bot, SpebiBot, and one of its future tasks is to update the tally on each individual RfA page currently transcluded on the RfA main page. A similar bot, Tangobot, does other similar tasks which include the RfA infobox (you know the one). I've contacted him to ask if he could assign Tangobot to do this task, but he is not interested in adding this to Tangobot, but he has allowed me SpebiBot to complete this task. Does anyone see any possible problems that the bot may cause? Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a great idea. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principal the bot is a great idea. If they are going to stay here, why not have a bot to at least make sure they are accurate? This post discusses updating tallies, not removing them. It wont increase the perception that RFA is a vote, its just making sure the tallies are accurate. The numbers displayed on the tally wont make a difference to that perception, which is all the bot would do: change the numbers. Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *The tally is not really necessary in the first place. No need to update it. Leebo T/C 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (double edit conflict) It is always brought up when someone mentions a tally bot, how bad the tally is. If we are going to have a tally, we might as well have a working one. Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the tally is bad. They are even worse when they are not accurate. With this bot, the tallies would be that much better, and actually serve their purpose. Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their purpose is to count the discussion - but you can't count a discussion. Majorly (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that brings into light why # are used instead of  * in the discussion. Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd isn't it? The header is labelled "Discussion", yet it's set out like a vote, but then again it isn't a vote, because if it was we'd not allow any comments whatsoever, just a name sign, and we'd have no candidates ever passing below the traditional 75% support. It's a discussion alright, but the page simply hasn't evolved yet, and every time me and other certain users try to update the template to show that, we get reverted. The confusion, thus will stick. Majorly (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ever thought that maybe its a combination of a discussion and a vote? It seems that way to me, and maybe a vote - with a discussion attached - isnt such a bad thing after all. Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should try to avoid a pile on, the user only suggested it, nothing has been actually planned here, I dont think the bot is a good idea but the tally is a vital part of RfA, although it is not a vote. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vital" is not the word that comes to my mind. More like "decorative" ;) Majorly (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone who think that votebot is good is doubleplusungood, and self-evidently does not understand Wikipedia at all. Moreschi  Talk 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with dissident, RFAs should be both a vote and a discussion.  Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but please don't remove them from the template. This has been discussed so much, I don't think there is any possible argument that hasn't already been made. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it? Sorry, hadn't realised. Moreschi  Talk 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic, but either way...no apology needed/it's an argument that spans all time. I personally prefer the tallies because I can get a quick look at people's opinions. I then read the actually comments, and of course check out the user myself. I don't really care that much, but it's a personal preference. I was just hoping stem an edit war before it started; tends to happen with that template. - auburnpilot talk 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, serious. Can't keep up with absolutely every bloody wikidrama. See, thing is, IMO most people just check the tallies and then vote. So much for giving a reasoned opinon, or actually checking out the candidate's contributions, or forming your own thoughts. This is not something to be encouraged. Moreschi  Talk 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to be clear, I don't actually support this bot idea. I like the tallies, but if they aren't updated, it's not the end of the world. We certainly don't need a bot doing it for us. I also tend to agree more with your edit summary than your actual statement. If people would actually discuss, not simply say "support per above" or "oppose because a self nom" the process would work perfectly. As it is, I still believe it works...but nothing is perfect. I just don't see the tallies making anything worse. - auburnpilot talk 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without making any comment on whether the tally should exist in the first place, it doesn't seem that it would be of any value for a bot to update the tally. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See, this is the thing: if we don't trust the crats, what are they there for? If we don't trust them to properly make judgment calls when it comes to RfA, what are they there for? It's also worth noting that in each of the cases where the crats have promoted (shock horror!) below the recommended numbers (and they are only recommended, or else this really is a vote), they have not been wrong: Carnildo, Ryulong, Danny - not desysopped yet, I see. Personally, I am quite willing to chuck RfA at the crats, because they are supposed to be Highly Clueful People whose judgment I can back. Moreschi  Talk 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a few responsible people to check for sockpuppets and handle unexpected contingencies. They don't need to do more than that. Haukur 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that most other Wikipedias don't have this idea you're celebrating of Highly Clueful People whom everyone should trust and who know better than the rest of us schmucks who should be promoted around here. They are supposed to be bureaucrats, not the Guardian Council. Haukur 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More fool them. We pick admins for their judgment, and ask them to make difficult decisions that require good judgment. We pick crats along similar, but even more stringent, criteria - and then turn round and say they're supposed to act in an almost bot-like manner. Ridiculous. Moreschi  Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it that this idea is not going too well. If all of you are so worried about RfA turning into a voting system, then just remove this whole tally thing in the RfA template. But if it is going to stay, why not keep it accurate? In response to Pedro, I'm not talking about creating a new tally and updating it, I'm talking about those numbers inside the brackets at the top of the RfA: (#/#/#). Even if one user decides to strongly oppose another user's RfA, it is still a oppose, whether it be a weak or strong. Sebi [talk] 05:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with the above. If we are going to have a tally, then at least make it acuurate. If not - then lets remove it already! Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have RfA, at least make it perfect. Since it's not, let's eliminate it! Okay, I'm sorry if this was over the line and stretched reductio ad absurdum too far, but I had to use it to illustrate something: that it's not an all-or-nothing thing. It's only a tally, and we're making a big fuss about it. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you are showing signs of OCD (not making fun of those who do have it), then update it manually. —Kurykh 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Replt to Spebi. Which is the point. A Moral Support is not an actual support. A Neutral towards Oppose is not an abstention. Trying to take the various semantic options used by editors at RFA and straight-jacketing them into three boxes simply continues and re-inforces the belief RFA is a vote. I've nothing against automating the process, it's just I doubt the bot will also double as a Turing machine. Pedro |  Chat   07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA tally bot 

message: ...Three candidacies were put up just today, and I know of a fourth considering running (up above.) I feel like putting in my own just to add to the fun. Grandmasterka 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of nominating myself before I saw the other two nominations, but they just gave me that little extra push to do it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so interesting I may have to run too.  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record that was a joke (im not even an admin) Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should try running, just to make this fun:). Wizardman 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this should be interesting. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The law of averages says that at least one of the three should pass.  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the law of RFB's says, well, you'll see. Wizardman 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we don't need any bureaucrats right now.  Whatever.  Fizz.  These aren't the droids you're looking for.  Move along, move along... The Rambling Man 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Bureaucrat week? I love it... Acalamari 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the success rate of RfBs, we may pretty soon end up calling it slaughterhouse week. (not that I want to jinx any of them) Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's going to be interesting, definitely. It would shock me if none of these 3 succeed. —Anas talk? 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's got to be a better analogy than the middle school dance... Maybe the RfB candidates are like knights going to slay the big dragon; each thinks they have a chance, but in the end, they all get toasted to death one by one. If none of these three succeed, maybe I'll find myself riding off on that lonely road towards certain doom once more. :-) Grandmasterka 22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the dance is quite a good analogy. Almost all RfBs start off well, then one person opposes and it goes downhill. I guess it's because people read the opposer, and if s/he's got a good point, people agree with them. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we shall all see the outcome of this very interesting week at WP:RFA. We all know how RFBs have this nasty way of coming back at some one. All it takes is 1 oppose out of 10 to bring em back down to borderline. All the best luck to them though. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the heck is the crat promotion % so high? Shouldn't 85% percent cut it enough? bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres two sides to that argument - we are giving these people extra-administrative tools. Thats quite a big deal: while adminship may be not a big deal, I dont think Jimbo has ever said that Bureaucratship isnt a biggie. Then again, i think 85% would be more fair, you know, so that we actually have some crats? Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raising the support percentage wouldn't help. Most recent failed RfBs haven't failed by a little, they've failed by a lot. Changing the support threshold wouldn't accomplish too much. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help a little, surely... Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick inspection of Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies indicates that lower the support percentage by 5% (or probably even 20%) would have not increased the promotion rate. Of course, this cannot account for the future, but I'd say it's a pretty good indicator. Quick calculations reveal the highest support of all the failed RfB's recently was 72% exactly. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what your saying is that there has never been an unsuccessful RFB that was very close to passing? Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2007, EVula's was the closest with 72%. The only bureaucrat promoted in 2007 is User:Cecropia, who was a former bureaucrat, and his was at 95%. So lowering the bar by 5% would have made no difference to the candidates so far this year. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems stranbge that there, you know, havent been any on the fence a bit. I think it would be just terrible if you got like 85% and didnt pass. RFB just seems too impossible, and we honestly do need more crats. Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Nihonjoe's 2nd was close, as was Ram-Man's back in 2006. But all the rest have been quite a way off consensus to pass. Majorly (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My quick inspection was a little too quick, it seems. He had 81%. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself had 83% - 50/10/0 - in my 2nd nomination. Andre (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally would like to see RFB be something perhaps 1/4 as regular as RFA ie: if there are 12 RFAs going on, I wouldnt mind seeing a regular pattern of having 3 RFBs going on - regularly. I think that we need loads more crats. The extra tools, which arent that much of a radical step up from the normal mop, should be given out to more and more trustworthy admins. I think also that the message has got out that we just need more crats, and thats why the RFBs are currently going so well. Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Crazy good if one or more passes. We need more bcrats. And yes, you're right Wizardman. The outcome of an RfB isn't certain until it's actually ended. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reckon this will appear in the Wikipedia Signpost? Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should do. It's a bit unprecedented. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bandwagon effect is what is driving all of these admins to try for RFB, at least all at once. It is quite possible we will see even more. Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the fact that the RFBs are mostly supported right now shows that there is general consensus that we need more bureaucrats, I believe. The fact that the candidates are good helps of course. Wizardman 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it shows that. Frankly, the cynical side of me is wondering when these RfBs are going to follow the course of more recent requests. (The immoral side is wondering if I should set up a betting pool.) It is my sincere hope that none will, and that all candidates will get a fair trial. Best of luck to RfB candidates! GracenotesT § 02:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that can be definitely said is that its going to be a very interesting week. We could have four (or more) crats by the end of this, or we could have none. Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Or we could have more than 4 if some people become enticed by the bandwagon. Wizardman 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, I can see that happening. Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a question we can only answer when this week is over, as trying to answer it now will result in a very sticky mess. But meanwhile, please don't let it prevent you from giving all of these bureaucrat candidates a fair trial. No capable individual deserves to fail because of a trend that may not even exist. Yes, Bad Things happen. Sometimes Really Bad Things happen. The project survives. You can do your part in preventing these Bad Things by objectively analyzing each candidate for/against whom you plan on voting. GracenotesT § 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt a hundred rogue, wiki-suicidal crats could do anything long-lasting/truly detramental to the project. There are more powerful positions - a steward from meta could just come and flag them down. Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree Gracenotes, and I will certainly hold these candidates today to a standard no different than any other RfB.  My point is not about these specific candidates (one of whom, yes, I've already opposed) but rather about having very high standards for RfB in general.  I've seen some comments at WT:RFA that people who oppose RfBs are being ridiculous.  And I understand the frustration of watching someone you feel is a good candidate fail a request (in fact, I felt this frustration most poignantly with Gracenotes' now infamous RfA).  So in response to that, I wanted to chime in to defend the high RfB standards. --JayHenry 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's bureaucrat week! 

message: I was just wondering - what with all of these 'crat noms, does anyone think the interest in normal RFA is a write off this week? It already seems that the RFBs are garnering a lot of attention, more than all of the other RFAs put together. I might be wrong; things just seem less "traffic-ked" at the normal RFA. Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently I noticed a major lull in RfA participation altogether. Maybe people are taking the summer off. :-) Grandmasterka 04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me - I'm down here in Australia, and rugging up computer-side for Winter. Yep, its Winter where I am! Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of less RfA traffic seems logical with more bureaucrat nominations. I do not think that this is anything to worry about, however. Captain panda 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be on the lookout though, this is the right week for Willy on Wheels to pass RfA under the radar. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deckiller - I'd actually say that this is the prime moment for an RFB. While not all of the attention is not solely on you -- there are 4 other candidates to share the attention. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not running. I was just making a joke about why I'd probably never run :) — Deckiller 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt mean to infer that you specifically should run, I just meant I think this would be a good time. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I might give it a shot, although I haven't been completely satisfied with my contributions lately (stress has led to a few comments that aren't uncivil, but I still nevertheless regret). — Deckiller 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not to be inflicted with The Disease, but 28k edits is pretty sweet. Id support you for this, for what I've seen of you policy wise, and because you seem like a good contributor. As I said, if you are thinking of it, this chance, where 4 (and potentially 5) are being speculated over at once, will probably never come again. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hehe.. Put   perimeters on your request and leave it on RFA for 7 days.... Totally foolproof plan, until a 'crat gets suspicious at the lack of comments... Damn beans... --Dark Falls talk 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what Darkfall said but get yourself like 2 or 3 sups then hide it. :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It might not be to their advantage though... Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more the merrier (need more admins...) although the last few requests might be provoked by this discussion. --Dark Falls talk 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 requests and counting.... --Dark Falls talk 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note: many of them appear to be premature (no offence). Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What with all of these crat nominations... 

message: Sorry to be somber, but I don't see any of the crat noms being successful. With the contentiousness of Danny's RFA, any answer given to the question "how much discretion should crats have over close RFAs?" or "what did you think of Danny's RFA?" will doom the candidate. For instance, any crat candidate that advocates a purely numeric conception of consensus (e.g., the German RFA method) will get an almost certain oppose from me and several others, while there are a sizable number of people who believe that RFAs should be purely percentage driven, and thus will oppose if the candidate think that crats should actually attempt to evaluate consensus beyond just tallying numbers. It's impossible to please everyone. 
:I think the only way to get more crats is to reduce the requirement for a successful RFB from "complete unamity" to "consensus", as in the RFAs.Borisblue 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, at the minute there are three that will pass. Ral, Andrevan and me. Of course, we have to account for the fact that they tend to crash and burn, so we will just have to wait and see. I think the perception that we need crats has helped them not crash and burn so far, but it might even help them pass. --Deskana (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have three oppose votes for advocating a non-numeric conception of consensus. Way more than three people believe in the "German solution"- as you can observe from the furor following the Danny nom. You are an experienced user with deep familiarity with RFA, and I certainly hope you make it, I'm just not optimistic. Borisblue 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one believe in the German solution and though I am leaning towards opposing Deskana I haven't done so yet because I have found most of his answers reasonably thoughtful. If he comes straight out and says he thinks the bureaucrats did a good job evaluating consensus in the Danny case then, yes, I will certainly oppose. Haukur 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't worry, I never went into it expecting it to pass. I just hoped it did. --Deskana (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the most frustrating thing I found with my RfB was that there didn't seem to be consensus about what 'crats are supposed to do when closing RfAs. Very, very frustrating; definitely a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Danny RfA question is about acceptance of a 'crats decision. I thought that the 'crats were too dismissive of the opposing votes and did not supply enough diffs to support their conclusions in the Danny RfA. However, I accept their decision and it appears the Wikipedia community seems to now accept it. Perhaps it is a question of just how much good will the nominee has built up in the community. For those RfB nominee's, the question each of us should ask ourselves is if the RfB nominee made a decision like that in the Danny RfA, would the community accept it? If not, that RfB nominee has not yet reached 'crat level. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my beef with that question would be "is another lead foundation member going to run for RfA here after resigning from their position"? Probably not, so maybe a better example is needed. Wizardman 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a slight possibility for deskana and Ral isnt there? Last time I checked... Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only RFB's that are likely to be successful are probably Deskana, Ral and Andrevan's. A very troubling problem will arise if a question, such as "What would you do in Danny's RFA?". You disagree with the 'crat's decision, and you'll get shot down in flames by the supporters. You agree with them, and you get accused of denying consensus, and the opposes will form. Either way, a nearly successful rfb request will turn borderline. It's a double-edged sword. Though I have no idea about this, maybe a new policy might be useful here?--Dark Falls talk 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and, as Darkfalls and I were saying last night, even the rock solid ones (like Husond was) are starting to shatter. The 10 to 1 ratio proves inevitably and invariably cruel once again. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deskana - since when were you damned? Your RFB is looking among the best of the five. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm expecting it to fail now I've made a clear statement about Danny's RfA, to be honest. It is one of those damned either way situations, such as admitting whether you think RfA is consensus based or is a vote. --Deskana (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Some people might like your answer, and that gets you sups. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no guessing with RfBs. We'll just see how it goes. --Deskana (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have to remember that you have another six days to endure 10 to 1 opposes. Makes me shudder. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Leave it to the last day, then post your opinion:) Seriously, don't worry too much on it... That was the exact reason you got a support from me... --Dark Falls talk23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont know, but I think that 90-95% needs to be un-instituted myself. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 90-95% Come to think of it, I always thought it was around 85%. Does it actually say 90-95 or is it an assumption? --Dark Falls talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, im fairly sure its around the 90% mark... Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice again we are seeing more RFAs hoping to slip under the radar. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's around 90%. It used to state that somewhere, I don't think it does anymore. --Deskana (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You folks might want to to check out Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22#Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat. There's also a follow-up to that at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll, but I regret creating the latter as it was unhelpful and wrongheaded. The point is, it's not a clear-cut issue, and hasn't been for a long time. Andre (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the sound of things, it hasn't needed to be strictly defined, because no-one has gotten close enough in recent times... Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Close to what? —Kurykh 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Passing. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the polls, the real discretionary range should be 80-85%... But then again, they are polls.... --Dark Falls talk 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We got a new no.6 - RyanGerbil10. He has self-asked the question about Danny, and answered. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The danny question will doom all crat nominees

message: We have to prepare ourselves for that.  If none of those candidates end up passing, there is seriously something flawed with RfB.  We may need to change our RfB process if that happens.  I suggest we do something along the lines of what they do for WP:ARBCOM and the Board elections (currently going on now go vote!):  approval voting.  Ever quarter to a year, we set up Bureaucrat elections.  All admins are welcome to post their name on a list before a deadline.  After that deadline has ended, anyone is allowed to support the candidate (no opposes or neutrals).  Whichever two or there get the most votes, become new 'crats.  This method is very different from RfA in the aspect that we actually treat them as votes not !votes and that you can't oppose or go neutral.  Please provide feedback (but hopefully, some of the current noms will pass and we won't have to worry about this). Cbrown1023 talk 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a good idea, but that would make 8 crats in one year. I dont know if thats necessary. And this idea is bound to bring out the "RFA/B is not a vote" brigade. Maybe we just need to lower our standards. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't really practically lower our standards, but we can make the passing percentage more practical. About Cbrown's idea, it's not bad, although we can make it twice a year instead, per the 8-'crats-a-year thing. —Kurykh 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt mean lower each persons standards; lower voters standards. I mean make say an 80-85% passable so people can actually fill the position of crat. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the clarification. However, I was actually aiming for a more conservative change to 85% and above (give or take). Though still quite high, at least it's better than the near-unanimity that the status quo requires. —Kurykh 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your proposal(Cbrown), will give more room for abuse though, and set out more competition. The first few votes will be pretty good, but in the end, it's going to be a popularity contest. Editors will just vote for whoever is winning, without a second thought.... --Dark Falls talk 05:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...much like in ArbCom elections. —Kurykh 05:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only solution to this is probably to make it like the board elections. Complete blindvotes... But that will probably cause too much inconvenience... --Dark Falls talk 05:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I say we cross this bridge when we come to it (next week).--Chaser - T 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bridge has been here for quite a while actually, and its been waiting to be crossed for nearly as long. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but who wants to be the first goat? —Kurykh 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goat? You mean 'crat candidate right? --Dark Falls talk 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right! I get it... (haven't read that book since childhood) --Dark Falls talk 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent ever read that book, and I am in my childhood. :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, read it before it's too late! —Kurykh 06:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. 1 more edit. :D Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Suitable goat for 'cratship... Someone actively contributing to RFAs discussions, well respected, who is an admin and doesn't care about the humiliations of being a goat. --Dark Falls talk 06:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fit the last criteria. Did I mention that I am a uhhhh... yeah, im actually a goat. Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To complete the analogy, we need someone to play a troll. Hmm...--Chaser - T 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: add an "on wheels" at the end and it's a troll :) --Dark Falls talk 06:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Trolls eat goats. But seriously: i think this could be an idea. Maybe we should post a new topic? Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The rfb will probably fail depending on the different point of view of the opposers. Mention the Danny issue on an RFA, and it'll all blow out of proportion. As for the weaknesses, Anon's right. Many editors expect bureaucrats to be perfect, while others oppose because they disagree with an action. --Dark Falls talk 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DarkFalls is sopt on. Appeasing one group of editors will frustrate another. Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What does UAA have to do with anything? That argument doesn't hold water. You could say the same for anything: there are literally thousands of things to do in Wikipedia, and some of them include the WP:CHU backlog, adding bot flags, dealing with usurpations, etc. There's probably thousands of fair-use images to investigate, so why don't editors who are editing the encyclopedia drop what they're doing and delete them? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we need to make an guideline on the criterias for bureaucrat promotion, like the featured article criteria. It will definitely help eliminate spurious opposes, but there are also many problems... --Dark Falls talk 06:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good idea, but it might seem too bureaucratic to some editors, and the "thats too bureaucratic, this is wikipedia not bureaucratopedia" company would come out. Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is too bureaucratic if you think about it.... --Dark Falls talk 06:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia as a whole seems to be under the impression that bureaucracy is fine as long as its not associated with users/the restrictions of users/user's rights. Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy says differently... --Dark Falls talk 06:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you understand what i mean. Retracted, until I can phrase properly. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What if there was a voting threshold for RfBs, disallowing users to vote discuss who have not registered before X with Y amount of edits, like in the Board Elections?  I wonder because, as a fairly new user, I can think of one RfA that I opposed that I really had no good reason to.  I didn't have a good grasp of what adminship was.  I wonder if discounting these votes in RfBs would change the outcome any?   The community seems to require some kind of Zen Buddhist like 'crat, so shouldn't there be a higher standard for the voting discussing populace? ;-)  daveh4h 15:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absurd opposes will, of course, be thrown out the window, but the thing with RfB is that most, if not all, people tend to have an idea what they are talking about, and if you look at the candidate from their point of view, it makes sense, no matter how you may disagree with it. —Kurykh 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats what we were discussing - changing the process. But I agree with you Cecropia - its not a big deal if no-one passes, it would just prove that the process is corrupt. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, an echo of the 'sixties. If the process doesn't produce the result I deem proper, it must be corrupt. -- Cecropia 07:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was born in '95. No idea what your on ;) But really, I used corrupted as in a synonym for say... dysfunctional. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I haven't even seen my bong for ages. :D I think "dysfunctional" is too inclusive a term, I think internal reform would do a lot more for bureaucratship than simply adding warm bodies in the hope that one of them or maybe even two (OMG, where's my nitro) might fully participate in the process. I think some means of review (say, have 'crats stand for affirmation after 90 days OTJ, then reaffirm annually) might do wonders for some cobweb cleansing. -- Cecropia 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think something has to be done. I think internal reform might be exactly what we are looking for. When you see the fact that a 'crat has not been promoted since early last year, despite many noms from mostly good candidates, it prompts one to wonder whether the current process might need some fine tuning or some alterations. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What if no one passes ''this time''?