Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat

message: Just wanted to add in that both Taxman and Dan have stated that they intend to refrain from taking part in the discussion as they had strong opinions on this RfA and felt themselves unable to contribute objectively. I would encourage all bureaucrats to follow this example -- if you have a strong opinion either way, or especially if you voiced your opinion during the RfA, please refrain from participating in this discussion so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong opinions, but not strong enough for them to actually vote? Are bureaucrats apathetic, restrained or just lazy? :) – Gurch 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is entirely proper for Taxman and Dan to refrain from this chat. I respect them the more for ir. -- Cecropia 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the interests of full disclosure, I commented in support of the RfA but do not have a strong opinion on what has become the key question in it.  I intend to take part in the discussion, but will refrain from closing the RfA. Warofdreams talk 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have been criticized in the long past (not by either of the two 'crats above) for expressing the principle that Bureaucrats should not express support or opposition in RfAs unless they have a very strong reason to and that, if they do, they shouldn't be the deciding bureaucrat if the result requires judgment. This illustrates my point--we have lost two voices that would have been more significant in the decision than in the RfA itself. At any rate, I see no issue of torpor. -- Cecropia 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't remember saying that. I am in fact not taking part because I am in the midst of various real-world obligations and cannot give  it fair attention. — Dan | talk 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, my apologies--I misunderstood what you said. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrats taking part 

message: So, 74% support with some fairly dubious opposes ends with a no consensus verdict from the 'crats. I'm honestly shocked, the number of recent RfA's that have past with less support than this, but with much better oppose rationale leads me to seriously think that RfA is broken, but I'm not sure it's the process, it's more the consistency with who is promoted and who isn't. It looks to me like it depends on which 'crat gets there first. Let me ask then, is the RfA going to be closed using ? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I didn't know the 'crats had decided. Wish someone had told me. ;-) -- Cecropia 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like it from the chat...... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that they were waiting for a couple of other b'crats to weigh in? hbdragon88 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other 'crats don't weigh in, it's been decided that it's a no consensus result by the looks of things. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe it'd be best to just let them work. RxS 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe it's a good thing. I was about to change to oppose when the RfA was suspended. I'm just waiting for Gracenotes, that hate-mongering attack-freak to dare and run again, so I can oppose him like he deserves it. </...> —AldeBaer 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Me agrees strongly with RxS. Even "No consensus" is better than "no discernable consensus". GracenotesT § 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference? To be honest, meaninglessness of raw percentage figures aside, 74% isn't all that bad – it means, in theory at least, that three-quarters of the community think Gracenotes should be an administrator. Pages are deleted every day with less consensus than that. And if the let's-make-this-a-referendum-on-attack-sites votes – from both sides – are eliminated, the result is overwhelming support. Ryan's argument doesn't really make sense, though; the fact that other RfAs have succeeded with a lower proportion of support (this is not the same as "less" support; 201 is more than most recieve), doesn't mean that this one must therefore pass. If that were the case, we could just fix a percentage figure and dispose of the bureaucrats – Gurch 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just stop this discussion?  Everything has been said already, the decision will come soon and probably isn't influenced by this in the slightest.  Phaunt 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to ignore it. Personally, the faliure of the bureaucrats to actually do anything that couldn't be done by glancing at a number is beginning to irritate me – Gurch 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from your perspective I might well be chewing the carpet as well, but this is an important issue, we still have one 'crat outstanding who wants to comment, and I am preparing remarks of my own; but I must assert that numbers are part of this show, but they are not the show. -- Cecropia 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Although a 'crat need not be bound by precedent, since every RfA should be its own creature, there is already a promotion by which some of the points concerning this RfA were addressed. While I'm aware that promotions are very rarely (never?) recalled, I am extremely concerned regarding any decision that may impact Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU. In theory a promotion is a promotion is a promotion, but some promotions may be regarded as more equal than others. Therefore it may be necessary to consider how current decisions may reflect on past ones. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry. We don't do ex post facto on current admins. There were maybe one or two decisions in the history of the Bureaucrat system that were so bad that they were reversed, but that was immediately after they were made. There were also a few cases where "the button" was pushed accidentally (I once pushed the button for an admin before my first cup of coffee and made him or her a bureaucrat by mistake). A quick note to Angela or another Steward patched that up. Generally, someone is only de-admined for something they did while an admin, by ArbCom, voluntarily, or for extreme reasons; for example User:Essjay -- Cecropia 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take issue with your last example. Essjay chose to resign his positions and leave the project - its not clear he would have been desyssoped had he not. Perhaps Robdurbar is a better example. WjBscribe 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues that "encouraged" Essjay to leave the project and his tools behind were rather extreme. -- Cecropia 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some felt that, yes. But we don't know what would have happened had he chosen not to leave. Prob it would have ended up before ArbCom... But it isn't a good example of someone being desysopped against their wishes without an ArbCom decision, because he resigned. WjBscribe 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was more commenting on the perception of an RfA, and therefore the validity of the admin in the eyes of some, which was promoted (in part or in whole) on considerations that are later to be decided to have difference relevance. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as someone who opposed your RfA let me put it this way. Those who opposed your RfA are not going to have their opinion changed by the outcome of this bureaucrat chat and neither will those that supported. Their opinions will change depending on whether you do good or bad work now you are an admin. The fact that one opposes someone's request for adminship does not mean that one opposes them once they are an administrator - we all work together. If you make a good admin decision you'll have my support, if you make a mistake I'll point it out. Each RfA discussion should stand alone. Nichalp analysed yours and decided there was a consensus to promote- if there was any outcry about that it passed me by. Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations. So to answer your question, I don't see why this should impact on how you are regarded as an admin. WjBscribe 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that everyone is ready to bury the hatchet. None of the most decided opposers congratulated LessHeard vanU as a simple and polite demonstration of their willingness to good future collaboration. Not giving any signal is actually a signal. —AldeBaer 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never come across an opposer congratulating a successful candidate, ever. I do not think you can read anything into that. Secretlondon 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to WJBscribe's "Every message on your talkpage seems to offer congratulations." —AldeBaer 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I congratulated User:Joshbuddy after opposing.  But that's neither here nor there, as you said there's nothing to read into it.  Teketalk 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have congratulated several candidates that I opposed for reasons of inexperience or mild disagreement with their stances on issues. I have regretted only one support thus far... -- nae'blis 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough*. Daniel 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacting upon the past 

message: Re: the posts below: If you read above, Cecropia asked us to restrict ourselves to comments that clarified the voting: "Please be aware that only clarifications should be brought up at this point and that the essential work on this RfA is based on the RfA itself." I clarified the oppose vote only because it is being caricatured. Therefore, please don't post more of the same repetition of opinions about the substantive issues from the RfA talk page in response; otherwise this page will simply become a copy of it. This is for clarification only of the votes/comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the comments you're referring to to above so that they don't fall out of chronological order.  I agree with you about restricting our comments as Cecropia asked us to do. CLA 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: :I have stated often that a person is allowed, when opining on an RfA, to express support or opposition for any reason. – Cecropia
This is simply not true. Votes are removed/stricken all the time, and not just those from anonymous users or people who have voted twice; often votes deemed to be "trolling" get removed as well. And not by bureaucrats, but by pretty much anyone who happens to be passing through; the definition of trolling of course varies widely from one person to the next; I've had plenty of my own votes removed in this way – Gurch 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is trolling, or making inappropriate comments, then that kind of falls outside the area of expressing support or opposition. Expressing an opinion on an RfA implies that it is meant to be taken seriously. -- Cecropia 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. And those who do intend for their opinions to be taken seriously, but have their votes struck anyway? – Gurch 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "struck" you mean removing? Who is doing the removing? -- Cecropia 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  The only votes I have ever seen struck have been those made by sockpuppets or banned users, and those made by IPs or very new users (and even then, they're usually just indented).  If anyone's striking comments for any other reason, even for trolling, I'd like to see a diff (because personally, I find such striking reprehensible, and would gladly yell at anyone striking comments).  Ral315 » 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For any reason"? 

message: For the record, support votes #132 User:Brownlee and #152 User:R613vlu were sockpuppets of Runcorn and are now banned. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point there is no harm in pointing out confirmed socks but, unless we have a situation that socks are so numerous they would impact the understanding of this RfA, they shouldn't make a difference. -- Cecropia 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they banned or blocked? —AldeBaer 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Runcorn was banned after Gracenotes' RFA (but not, as far as I know, directly because of it).  --Iamunknown 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet votes

message: I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. There were many more issues raised by opponents at the Gracenotes RfA. The attack site issue was the only one with LessHeard vanU that I can see (and one person commented on his lack of article contribs), which is perhaps why he had so many fewer opponents, and which indicates that this was not the sole issue with Gracenotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can redo this, all issues are on the table again. -- Cecropia 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of the 71 opposes, I can only see three that do not mention attack sites – Gurch 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason why I had so many opposers was because I had so many supporters. As is the case with my contributions, quantity is a very misleading way from which things may be assumed, especially when the votes can actually be looked at, as Gurch did, and when my contributions can actually be reviewed, not merely counted. GracenotesT § 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It was clearly pointed out by Crecropia that 73% of all oppose votes in both RfA's related to the position the candidate took regarding the attack sites issue.  There may have been nuances in reasons for opposing on how this position reflected upon the candidiate (lack of empathy for victims as against mistrust in removing bad faith/all links to such sites) but each devolved to the same criteria. It is this common issue that the 'crats are addressing, specifically in regard to this RfA, and not the other 27% reasons for opposition. Also percentages are more indicative than raw numbers, as (outside of Wikipedia) a candidate with 90% of 20 votes cast has a greater democratic mandate than one who receives 80% of 20 million votes. The major comparison between the two RfA's is that there appears an established pattern in the voting decisions of many editors as regards candidates who take a certain stance over a certain issue, and especially among those who choose to vote to oppose. Thus, as this indicates that neither RfA was entirely its own creature, it needed to be examined. My understanding of Cecropias finding on this, that the weight (or lack of) given to the oppose votes based on a candidates position on the issue was not sufficiently argued by the closing 'Crat in the first RfA and should be given greater, or the fullest, consideration here, is one I entirely agree with whatever the conclusion. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One way to draw a comparison would be the following: 9 out of 16 users who opposed LessHeard vanU's RfA also opposed Gracenotes' RfA. Alright, 7 didn't (and 3 or 4 even went on to support GN) but the fact that 9 users who opposed one RfA find themselves opposing for somewhat similar reasons at another RfA is at least bordering on "no coincidence". —AldeBaer 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with LessHeard vanU

message: Seeing as a re-run has already been created and deleted, the original run is still suspended (as I am writing this), and also from reading the discussions above, there emerges a clear consensus that the bureaucrats were unable to establish a consensus whether there was a community consensus to promote Gracenotes at this time. (See also: tail recursion.) Миша13 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing notes 

message: I have closed this RfA as withdrawn by bureaucrat due to the candidate's desire not to continue the RfA at this time. -- Cecropia 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... The RfA page claims now "Closed as withdrawn by candidate"... Миша13 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think that "consensus not determinable" might be a better description that lines up with the discussion here, but it is not my job, nor is it anyone's, to argue with the decision. Anyway, Cecropia, thank you for trying to deal with the quagmire here, although I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of a decision. I hope the latter is understandable. Cheers, GracenotesT § 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA Closed