Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen

message: __TOC__
Mackensen's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

message: You know, it would be fun if one of the current bureaucrats adopted Mackensen's own philosophy and promoted him despite being under 85% support. The irony would be spectacular, but at the same time laudable, to me at least. Grandmasterka 12:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a tragedy if that were to occur. It would make for some good fireworks though, so long as you don't mind fireworks that burn bridges. Johntex\talk 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs? --Kim Bruning 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all rogue bureaucrats 

message: Looking at things now, I don't think Mackensen with have the ~90% support traditionally required to create a new bureaucrat.  However, this may have well over 2/3 support, which would make it one of the most supported reform proposals in recent memory.  I'd like to consider whether there is a gray area here where A) the support is not sufficient for Mackensen to be promoted, but B) the support is still considered sufficient to justify trying his reform.  Obviously that would require one or more existing Bureaucrats to be willing to try implementing it.  Personally, I think the proposal is a mistake (as explained in my oppose vote), but I am not opposed to allowing it to be tried if the community does produces a moderately strong mandate here.  However, I would like to get other people's opinions on whether it is sensible to allow for the possibility a split decision in this case.  Dragons flight 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the support may be a combination of enthusiasm for the proposal and trust in the candidate. I'm not sure how that translates. I wonder if mackensen's proposal with the slight tweek of the closing requiring a consensus of at least three crats might work. That would keep its strengths without requiring the benevolent dictatorship of the one. Sure that might mean more crats - and perhaps asking crats to renew their community mandate annually (like stewards do) - but it might be worth it.--Docg 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the notion wholeheartedly. As I've indicated, repeatedly, I have no ego at stake here and I have no desire to act the benevolet dictator. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hard to separate the proposal from the candidate while interpreting the result here. It would be simpler if he wrote up a proposal which could be put up for community discussion (or, hey, a thousand person vote as that seems to be in vogue). Haukur 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we all know that will not work. An excellent proposal can be put together, but even if there was a hypothetical consensus that the proposal was preferable to the status quo - you'll only get started with the discussion before you get a host of people saying "no, let's look at my alternative proposal instead" and before you know, we've got 4 competing ideas and no consensus. Perhaps what we need is to put the top 6 options on the table and  vote using single transferable votes to find the one most agreeable ;) (Joke).--Docg 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds workable (as long as status quo is one of the six options). Why is it a joke? Haukur 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy for the status quo to be an option. It is a joke because it isn't possible. You'd need to propose this as a new process for settling processes, and the minute you've done that, you'll get objections. Some will say - that's not the wiki way - and others will come up with new processes of their own - and you'll be back at square one. The irony of those who said that Mackensen's RfB is not the way to change policy, is that years of debating this issue have shown that there are no ways of changing policy here.--Docg 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something to that. We don't have a workable way of changing policies. Once we have a workable way of changing policies in general then we can probably change the RFA policy in particular. Can we sneak a new way of changing policies into effect? (Joke). Haukur 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When this ends... 

message: This is not directed specifically at this candidate, but I would like to make a further general comment about the RfA process.  I think it is very dangerous to go too far down the road of questioning statements made in an RfA.  If a person states something like "Oppose - does not pass my criteria of having 5,000 namespace edits nor of being here for at least 16 months." - the crat should take that Oppose statement seriously.  They may disagree with that particular criteria, but what they are supposed to be doing is judging the consensus of the overall community.  That person's view is just as valid as someone else who will support a candidate with fewer edits or shorter tenure.  It is just as valid as the person who supports 19 out of 20 nominations with a comment like "Per nom" or "Sure, why not? Adminship is no big deal".
The fact that a candidate can pass with 20% or 25% in opposition already accounts for the fact that no candidate can please everyone. We don't need the crats to add even more liberalization to the process. Johntex\talk 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary - these sort of votes do nothing to form consensus, they simply screw up the numbers on each RfA. If the vote says "Not enough edits" then it's utterly useless and stupid. If, on the other hand, the voter says "lacks enough edits raising concerns over lack of experience" then they're making a useful comment. Like much of RfA - it's not what you say that counts, it's what you don't say. -- Nick t 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone writes "not enough edits", it's implied that they mean something along the lines of "lacks enough edits raising concerns over lack of experience". A "not enough edits" oppose is no more brilliant or stupid than a "great editor" support. RFA is about trust and I believe every editor is entitled to his or her own standards for trusting admin candidates. If we disagree with a particular editor's standards (and I disagree with many of them: writing FA articles, a certain # of talk space edits, X months on Wikipedia, and so on), we can try to discuss the issue with the editor. What we should not do, under any circumstance, is simply to ignore people's comments and votes (whether supporting or opposing) just because we disagree with their rationale. -- Black Falcon 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said, Black Falcon, thank you. Johntex\talk 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't advocate "poking the opposers", by any means, but I don't think that "individualistic opposes" are not ultimately helpful.  (Come to that, the same is true of supports, it just to arise less often in that direction, perhaps because of the "majority pressurising the minority" dynamic -- obviously an RFA heading towards 30%/70% is unlikely to lead to much in the way of attempt to talk 'round the supporters.)  The ideal is, after all, to determine a consensus, and that's not aided by any appearance of 'I have my opinions/criteria, leave me alone and count my (!)vote".  If (say) 30% of the contributers to a RFA feel the need to oppose for some particular reason, that's in line with what the community has previously expressed, then I think it's generally going to be pushing things to construe that as "a consensus to promote".  OTOH, the same numeric opposition, composed of a motley collection of opposes for reasons that are mutally incoherent, or that are outwith the scope of generally accepted criteria, I'm less keen to see that as any sort of "automatic" blocking minority (plus of course the issue of SPAs and other vote-stacking).  I realize it's a fine line between suggesting that BCs should explicitly have scope to second-guess, or "line-item veto" such opinions, and enabling them to engage in "ILIKEIT" supervotes, but I feel it's a distinction worth at least trying to make.  Alai 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One comment and one question, please.  Comment:  My interest is not in a 30/70% case and people trying to sway supporters.  It is an observation that in a 80/20% case or 70/30% case that people would scream bloody murder if a minority went through and belittles the comments of the supporters, yet for some reason we tolerate the same thing when it is aimed at the people who oppose.  My question is, what do you mean by "individualistic opposes"?  Thanks, Johntex\talk 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point about the 30/70 case isn't to worry about that, but just to hypothesise is that the syndrome is in effect, "majority pokes the minority, when there's a perception that successful poking might change the outcome" (while it's superfluous in the case of a clearly failed RFA).  I'm not sure about the "bloody murder" effect you suggest;  we get plenty of that at present, I think, and I don't think there's greater restraint by opposers, necessarily, so much as them being simply "outgunned" in such cases.  By "individualistic opposes" I mean opposes for reasons at odds with general consensus for what appropriate and relevant criteria are.  (No, I'm not going to give you a formula for determining what that is and is not...)  Alai 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your self-diagnosis, but not on your prescription. :/  Alai 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A general comment on the badgering of Opposing statements in RfAs in general