Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 79

message: I've proposed adding Please keep criticism constructive and polite to the RFA template. Please comment here. Thank you.--Kchase T 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to RFA boilerplate 

message: The above is in quotes because it's obviously a loose term... but does anybody else realize that (per JJay's analysis above) that the candidate would have needed to have 42 more supports to be above the 75% "discretion range"? -- Renesis (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that shows that 75% is a very high threshold (every oppose vote cancels three support votes). Perhaps it is too high. Kusma (討論) 07:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Logic dictates that one oppose should cancel two supports for consensus. At least, that's the logic in my mind :) But then again, our debate here isn't about policy changing (we should carry that over to the respective page). — Deckiller 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Or perhaps that shows why the candidate shouldn't have been promoted. – Chacor 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, how about we discuss the comments and not the votes - if there are serious objections in the content of the comments, bring them up. Simply saying that because some number wasn't reached that there is no reason to do anything either way is absurd.  I think it's a little premature to call for anyone's blood - let Raul post his rationale based on the comments, not some vote number.  Honestly, give him some time, he hasn't done anything controversial yet, don't assume that he's going to be a horrible admin, we have a policy for assuming that sort of thing... -- Tawker 07:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is merit to discussion of both numbers and comments, but one thing we know from Raul654's own comment is that he disregarded all 178 opinions and made the promotion based on his own. -- Renesis (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that very seriously.--MONGO 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then read his very first comment, above.  His promotion was based on his feeling, not the community's. -- Renesis (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I find this claim insulting. For one thing, a supermajority of people did support him adminship. Futhermore, before I promoted, I made it a point to read through all the people opposing his adminship. If it had been 65%, would I have promoted him? No. So I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. Raul654 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Undent I'm sorry, but the claim that I'm putting words in your mouth is completely ridiculous.  You said nothing besides "based on 'my interactions...", and I haven't claimed you've said anything else.  And I'd like to know why 65%, but not 68%, 70% or 75%?  Why any mention of numbers, if this entire thing is based on "discretion"? -- Renesis (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not based *solely* on my interactions with him, and yes, that's the word you are putting in my mouth. I said I promoted him based on my interaction with him. I did not say I did so to the exclusion of the community's commentary. My interaction with him was the deciding factor, but not the only one. Raul654 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think interaction with one person is a valid way even for just a deciding factor when it is 40 support votes away from the 75% threshold. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem, Mark, is that your personal opinion of the candidate should not have been the deciding factor.  Bureaucrats' discretion doesn't extend that far.  We trust you to interpret the community's will, not to insert your own.  —David Levy 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Raul seems to think the lower end is 70%, and personally I have seen mentions of both 70 and 75%. – Chacor 07:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who support a large discretion range regularly get shot down at RfB (which doesn't mean that consensus supports a small discretion range, it just says that more than 10% of people support a small discretion range) so it has been getting smaller recently. Kusma (討論) 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * We don't tell new users that adminship is not a big deal. That's a canard. --JJay 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember. And I don't have a problem with, in theory, establishing a wider range of b'crat discretion in closing RfAs. What I have a big problem with is unequal application of that discretionary interval. People have been denied with far higher numerical percentages and (in my opinion) weaker opposes than Sean Black, Carnildo, and now Ryulong. Ryu said he would join administrators open to recall so I'm not too tweaked about the decision here, but many many other candidates have been denied the same privilege Raul exercised here. And that frustrates me more than I can express. -- nae'blis 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Margin of discretion"

message: I would like to quote two sentences of the first paragraph:
It is important to understand that consensus within this context is determined by the bureaucrat who is closing the RfA. RfA is not a voting process.
In other words, the closing bureaucrat is the one that "reads" and "understands" the request, considers whether the objections have been sustained enough, and determines the outcome. The people who participates in a RFA knows this. If not, we can begin adding  to the requests. Also...
As a group, they are careful in their decisions. In general, candidates with over 80% support are likely to succeed, and it is unusual for those below 75% to succeed, but all cases are weighed on their merits.
Again, the bureaucrat is given a flexibility similar to the admin closing a deletion discussion.
Now, some comments:
# Bureaucrat are different, just like admins. While an admin may speedy delete an article, another may send it to AFD. While one may block a user for 3 hours, another would block it forever.
# We welcome diversity. If we were looking for bureaucrats or admins acting always in the same way, we would either use a bot, or have a single administrator and a single bureaucrat.
# Because of this diversity, yes, it is possible that another bureaucrat could have closed this request as No consensus. But, at least down here, Argentina, in real life, trials may have different outcomes according to attorneys and magistrates.
# Exceptions exist, and we all know that. Death is the only certain thing in life, all others can be modified. As long as the exceptions are not abused, I do not think Wikipedia will explode. I have been here for 18 months (14 if you are picky about edit rates) I have seen this happen two or three times. And I must have seen over 200 new admins created. As stated somewhere above, if we were searching for 80.0% or above always, without exception, User:AdminMakerBot would have congratulated me.
Just some thoughts before going to sleep. -- ReyBrujo 07:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rey. As I go to sleep, I must say, I wish I'd seen admins do this more often with other candidates. Ryulong aside, I've seen some awfully good candidates  who would have been exemplary admins get rejected because old edit disputes. I'm glad 'crats are not taking it as a vote. If we want to change policy to say absolutely only between 75-80 or 70-80%, then let's change it. Otherwise, no policy has been violated, and I for one agree with the said non-policy. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading the guide...

message: --210physicq (c) 08:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adminship is no big deal, however the tools in the wrong hands are a big deal to me, you can do a lot of damage with those "tools" (i.e. blocking a country, blocking a whole ISP) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment regarding this contemplation. --210physicq (c) 08:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Same. — Deckiller 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Put simply, judgement and discretion is required in administrative actions.  Incidentally, judgement and discretion is required of Bureaucrat actions, something which seems dismally lacking here.  Regretfully, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My first thought upon learning of this matter was that regardless of whether Ryulong would make the best sysop or the worst, this thing was going to haunt him.  It really isn't fair (as the situation certainly isn't his fault), and I wish that Mark had considered this before performing a closure that he must have known would be controversial.  Assuming that there was valid reason to deem this case borderline, a consultation with other bureaucrats clearly was called for.  By announcing that he had promoted Ryulong based on his personal opinion, Mark basically painted a bull's-eye on Ryulong's back.  —David Levy 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like before, I completely agree; a bull's-eye that Ryulong should not have. We need our members to be accepted within the community - especially our new admins, regardless of who opposes. If this promotion stands, we need to help Ryu and work with him, not criticize his every move and haunt him about minor blunders. Let's not drive away yet another user as a community.  By the way, this comment about the bull's-eye (at least my aspect of it) isn't aimed at Raul; this is aimed at the uproar in response. — Deckiller 08:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Um, it's not Raul654s fault if people were to take aim at Ryulong, it would be *peoples* fault. Blame where blame is due! --Kim Bruning 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the closure.  I don't blame Mark for other people's inappropriate behavior, but I do hold him accountable for creating a situation that he must have known would trigger such a response.  Whether Ryulong deserved to be promoted or not, he certainly didn't deserve to be dragged into the center of this controversy.  —David Levy 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's definately a way to quickly discover where all the troublemakers are hiding. <pulls a slightly worried face -- did we really want to discover that?> --Kim Bruning 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that the people who have problems with this closure are "troublemakers"?  Ad homimem arguments aren't cool at all.  Really, really.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Duh no. But some people may well try to use the mess as an excuse to act up, of course! --Kim Bruning 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. And hopefully this will prove once and for all that RfA is too strict. — Deckiller 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of this uproar 

message: I am starting to get disappointed in how people handle things here. A consensus is not a vote, a consensus is simply a determination of a debate. Ryulong has been granted the tools, and has promised to use them well. IF he breaks policy and goes nutso; then take it up with arbcom. Raul654 didn't cabalize it, and his name should not be tarnished over determining consensus. 
Frankly Chacor, I have seen issues with you since your own ArbCom ruling came down and your mop was taken away for policy you broke. I respect your opinions, but you have seem to have come into some attitude issues.
:Do I support and continue to support Ryulong? Yes.
:Am I worried he may cause issues with blocks? No, or I would not have nominated him.
:Do I hear and recognize the community issues? Yes, of course I do; and they are quite valid. But on the other hand, a consensus has been reached and Ryulong HAS been made an admin. The only way this is going to change is with an ArbCom ruling. 
:Should Ryulong step down? Not at this time, if he shows bad faith and becomes a problem then yes. But stepping down would be a disappointment to those who did support him, and would be a show of bad faith from the community; as he had not done anything to justify a resignation.
I hope we all can make the best of this, and besides cross-posting this to the WT:RFA page, the only time I will post on such issues. Somitho 09:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell is this turning into an attack on me when I'm not the only one who has expressed disappointment at this? This is an unacceptable ad hominem attack. – Chacor 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few things, if I may.  First of all "I like him" is an unacceptable argumentation for a promotion.  It practically oozes a conflict of interest.  Secondly, Somitho, please retract the personal attack.  I'ts inflammatory, and it's unneccesary. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that Mark didn't determine consensus.  By his own admission, he determined that there was no consensus and used his own personal opinion of the candidate as "the deciding factor."  A bureaucrat's discretion allows him/her to analyze and interpret the preponderance of the available comments, not to cast a "super-vote" that weighs more than anyone else's.  —David Levy 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappointment

message: (Didn't know about this discussion)
Having not participated in the discussion and not known about it had I not had this page on my watchlist I would also like to voice my misgivings that there was not a clear consensus in this case and it therefore in my view should not have been closed as a sucessful RfA. It certainly did not meet the arbitary standard for RfAs these days (80% support) and many if not all of the oppose views were from respected editors expressing their views, not socks/meats or disrupters. ViridaeTalk 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from [[WP:BN]]

message: "consider myself as supporting his request for adminship, and discounting the opposition from the newbie with a dozen edits. That gives a final tally of 126-54, which is 70%, which is in the bureacrat's discretionary range."  That leads to two questions: are bureaucrats allowed to vote in RfAs that they close?  Did Raoul check all the support votes to see if any of those were from newbies?--Runcorn 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if they register with the review board sub-committee three weeks in advance and receive their written confirmation a minimum of five business days before the closing.  A minimal processing fee is required.  Jkelly 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well if we are going to add !votes on closure, you can consider mine an oppose - I had not known about the RfA, the first I knew about it was when the AIVhelper bot removed someone as blocked by Ryulong. However, if I had had the chance I would have voted oppose for the same reason as many of the others, WP:BITE issues. However that is not the argument at hand, and any involvemtn I may have in this discussion are not about Ryulong as an admin, but the issue of what seems to be a promotion over a non consesnsus, apparently discounting the strong oposition from respected editors. In this case, with the very strong opposition, it would would have been much more prudent to move the area of discretion higher than lower so as to make sure you have actually got consensus. ViridaeTalk 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good arithmetic? 

message: I am disappointed with this, even though I only voted neutral. I think it's time for a change. There should be no numbers, if the 'crats make their own decisions, as indicated here, and Carnildo 3, Sean Black 2 etc. Make it more like AfD, and the result can be reviewed if people disagree, much like DRV. It'll at least make the process easier to reverse if enough people disagree. It's one thing complaining, but another actually changing. Comments please. --Majorly (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with RfA is that support votes don't state reasons (and in many cases, it's hard to see how they could), and so they all end up identical. It's clear to me that an AfD-style RfA would result in the promotion of almost nobody. You might also want to look at why Wikipedia:RfA as RfC failed; I think that might be relevant to your point in an indirect way. (Although I supported and helped draft that proposal, it became clear what its problems were when it was tried in practice.) There was also the addition of the 'Discussion' section to the RfA for much the same reason as you suggested, but people seem reluctant to use it (it's probably a matter of tradition, and of adding in the same place as other users). --ais523 12:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to do one of two things.  Either make it a straight out vote and throw away the discussion part (this is what we do for ArbCom already), or go the other way and have a pure discussion with none of this support/oppose/neutral dickery.  Thoughts? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our best option to ensure a more realistic (as to the future of this project; it's going to continue growing and accumulating waste) and fair way of promoting is probably to create a more realistic grey area; 65-75 percent. 75 percent and above can be almost always automatic, below 65 percent never (barring significant trolling and whatnot), and 65-75 can be that grey area. — Deckiller 12:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything with numbers ends up just being incongruent dickery, in my opinion.  As the quote goes: There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but because we already have numbers as a factor most of the time, we can take this time to at least tailor the current system so that it works with the needs of the project. — Deckiller 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) What with the problems with giving bots admin rights, it would be even harder to promote a bot to 'crat (only half joking here); if, as I think most people here would agree, we use human 'crats, there's always going to be some discretion used. Besides, there's suffrage/sockpuppetry problems in straight votes (although I suspect they wouldn't be insoluble). I would be more inclined to prefer a straight discussion than a straight vote, although it might be instructive to look at why Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Grandmasterka failed (as far as I can tell, mostly because the platform involved taking the quality of votes into account, which will always be controversial due to disagreements on what makes a high-quality vote, or I suppose !vote under the Grandmasterka plan). --ais523 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I really would not like changing to an AFD style because it wouldn't solve anything.  All it would do is make the thing harder to read. --BigDT 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to AfD style RfA

message: I'd like to address a few points raised by some people in the above discussion. 
*Re: Consensus correlation and trust: This is an interesting point raised by User:Werdna who said "I think that a 5-10% difference in RfA consensus has a rather low correlation to actual community trust in the user". Earlier in the conversation, User:Blnguyen noted that 80% equated to a 4:1 ratio, 75% to 3:1, and 70% to 2.33:1. I think this shows that indeed a 10% range from 70% to 80% shows a dramatic difference in consensus. There's a reason the normal accepted range is where it is; consensus tends to form around that level. 
*Re: No accountability for bureaucrats: This was raised by User:Heimstern. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we do not have any sort of balance of powers really. There is no hierarchical structure here of editor-->admin-->bureaucrat-->arbcom. All of these people in these various categories are equals. Some simply have additional responsibilities that have been entrusted to them through filtering processes of one sort or another. Admins aren't any 'better' than editors in good standing. Neither is ArbCom any better than editors. There are no oversight processes for any duty within Wikipedia. What there is are processes to handle breakdowns in the system. If an editor goes bad and refuses warnings, we block. If an admin abuses their powers, they're taken to ArbCom to make the decision to desysop. If (hasn't happened but if) an ArbCom member went off the deep end in some way, Jimbo would probably step in and ask them to step down. If a bureaucrat gets out of line, they can have their bureaucrat duties removed (and yes this has happened). So, while there is no accountability per se, there is always accountability in general for all things to keep our focus on what it is we are trying to achieve here. 
*Not very fair to Ryulong: I raised this point on the Carnildo promotion. However, in this case I don't think it applies. Raul654 did talk to Ryulong before the promotion. Ryulong's well experienced enough to know that this promotion would be controversial and would understand the consequences. Apparently now he is reconsidering his decision. 
Personally, I would not have promoted Ryulong. An RfA can be an opportunity to improve various aspects of a Wikipedian and there's no policy in place preventing a second, third, fourth or even fifth RfA. It's been done multiple times before with no apparent harm to the project. 
The vast majority of the time, RfA percolates along just fine and bureaucrats are not questioned in their decisions. This is important because bureaucrats have a difficult task of weighing different aspects of a discussion with impartiality. Bureaucrats must pass a high threshold of consensus before becoming a bureaucrat precisely because they must be trusted and continue to maintain that trust. A controversial decision such as this RfA tends to cash in some of the trust given to bureaucrats and potentially sets the stage for more argumentation against bureaucrats being entrusted with divining consensus. This is of course a balancing act; sometimes tough decisions need to be made which is what bureaucrats are entrusted to do, but the tough decisions erode community confidence in their ability to make...tough decisions. Bit of a catch-22. --Durin 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very interesting point you raised which we haven't really considered. Ryulong was told of this before he was promoted. He knew he was below the threshold for consensus. I'm concerned that he had the choice of saying "I haven't achieved consensus to become an admin", but didn't take it. It's certainly not crossed my mind until you brought it up, and I think this makes this promotion all the more controversial - the candidate could've said "no, I haven't made it". – Chacor 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't the fact that he was asked if he wished to be undermine the whole RfA process? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to various points above

message: I believe it was extremely bad taste to promote somebody with such low support percentage. It does  nothing to improve people's faith in the objectivity of the process (and people already think RfA sucks). The moral of this story is that it does not matter how many people in the community think you are not fit to be an admin, all that matters is that a friendly bureaucrat thinks you're a nice guy. Apologies if I repeat something from the above, that discussion was too long to read completely. Either way, I think this was a very poor judgment on Raul654's part, a bureaucrat who has not promoted for ages, and this should not be repeated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly why I find this situation so fishy, it just doesn't make sense to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So you'd rather have a bot do the promotions based on a number instead of judgement? I guess I should have put my earlier comments down near the bottom here so they don't get lost, but either way they'll just get passed on by the volumes of material that are going to come out. Too bad really, and I'm adding to it, so I'll stop now and instead go work on some articles. - Taxman Talk 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody said a bot should do the promotions. The point is that we have a system in place, according to which people are promoted. As far as I know, bureaucrat's discretion is in the 75%-80% range. Granted, the system is arbitrary, and the numbers are arbitrary. However, it is profoundly unfair that some people did not get promoted with almost a 3/4 support ratio, while somebody got promoted with much less because a certain bureaucrat thought that no matter what people said that person was a nice guy. It is surely not the fault of the person who got promoted, but it is hard not to agree that the bureaucrat who did the promotion made a mistake. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor judgment

message: People are mentioning a lack of accountability, but do we really know whether this is the case?  Surely the bcrats, as a group, want to have the confidence of the community.  If there was significant opinion that a bcrat should step down and/or go through RFB again, why are people assuming the crat would refuse?  Surely community trust in the crats as a group is more important than any one editor's privilege level.  Friday (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think Raul (and other 'crats who are not particularly active) should go through RfB again. --Majorly (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I trust the bcrats and rarely disagree with their judgment calls. However, I would prefer that they had an attitude closer to "When in doubt, don't promote". The reason is that an editor can always submit another RfA if they don't succeed, but an improper promotion can shake community confidence. There's probably only a handful of these true judgment calls a year, but I think it would be better for such a candidate to wait a few months and resubmit an RfA. Anyway, just my 2 cents. SuperMachine 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What we need is more b-crats, and most others, with the exception of Taxman, Redux, and Essjay of going back to RFB. I supported Ryulong in his rfa, but seriously he should have never been promoted, especially with some heavy concerns that happened in the RFA. Jaranda wat's sup 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say the third principle is well and truly into play. ViridaeTalk 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman's comments above seem to support the decision, though he doesn't explicitly say so. As to the accountability generally, surely the procedure is the same for a 'crat as any user. If people think Raul654's action disregarded the expressed will of the Community, a page can be started at RfC. But I don't see why a huge number of semi-active 'crats should be stripped of that access without evidence- at most the evidence here points to misconduct by a single 'crat. WJBscribe 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Bcrat accountability

message: *"Futhermore, before I promoted, I made it a point to read through all the people opposing his adminship. If it had been 65%, would I have promoted him?" (by Raul).
*"While some might object that he was below 70% support (with 69.4%), 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." (again by Raul)
I stress on this two assertions of Raul, because I think that they are at the heart of the problem here. IMO we don't have to do with a problem concerning one person, Ryulong in this case, but with a problem having to do with the way the whole RfA system works. First of all, I want to make clear that I honestly believe Ryulong will do a great job as an adm, and I regard his promotion as a closed case. Whether we agree or not with the way his RfA was closed (I must say I disagree), Ryulong is now a confirmed sysop, and should be allowed to do his job as a sysop properly. I do not agree with the limitations on the use of the sysop tools proposed here; an adm either is an adm either he isn;t. And Ryulong is one whether we like it or not. Limitations on the use of adm tools would ridicule the role of adm, and the credibility of the whole RfA system. Enough harm has been done already. We can't have adms of two velocities. The only limitations on Ryulong are those arising from WP guidelines; namely, the same that exist for all adms and users. For me, we have to deal with another problem here ...
Raul says he exercized discretion. But is discretion as an argument enough to nihilate the rationale of a whole system; because IMO discretion the way was exercized here did exactly that. Raul argues that "while some might object that he was below 70% support (with 69.4%), I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop". But RfA doesn't speak about a 70% potential threshold; it speaks about a 75% potential threshold: "The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RfAs succeed with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship is not a ballot". Yes, RfA is not a ballot, and I would accept discretion exercized by Raul or any bureaucrat if Ryulong was about 74%, 73%; maybe 72% and with low number of objections. But here support is below 70%?! And 70% is already faaaaaaaar below the potential threshold of 75%. And Ryulong had more than 50 objections and many neutral votes (Don't we take them into consideration? The also matter IMO!).
And when does this discretion stop? Who tells me that another bureaucrat will not promote a nominee with 68%, 67%, 66%, 65%? Raul asks "If it had been 65%, would I have promoted him?" My answer is: I do not know Raul, but your discretion in the way you exercized it establishes IMO a negative precedent. It gives the right to bureaucrats to exercize their discretion in a much looser way. And, yes, maybe you will not do it, but, in the future, another bureaucrat based on your precedent may promote nominees with 65% of support and even lower. Maybe this is what we want: a lower "threshold" (I know the term is not accurate). But, if this is the case, let's discuss the whole matter and decide it accordingly.
The problems are numerous here; I recognize that. And I must say I watched Ryulong's RfA too closely (I was also a nominee at the same time!), because I expected something like that to happen; it was from the first moment a close call. The issues this RfA opened are many, and this is good, because it will make us think: What are the limits of bureaucrats' discretion? Are there any? Do we have the right to question their decisions or are they "sacred figures" beyond criticism? Can we have adms "into probation" as it was proposed here? What is the "threshold" for adm: 75% as RfA says or 70% as Raul argues? And if a nominee is around 80%, but with many objections (more than 30) raising serious issues for the credibility of the nominee, can the bureaucrat exercize his discretion in the opposite direction by not promoting? And in any case, we must never forget Jimbo Wales' wise words.--Yannismarou 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wise words were certainly true in the good old days, but looking at the discussions above, it is evident that things have changed a lot. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem has to do with the rules of RfA system and their implementation; not with one person

message: It seems to me that this whole palaver stems from one problem: a misperception that crats are the masters of the community. They aren't, or, at least, if they are, they shouldn't be. We elected these people to do jobs for us, on our behalf - namely promote the people whom we had chosen to be admins to sysop status, and to close the RFAs, among other things.
In this case we had clearly not chosen an admin, within the boundaries of RFA's definition of "chosen". Given the rationale above, the crats had no right to promote against the consensus of the community as that consensus is defined on the RFA page, especially when the rationale for promotion was nothing more than ILIKEIT on a spectacular scale. If I had taken a similar rationale to RFA, or AFD, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, I'd have been laughed out of the house and possibly blocked for disruption.
More generally, every system in the world is broken. You will never, ever be able to come up with a perfect system, because systems are by definition the creations of men, who are not possessors of maximal excellence. On a positive note, there is no reason to think that RFA is massively broken and IMO we are getting better and better sysops, and will continue to do so for a while, though self-evidently that can't last forever. In this case I'd be surprised if Ryulong abuses the tool after this, when doubtless a fair few people will be watching everything he does. But the principle on which he was promoted is not on. Moreschi  Deletion! 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In this case I'd be surprised if Ryulong abuses the tool after this" Thats the thing, having removed many of Ryulongs reports from AIV as underwarned or overly excessive, I think, as do many other it seems, that he doesn't see anything wrong with the reports he made, and I would think (as it seems do many others judging by the RfA) that these would result in blocks now that he has the ability to do so, where previously they wouldn't. I am no accusing Ryulong of intentionally going out to abuse the tools, but I do think that his judgement is questionable at times. (Ryulong, if you read this, I have a great respect for the shear quantity of hard work you do, and if you had shown some more leniancy and less WP:BITE in your reports I wouldnt have had these misgivings. The vast majority of your work however is of a very high standard or as far as I know.) ViridaeTalk 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said to Somitho when he asked me why I opposed Ryulong, I don't think there's much potential for intentional abuse of the tools, but I do feel there will be a good bit of misuse when it comes to blocking.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I've opposed a number of candidates not because I feared they'd intentionally abuse the tools, but because I wasn't confident they were experienced enough to use them properly. Candidates who likely abusers of the tools generally fail RfA overwhelmingly. SuperMachine 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Servants of the community, not masters over it?

message: Well, I brought this issue up at  Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_72#Scientific_and_Emotional_judging_and_bureaucrat_intervention and again at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agathoclea when some niggles turned up. Basically, I feel that if a user is low-profile, it naturally makes people less inclined to instinctively support them, and if they are more high profile, then they are more likely to instinctively support, without probing around for weaknesses. For a low-profile user, people tend to try and dig up all sorts of obscure reasons to oppose. Without reprinting all the stuff I said again in the old archives, I can remember people saying "not enough WP, not enough talk edits" on one user, who had dozens of start class articles, and an FA, (Sam Vimes) and he only scraped through at around 78.1%. However, there was another RfA at the same time where the relatively famous user only had two stubs, 8 times less article edits, and only half the amount of (allegedly too few) WP and talk edits which Sam had. Despite this, the other RfA passed at 98% close to the century of supports. It is a human instinct which is causing these things, a human difficulty of separating heart from head, which gives "dashing", "spectacular", "superstar", "flashy" users a much easier run than "dour", "self-effacing", "low-key" editors. If Wikipedia is to fulfil its potential to the maximum, then certainly it must be more meritocratic. Now that a certain controversy has arisen, I feel that it is time to give all candidates a fair go, in terms of ALL grey-zone candidates receiving a close examination of their case, instead of only high profile ones, or ones who are lucky to have had good experiences while working with bureaucrats. I would like to see in grey cases, bureaucrats to analytically compare the issues raised in rock hard, objective terms, so that merit rules the day. It is irritating that because of emotional !?"voting", some candidate X are opposed by one opiner A for some criteria, while another candidate Y failing that same criteria is supported by opiner A, because the opiner simply goes on perception/image rather than rock-solid contributions. If some people suddenly go all soft on some "cute" candidate and then nitpick on some "ugly duckling" candidate despite the "ugly duckling" meeting a given opiner's "criteria" more thoroughly; I feel the crats should take these abnormal phenomena into account in non-landslide RfAs, so that the most skillful selection results for the good of wikipedia. There is no easy way to make people have the same standards, but I think the candidates deserve consistency from a given opiner, or in this case "umpire". Umpires have different interpretations of certain rules/laws in sport, but in a single game, they should apply their interpretation to both sides equally. I would like to see this in RfAs also, so that a superior candidate who is opposed by the same opiner that supported a weaker candidate using the same criteria is not negatively affected by their profile in a close call. This also gives the advantage of filtering out attack/vendetta votes implicitly: If a person decides to disguise their attack oppose, or is unconsciously biased against a candidate they clashed with, they will suddenly use a higher bar on one candidate ( conscious or not) than they did before, and this can be taken into account and dampened. Certainly I would favour this system, and would operate as such if I was a bureaucrat, although, some people don't like arbi-crats, so I doubt I would be able to. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that's interesting you'd say that, because I thought I'd noticed the exact opposite of the first part of your statement. People who keep low profiles and never participate in any admin matters (i.e., the stuff that can get people mad at you) will do great: (e.g., User:Kuru, who, BTW, I whole-heartedly support), while more well known people have the opposite problem (e.g., User:BostonMA). I'm completely surprised to hear you say this, as I must disagree with your assessment. As for the second part: I agree too much. I hate to see vendetta votes or inconsistency votes  (usually it's a matter of WP:ILIKEHIM, which I've seen certain admins actually admit to voting to). 
Patstuarttalk|edits 07:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BostonMA edited religion related pages and disputes. Kuru was mostly a gnome. I'd say that high-profile failed RfAs such as Tariqabjotu, BostonMA, HRE, Khoikhoi failed because the community is very averse to any edit-disputes whatsoever, and if the people were in any non-trivial religion or ethnic dispute, everybody will run away and assume the user is troublemaker or stirs the pot. If you compare people who do undisputed edits, I would say that I have seen many cases when a popular but weak user sailed through, whereas an obscure user, like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agathoclea and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam_Vimes2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita picked up more damage on "lack of WP/talk edits" whereas other famous users who also edited far away from disputes, with less of the same thing, went almost unanimous. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that we completely agree on this, at least on the religion/edit dispute matter, which is a shame in its truth. However, I've noticed quite a few obscure users sail through precisely because no one knew any of their bad edits (maybe they were just obscure to me, as they only edit articles, and I don't see them on the message boards). Patstuarttalk|edits 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I feel if you make bad errors, people will always notice, but the problem seems to arise over what they did not or have yet to accomplish, rather than explicit failure. Having said that, if nobody ever knew that someone made a mistake (if it's serious enough, their enemies or simply neutral observers will make a note of it), the system and the bureaucrats would be irrelevant. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a very subtle aspect to the first perspective that renders it tremendously difficult to implement. Note the academic nuance I am deliberately invoking here: what is the difference between equity and equality? Historically, no Wikipedian has been able to precisely characterize this with respect to RfAs. There is reason for this: it hints at a larger challenge to be overcome. --HappyCamper 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voter biases will always exist unfortunately no matter how much this matter is discussed.  Whether "low-profile" or "high-profile" as you call it, I believe the outcomes vary in many circumstances as Patstuart mentioned above.  I'm not trying to insinuate that discussion is pointless but a large majority of Wikipedians have their opinions, including myself or yourself.  If as RfA supporters/opposers we can begin to show a little less biases, that is progress enough in my opinion.  Unifying what we expect or examine in prospective admin candidates seems a tad more impossible to achieve.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if there's a misunderstanding, as is often the case each time I raise this issue - every member of the community is free to have their own rationale as to what makes a good administrator - That is fine with me. I only expect that a given person is self-consistent. Many sport umpires have different interpretations of the grey zone, but if they interpret this in one way and give many penalties/fouls to one team, and interpret the grey area a different way for another team, then people will complain. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean consistency with their opinions, then that is indeed a good thing to stress.  I'm just saying that unfortunately biases will not die down easily if ever.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is a first time RfA, it may be easier for a bureaucrat to make the close call as unsuccessful. This only amounts to a postponement of adminship, and many candidates will come back in a few months and have an RfA not in the close call zone next time. There is no real harm to postponing adminship if a consensus is not clear on a first RfA. However, if a candidate  has had a series of close RfAs, nothing is likely to change in a few months, and it is all the more important that a close study of the discussion be made. So perhaps it's only the cases of continued stalemate over the course of at least 2 RfAs that we should be discussing, and it is not necessary to force a permanent decision on cases that are not stalemated over multiple RfA attempts.   NoSeptember 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific analysis of RfA 

message: I don't think removing inactive crats automatically is a good idea, but they should be confirmed on an annual basis. The only real reason I've seen against confirming admins is that there are too many of them - that's not the case with crats. --Tango 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: consistency among bureaucrats

message: I think the above discussion is another example that shows that the community doesn't really know what RfA should be like or even what it is like. The two possible extremes I see are:
#Pure (open) voting, bureaucrats just remove SPA votes, test whether the support percentage exceeds a certain level, and promote or not based on that number (i.e. the function of the bureaucrat is mostly technical, with very little judgmental skills required)
#Pure discussion where advantages and disadvantages of promoting a certain candidate (including acceptance in the community, which we usually measure by number of support pseudovotes) are discussed by the community. The bureaucrat then decides carefully whether promoting the candidate will be a net benefit (this includes considering the social impact of annoying the people who opposed the candidate) and whether there is potential for abuse of the tools, and then promotes (i.e. the bureaucrat actually makes the decision, so needs to have great knowledge of what is required of an admin, be able to judge community reaction etc.)
Actual practice is somewhere inbetween. We ask that bureaucrat candidates have the skills necessary for the second kind of system, yet expect them to follow the first system in practice, with a very small range for discretion. Much of the support section of a typical RfA consists of votes, much of the oppose section of actual discussion (either of what the candidate actually did, or of why that oppose reason is silly). However, people's RfA contributions have changed over time, and perhaps we should acknowledge that process change.
If we look at old RfAs from 2004, RfAs were a lot more vote-like than now. Old RfAs were not so much discussions, and many people passed with a three-line nomination statement and not much further information from the support voters. As RfA has changed and discussion has become more important (and typical support and oppose counts have changed), our criteria for promotion should change as well. As it is insanely hard to become a bureaucrat these days, only the most trusted users can become one, so we should trust them to judge how to close RfAs and not ask for pure vote-counting. If we don't want to allow them this discretion, we should return to a more explicitly vote-like RfA system without a discretion range. In any case, we shouldn't do both - it is silly to pretend that bureaucrats need an insane amount of trust while at the same time giving them only the tiniest of discretion ranges so their judgment skills are never actually needed. (note: I know that bureaucrats have used their discretion to extend RfAs, but that usually brings in as many oppose as support voters, so extending an RfA often means to decide it should fail but to pass the responsibility elsewhere). The thing our bureaucrats should do at the end of the day is to make sure we get enough decent admins that help everybody build the encyclopedia, and the RfA process should do that in a way that causes as little friction as necessary. If we can't decide whether we want a vote-counting or a more actively deciding bureaucrat, we will continue to have problems finding people who can actually pass RfB. Kusma (討論) 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kusma. Well said. However we should have more bureaucrats. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Kusma, I don't understand what you're getting at. What's the point of your argument? And, HIZKIAH, we don't. See the thread above. --Majorly (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that we should allow more bureaucrat discretion, as that is what is needed while RfA is evolving from a vote to a discussovote. Kusma (討論) 17:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I agree, only if the bureaucrats get reconfirmed every year, in the style of stewards. We have too many bureaucrats doing nothing. --Majorly (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, they can all reconfirm each other every year if that makes you happy. I doubt it would change anything though. --tjstrf talk 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I don't know what you mean there. I mean they are confirmed by everyone else in an RfB. --Majorly (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fun. I don't think many would pass (hint:RfB is broken). Kusma (討論) 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An election style would be better, like they do on Meta. --Majorly (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewards reconfirm each other. They don't go up for public vote every year, they go up for confirmation by their peers. If Bureaucrats were to be grouped with them and treated the same way, then they would similarly be expected to reconfirm each other. --tjstrf talk 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: tjstrf, what I'm saying is they should be confirmed, in a vote, by any users if they should remain a bureaucrat. We only need 3 in reality, so whoever has the highest three % stays a bureaucrat. --Majorly (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only problem with that is if we cut it off at 3, that's gonna be seen as a status symbol. If it's the right 3 that shouldn't be a problem, but I'm just sayign that for reference.--Wizardman 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 would just be the number we cut down down to. After, any more can be added. --Majorly (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay then. There's very few active anyway so that should work.Wizardman 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Having only three is in my opinion far too low. During the calendar year of 2006 we had 16 bureaucrats performing at least one RfA promotion. Seven of those had more than 10. Certainly limiting the number of bureaucrats to 3 produces Single-point failure problems. Limiting the pool of bureaucrats to such a limited set reduces consultation possibilities when faced with a potentially controversial decision. Further, I find arguments that we only need X number of bureaucrats unpersuasive. If a candidate is able to successfully pass RfB, they are trusted to perform the duties of a bureaucrat. Having bureaucrats handy is a good thing. The duties were spun off from stewards to help the project. Limiting the pool of bureaucrats significantly reduces the potential positives and goes against the original intention of the project in creating bureaucrats. Having a reconfirmation every year might not be a bad thing, but limiting them from even getting to that point is I think counterproductive. --Durin 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You read me wrong. I meant we demote the inactive bureaucrats and leave the most active (i.e. about 3, but the number doesn't matter). When/if there's a need for more, someone can apply. --Majorly (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Demoting the current bureaucrats implies there's a problem with them...because of this particular controversial RfA. That doesn't follow. The bureaucrats as a group have not demonstrated incompetence nor any compelling reasons to consider older bureaucrats as less capable. I'd prefer to see more evidence that older bureaucrats are less competent than more recently promoted bureaucrats before stripping ~20 people of the bureaucrat flag. And again, "need" is a bad basis on which to constrain the bureaucrat pool. If they are capable and trusted and can pass RfB, there's no reason to deny them because of a perceived lack of need. Single point failures can and do happen, and we saw a microcasm of that recently on Wikipedia:Changing usernames. Whenever User:Essjay takes a break from it, we get a backlog. There isn't anything wrong with having 15 bureaucrats if 10 are capable of covering all the bases, so long as all the bureaucrats are acceptably skilled. --Durin 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **I do agree with you very strongly about one thing - this is solving the wrong problem.  The issue at hand is that a bureaucrat has the unchecked power to do whatever they want and ignore consensus.  The solution to that problem isn't to de-crat 20 people who had nothing to do with this decision.  The solution certainly isn't to introduce an AFD-style debate into the process.  (Could you imagine having to sift through the unordered, verbose comments of 100+ people?)  The solution is to lay down stricter standards for promotion.  If 75-85 is the margin of discretion, then we need a rule for anything outside of that range.  For example, prior to promoting someone with 74% support (or not promoting someone with 86%), a crat must discuss it with and gain the approval of three other crats.  That way, there is a check in the event of puppetry, ballot stuffing, etc, but a single bureaucrat cannot unilaterally make the decision. Personally, I support the promotion in this case, but I think the much bigger issue is a lack of confidence in the promotion itself and a solution like this would help restore that confidence.  Retiring crats is unrelated to the problem. --BigDT 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is the solution that makes most sense to me. The vast majority of cases are uncontroversial in their closing and there's no problem, but in the few cases where there is doubt about the consensus, more than one 'crat should be involved (like for Carnildo's RfA). I disagree with the promotion and particularly with the reasons given, but to de'crat a bunch of unrelated people makes no sense. Trebor 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the importance of voting and discussion on RfA and what bureaucrats do 

message: In my opinion, RfA is already far too much like a vote. I agree it's nice to have all the comments neatly laid out, but I think we should remove all of these limits like "75%", "80%", "85%", etc., that we demand 'crats follow. By doing so, we virtually make RfA a vote, and indicate that we don't trust the promoters - when Wikipedia is virtually a trust-based community. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were no guidelines, no one would be able to complain ;) --Majorly (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if RfA truely was "not a vote" then these percentages would be redundant. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds nice in principle, but eliminating any kind of guideline would grant too much power to the bureaucrats and make RFA more of an aristocracy.  Even with the best of intentions, that system is only going to increase mistrust.  What if promotions like this became an every day occurance?  That would be much worse than the current situation.  The current system isn't really that broken ... it just needs some guidelines so that in potentially controversial situations, nobody acts unilaterally.  An AFD system could never work for RFA for the very simple reason that AFD has more checks and balances.  If an administrator discounts the apparant consensus in closing a deletion discussion, WP:DRV will examine that decision.  But there's no Wikipedia:Adminship Review.  In general, there's only one shot here to get the right decision made.  I propose this simple guideline: "if you plan to promote a candidate who gets under 80% support or not promote a candidate who gets over 80% support, consult with other bureaucrats first."  It's simple and solves the problem. --BigDT 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would eliminating the "guideline" (it's more like a "policy" at the moment) really give 'crats too much power? At the moment they don't have enough freedom; whenever they do something wrong, no matter how small, everyone breathes down their neck. I don't see exactly how giving 'crats more freedom gives them more power, it just gives them more leniency in applying that power. RfB is the final test to see if 'crats will be sensible in their decisions; why make life harder for them afterward? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Big DT: yes, it would give them too much power (or freedom, either way).  I don't feel like RfB should be the final test for trustworthiness, that if someone passes RfB we should automatically trust them for good (not that this is necessarily what you're suggesting).  Decisions should remain in the community's hands as much as possible, IMO.  Having your neck breathed down is just a side effect of making important decisions, and it's an important means of having checks and balances.  If we give away too much power, somewhere down the line someone's inevitably going to abuse it, we can't expect every RfB to be flawless in picking up on who it's going to be.  I agree with BigDT that discussion is warranted in close call cases, and would add that they should discuss when it's a close call either way (whether they're leaning towards promoting or not).  (whoops, misread BigDT's statement here). I'd also suggest that crats shouldn't be the only ones allowed in the discussion (though for practical purposes they'd still have the final "say"). delldot | talk 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Crats have just as much power now as they would when the limits were removed. Who's stopping a 'crat from promoting a vandal to adminship? At the moment, the numbers are just an excuse to complain. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think keeping the 75%/80% "rules" in place is a good idea. They're never followed rigidly, and exceptions to the rule are made occasionally inline with Wiki philosophy. --Deskana (request backup) 02:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Of course they are followed rigidly. Do you not remember what happened last time a bureaucrat passed an RfA that did not fall within the correct percentage? -Amark moo! 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we remove "all of these limits like "75%", "80%", "85%", etc." then what is going to be the criterion for promotion? The absolute discretion of bureaucrats? But exactly this was the problem in the recent case that caused this chaos. A bureaucrat interpretating consensus in his own way against what majority regards as "discretion". Do we want this to happen more often? I don't! If you ask me what we have to do here is to keep the rules and percentage limits as they are, and define the limits of discretion of the bureaucrats. Promoting a nominee with 74% or 73% is exercize of discretion; promoting a nominee with 69% is something else. IMO this is not discretion but misinterpretation of the essence of discretion. What we must make clear is that everybody here, bureaucrats and sysops, are accountable for their actions and they cannot interpretate rules and guidelines in any way they like without being held responsible for that.--Yannismarou 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it is time to move away from "consensus is 80%", as that is getting harder and harder to reach in Wikipedia's growing and more and more fractured community. Ultimately, RfA is not about consensus, it is just some way to find people who will get a few extra buttons and can be trusted to use them responsibly to help us all create an encyclopedia. Polling / voting / consensus / discussion are just tools we use for that. And I don't think that a mistake was made here (to show that a mistake was made, you'll have to show that Wikipedia would be better off if Ryulong wasn't an admin). Kusma (討論) 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse the procedure with the result. I don't question Ryulong capacity to be a great adm. - this can be a great result of this raw -, and I said that I regard this particular case as closed. But I do question the procedure that led to Ryulong's promotion. Whether Ryulong will be a great adm or not (and I do believe he will be a great adm), the flaws of the procedure followed remain, they create a bad precedent, and they should be seriously discussed.--Yannismarou 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if we want "to move away from "consensus is 80%"", this is something we can discuss and decide. But this change can't be the outcome of a disputed exercize of discretion by one bureaucrat, because that's where this particular promotion leads RfA, without any prior to the application of this change in-depth discussion.--Yannismarou 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If wikiconsensus after discussion is required to change RfA procedure, it will never change. Some amount of boldness from bureaucrats will be necessary for any change to happen. Ryulong now gives us one extra data point of a "low percentage" promotion that we can study. Kusma (討論) 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The usual procedure was not followed here. The result is that we have one new admin and several people who are annoyed that procedure was not followed or their concerns ignored. This popular dissatisfaction with a bureaucrat's decision or an RfA outcome is always part of the result. For example, in Carnildo's last RfA, the short-time result of the promotion was bad for Wikipedia (I don't believe that having Carnildo as a sysop was worth the huge mess that became the Giano RfAr). I can't really judge whether it was a good idea to promote directly after that 61% RfA from a long-term point of view. In the case here, I still hope that the net result (including this discussion) will be beneficial. Kusma (討論) 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA too much like a voting process 

message: Taxman said above:
The real problem with public discussion is on suspected sockpuppetry, where you don't want to tip your hand (and give away evidence that they could use to avoid future detection, per WP:BEANS etc), but you do have evidence to suspect it is occurring even if checkuser would not be conclusive. Naming names that need to be discounted causes lots of problems even if you're right about 85-100% of them. That's the crux of the transparent discussion problem. 
:Having thought about this quite hard, I have to agree there's no easy solution. The actual onwiki/offwiki debate isn't so important (to me), provided a summary of the discussion is eventually put onwiki. There are times when debating certain user's !votes onwiki would cause more trouble than it's worth. But as you say, the rationale for the decision may not want to give everything away: it doesn't want to give people ideas for avoiding detection and it certainly doesn't want to bring into question a valid !vote. There is no easy answer. Trebor 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say who cares what they don't want to reveal? If they aren't willing to reveal part of their rationale because they aren't sure enough on it, it should not be part of their rationale. Making a decision based on questionable evidence is no better if you don't tell people. -Amark moo! 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again. The part they don't want to reveal is not because they are unsure on it but because revealing it would give away sockpuppet detection methods. —Centrx→talk • 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but "bringing into question a valid !vote", which was also stated, shouldn't matter. -Amark moo! 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but then you're not looking into it closely enough. In some cases there may be as many as 30-40 or more votes that are questionable. You can't always know for sure, but in many cases you are confident a large percentage of them are disruptive. Ignoring that and the evidence you have would be irresponsible. - Taxman Talk 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you say "I'm not sure which of these votes are disruptive, but it's extremely unlikely that some of them are not". If you don't feel comfortable telling people that's why you made your decision, why do you feel comfortable making a decision based on it? -Amark moo! 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course we're comfortable saying that, but how do I tell the other bureaucrats which ones I see as problems and what problems I see, when that can lead to multiple problems, such as aiding sockuppets in hiding and the loud complaints of getting it wrong, even if we're right. - Taxman Talk 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and that's why I think communication offwiki is sometimes appropriate. If you want to bring a vote up as a possible problem and do it onwiki, it could cause more controversy, even if you later decide it's valid. The bureaucrats as a whole are some of the most trusted members of the community, even if you don't always agree with every one of them; I would tend to trust a collaborative decision of theirs, whether discussion is fully transparent or not. Trebor 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparent discussion?

message: (Since Taxman joined the discussion, I'm asking him directly, though others can obviously comment) - Taxman, since the only oppose above seems to be Oleg (due to bureacracy concerns, no pun intended), and quite a few others liked the idea, how would we go about implementing this? Do we now need to start an RfC, or something, or does the above qualify as consensus? Or for that matter, can you and/or other bureaucrats simply "be bold", and implement this immediately? (I don't see how that would be considered disruptive in any way...) Just to clarify, I think that we've determined consensus of having 2 Bureaucrats closing RfAs. The determined threshhold of needing two, and what venue to discuss it is still under discussion (though personally, I'd prefer to leave both questions to the bureaucrats themselves to determine, for the varied reasons above, among other things). So I guess to repeat, is this ready to be implemented? - jc37 09:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I meant to comment on that too. I hate making it look like we're running on strict percentages only, because there's more to it. But adding another bcrat's voice to the promotion doesn't require looking at only the raw percentage nor does it eliminate taking into account the broader issues. There's still discretion. - Taxman Talk 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I meant to say that having all promotions done by two bureaucrats would be too much. Having two bureaucrats do borderline cases is something I think is a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: Here's my idea: why not have a short "evidence" gathering phase for RFA? By that, I mean a process in which support and oppose reasons are collected and summarized, but voting does not occur. This would include the question/answer stuff. Once the main arguments for and against have been collected, voting can occur. Those supporting would be supporting because of *specific* reasons, and vice versa. Right now, it seems the process is merely a head count with no reason at all. Discussion usually occurs after oppose votes, but wouldn't it make sense to have the discussion and reasoning present BEFORE people begin voting? --- RockMFR 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was brought up as Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship last year and implemented ham-fistedly in the opinion of most, which has tainted suggestions to bring up the concept again. I think it would work, but the climate may not be right for two such changes right now. The one above appears to be gathering momentum, though I'm not sure any 'crats have weighed in yet. -- nae'blis 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That's my idea exactly. --- RockMFR 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect there's a reason it keeps coming up. :) -- nae'blis 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Two step process for RFA 

message: I think most of the suggestions to fix the problems here are actually increasing bureaucracy a lot, while we should be looking for simpler solutions. I feel that we should only fix what's broken.
A simple solution I feel would solve all the problems would be to have a separate process for controversial cases only. Thus, I suggest that the normal promotion/failing go on as usual. For the controversial cases, if three editors in good standing (who have not been a part of the specific RfA discussion/voting) feel that the promotion was hasty/in bad faith, they can approach the bureaucrat community for a re-consideration. In this case, say three bureaucrats (other than the one who performed the promotion) will independently review the nomination and either ratify or oppose the decision. This would truly reflect bureaucrat consensus, and rest the matter once and for all. Note that if two 'crats support the promotion, we wouldn't need to go for the third opinion and the case can be speedily closed. For the period when the bureaucrat consensus is building, the newly created admin would be allowed to use the tools in good faith. Even if the decision is overturned, I feel that we should not hold it against the erring bureaucrat, since long venom-spitting pages like these create an atmosphere of mistrust, and we should understand that they are also humans. Such a process would ensure that the controversial cases are resolved in amicable manner, and the community does not suffer because of a one-off bad decision. Please also note that this does not require 3~4 active bureaucrats all the time. The community would keep working as usual, and as and when a bureaucrat comes online, he can review the case in hand and express his opinion. There is no need of separate page for such exercises, and this can well be a part of bureaucrat noticeboard. I think this takes care of all the issues at hand and bring the community back to writing encyclopedia, rather than mistrusting whom we ought to trust. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is a sensible idea. Asteriontalk 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For a "simpler solution", this seems a lot like one that's "more complex".  Or do you mean strictly in the sense that it requires less BC personpower than the "double approval for all noms" version?  (Notice that it nonetheless requires more personpower than my "consult in borderline cases" suggestion.)  Alai 08:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel it's simpler. For borderline cases, the promotion in my suggestion would be as usual, and only when people feel that the promotion/non-promotion is seriously out-of-line, would intervention be involved. Consulting in borderline cases would cause unnecessary delays, even if the 'crat makes a wise judgment. Why should that be necessary when no one has questioned his discretion? My suggestion is simpler as it allows for amicable handling of controversial cases without halting the working of the project. If the erroneously promoted admin does some harm, we already have a procedure to take care of it. Also for cases when editors abuse this process by asking for reviewing every other promotion, they too can be handled by established guidelines. Note that my suggestion requires three editors who have not been a part of the RfA discussion, so it would (hopefully) involve neutral people opining against the RfA closure. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's an even more convoluted argument in favour of its "simplicity" (actually, ignoring the issue of simplicity, and just alleging assorted merits thereof).  Instead of the supposed complexity and massive delay in "one BC finds another one to talk to", this is liable to lead to people unhappy with a promotion "venue shopping" to find "uninvolved" people to complain on their behalf.  It also requires a completely different implementation mechanism, as bureaucrats cannot de-sysop:  that requires a steward.  Basically we'd have one process to where one BC can promote, and another, effectively separate process, where a delegation of editors asks a committee of bureaucrats to ask a steward to unpromote.  (I assume in some particular time window, unless you're suggesting this as a general de-admining procedure.)  And this could in principle happen in any case, whether actually clear consensus or not.  I think a little delay in a minority of cases is highly preferable to such a system, which seems almost guaranteed to increase rather than decrease contention over decisions, and be exceptionally vexacious for anyone sysoped and rapidly de-sysoped as a result of it.  Alai 09:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of controversial cases is typically very low (order of one every five to six months). The number of cases requiring overturning "sysop to none" would be even lower. Is asking for steward help once in six months bigger bureaucracy, or forcing the 'crats to delay the process until they can discuss with someone? My suggestion means that most of the time the RfA process would go on as it does without any additional bureaucracy. I think you mistook me about the process details. The "delegation of editors" would just ask the bureaucrats to have a closer look into the RfA, and in no way binds the 'crats to overturn the way the RfA was closed. Also, the issue of bureaucrats discussing the controversial cases is already an unwritten guideline (to spread the blame, as they say). If while closing an RfA, the closing 'crat notes that the decision was a joint one, this process would not even come to picture. People may go shopping for uninterested parties to complain on their behalf, but if the 'crats find it in bad faith, the editors can be warned for violation of WP:POINT. Or for that matter, the 'crats can completely choose to ignore the review request, where it will die its natural death (choosing to ignore the review request can be done when the 'crats feel that case is un-necessarily being pressed, and ignoring amounts to not feeding the trolls). Thus, one would not take the pain of asking for review if one were sure it would be overturned. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpler solutions