Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Axiomm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Axiomm's RfA

It would probably be best if Axiomm's RfA is withdrawn by a bureaucrat to avoid a further pile-on. The current tally is at (3/21/3). DarthVader 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. Flak jacket and medical insurance required for such a move. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Luckily I have both. Literally too. I've closed it, and see my note above for why I think you've been creating controversy where there doesn't need to be one, Durin. - Taxman ^Talk 13:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Essjay, you're taking this a little too seriously. I could just as well direct you to read above. All I'm asking for is some discussion on defining the grey area. Axiomm CLEARLY isn't in the grey area. --Durin 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking it too seriously. I haven't ever closed anything in "the gray area," but I have gotten messages complaining about early closure. In fact, I've gotten messages from you complaining about early closure: 3/16 (84.21% oppose), 5/19 (79.16% oppose), and 11/31 (73.80%) where it would have required 81, 76, and 114 supports, respectively, without a single additional oppose, to make a turnaround. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't even begin to touch on the people who want me to close more of them early.

If you want to have a policy on it, then start a policy drive and write a set of guidelines for early withdrawal. I'm all for having some guidelines, if for no other reason than I can point at them when someone is unhappy about the speed at which nominations are closed. However, have the discussion in a manner that acknowledges that there is not a rule, and that all the bureaucrats have to go on is thier best judgment. Right now, we're being treated as though we're acting outside policy, when the truth is, there isn't any policy, just a lot of very different opinions on what to do.

As Sannse said above, we're doing the best we can with what we have, and what we have right now is people pushing us both ways without a second thought to the fact that there are people on the other side pushing just as hard and screaming just as loud. That is not "just part of the job"; we're people too, and volunteers to boot, and we deserve to be treated like people. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm capitulating from this discussion. Essjay, I am NOT attacking you. I've tried several times now to make that clear, and apparently I have failed. Since I can't convince you that I am not attacking you, I'm just going to stop speaking on the subject since that is apparently the only means, from your perspective, that I can stop attacking you. --Durin 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're attacking me in the least. Let me say that again: I don't think you're attacking me at all, far from it, I think you're trying to achieve a standard for all cases. What I want you, and everyone else involved, to realize is that there is no standard and that as much as you may disagree with early closure, or as much as you may support it, it is a matter of bureaucrat's descretion. Until a standard gains community consensus, questioning every early closure, or calling for more of them, does nothing to resolve the issue; it does, however, make the bureaucrat who made that already difficult decision feel like they're completely screwed, because no matter what they do, someone (and quite likely someone well respected in the community, whom they don't want to ignore) will come and tell them the did the wrong thing. I don't think you or anyone else involved in the discussion wants to make bureaucrats feel unappreciated and stressed; you have an opinion, a valid opinion, and you want to see the matter resolved. However, the simple truth is that the way that the matter is being addressed (addressing individual cases, rather than a global standard) *does* make the responsible bureaucrat feel unappreciated and stressed, and *doesn't* do anything to establish an accepted standard that can be used the next time, because it focuses on the decision that was made, rather than how to achieve a standard for making decisions.

Everybody is aware that there are some people who support early closure, and others who oppose it. What people don't seem to realize is that without a standard, there is no basis for either position to be enforced across the board, and that the only thing that can be done is for individual bureaucrats to make individual decisions, just as they were elected to do. What I'm asking is that everyone, not just one side, stop addressing individual situations, and instead work on establishing an accepted standard that can be used in all cases. Once that happens, there will be no need for any bureaucrat to feel unappreciated and stressed (due to this issue) because we will just be enforcing the standard the community has given us.

Now, someone has started a proposal at Wikipedia:Early Close of Requests for Adminship; I encourage everyone interested in this matter to go over there and add your input. And I implore everyone to stop commenting on individual cases (unless there is reason to think that the bureaucrat has abused their position) because doing so *does not help establish a standard* but *does put the bureaucrat in the hotseat* for doing what they were elected to do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't been challenging you on individual cases for quite some time Essjay. I did challenge you early on when you first became a bureaucrat and you stated your position. Since then, I have had opposition to your stance, but not opposition to individual cases with the exception of the JoW case where the RfA was deleted, and that had nothing to do with early closure, but rather the identification (imho without basis) of this user as a troll. --Durin 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What follows is my unsoliticed two cents, written with rather a lot of Bushmills inside me; therefore I ask that readers ascribe the bits with which they disagree to the aforementioned, and accept the bits they like as having derived from the still-lucid section of my fevered brain.

I read the granting of bureaucratship as the community's vote of confidence in a user's judgment; hence I consider that you have the prerogative to decide outcomes when they are not already obvious. As long as you are self-consistent and can justify your decisions, and unless another bureaucrat or a community uproar (which the above discussion is not) suggests you were wrong, the decisions you make should be considered final. As a corollary, don't be afraid to make potentially controversial decisions; that's the point of this job. Ignore the naysayers -- you're doing fine. (Disclaimer, since someone is bound to take me to task for this: "ignore the naysayers" is not a universalizable maxim, and should be used sparingly.) — Dan | talk 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)