Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/John Reid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments on Radiant's "A more neutral question"

For the moment, I'm not interested in asking a "neutral" question. I want a straight up-or-down declaration by each b'crat; I want to know who continues to serve consensus and who thinks he or she is above it. Nor am I especially interested in any b'crat definition of the admin role. I kind of object to this distraction; please don't give b'crats an excuse to avoid making their positions clear. John Reid 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a completely nonsensical question. A "call for this statement of fealty from our trusted servants"? Come off it. It's sheer lunacy. Bureaucrats serve the encyclopedia, not you or me. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
At the present time to use the word "trusted" does indeed seem sheer lunacy. With no attempt at explanation from the majority of them, that situation seems likely to remain. They have created a situation where comment from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [1] will be discounted. I am not fickle or ill-informed, I am very consistent and very well informed and I would like to be even more informed by having some answers from all of them, not just the two most vocal. They can begin with - who continues to serve consensus? Giano | talk 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think they all think they do. But how are you defining consensus? Kim Bruning 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You could fucking whistle. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And you could tone down your comments. That was uncalled for. Even if John Reid was the most abbrasive person since Jack the Ripper, such comments as the one you just made are out of line here. Please calm down. --Durin 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. Ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway is totally amazing [2] totally unbelievable. Giano | talk 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, do you answer to any authority -- not to an abstraction, but to any person or group of people? Or are you entirely autonomous? I'd really like to know. John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Radiant's neutral question is helpful, but misses the point. All of us who are regulars at RfA have standards of one sort or another on what makes a good admin. The core issue here is not what our standards are. The core issue is the schism that has recently generated between the RfA regulars and the bureaucrat corps. John Reid's question, though apparently regarded as insulting, is more directly aimed at addressing the schism. The bureaucrats have largely been silent of late in this debate. Now is not the time to be silent, to hope this problem will go away if enough silence is given. I'd strongly welcome a concerted effort on the part of the bureaucrats to address the schism that has generated. --Durin 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've always been a staunch supporter of the bureaucrats, but I agree in this one that silence at this point is *not* constructive. As I recently discovered, being a bureaucrat is different from being an admin. While an admin may be "no big deal" to many people, a bureaucrat position is considered a "burden", one with a lot of work associated with it. My point here being that the issues raised recently should be addressed by bureaucrats, as interaction with the community is an important part of being one. Radiant's question was very helpful, I believe. -- RM 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Nichalp, do you endorse or dissent? John Reid 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nichalp, for setting out your views. I wish other bureaucrats would do the same. Perhaps we need a central page for bureaucrats to state their interpretation of policy, so we know where they stand.

I would also be interested on your views on this particular RFA (you may want to read a couple of things I have written on my talk page and that of Taxman. Or possibly not...)

Please, User:John Reid, this is not a witchhunt. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It sure looks like one. - Taxman Talk 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No; this is a test of loyalty to our community. John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been following all of the discussions here. So far, it seems to me like an enormous generalization. All of this has been generated by a decision made in Carnildo's RfA, not by any kind of decision making pattern on the part of the Bureaucracy in general. Taxman has been addressing the criticism that the decision (and its process) sparked. He has even admitted that the way in which the decision was made was perhaps not ideal. I have no reason to believe, given all that, that this situation would be repeated in the forseeable future.
To derive from this situation a conclusion that Bureaucrats could be looking to "ignore community consensus [and rule RfA with an iron fist]" is completely unjustified. Everyone who is a regular in RfA knows how the old saying goes: "we elect Bureaucrats to make the tough decisions, determine consensus in difficult scenarios", etc. Well, sometimes, in order to do our job, we need to think outside the box, try new solutions -- as former Bureaucrat Cecropia did in putting forward the 75-80% margin of discretion for promotion in troubled RfAs. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. People have spoken in the sense that the solution that Taxman tried did not suit them. We hear you. It is, after all, a human process.
Without going into any specifics of Carnildo's RfA, since I wasn't involved in the process of closing that RfA, let's also not forget that those difficult RfAs can yield complicated scenarios: in extreme cases, an apparent consensus in the neighborhood of circa 60% could, in theory, result in promotion, assuming a scenario where a RfA has been spammed by sockpuppets and bad-faith or bandwagonning !votes. After going through all the participants, a Bureaucrat could arrive at a real consensus, amidst the good-faith, well-reasoned participants, that would be sufficent for promotion -- and as a matter of fact, whenever people feel that we have not done that, they protest as well, asking if all we ever do is just count votes. At the same time, if a user is promoted whose RfA had an apparent consensus of 61%, people also protest, saying that we are overlooking consensus and doing as we please. It's almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. But that's fine: addressing people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made (or how they were made) is part of the job -- and Taxman, as the principal Bureaucrat involved in closing Carnildo's RfA, has been doing it: he has not refused to answer questions as to how or why the decision was made as it was. It comes with the territory.
However, I'm sure you will agree that it is not possible for us to do our job as you yourselves would want us to do it if, whenever a controversial decision is made, people start asking us to line up and renew our "vows" to the project officially. The bottom line is: we are here to make those decisions. The community is not only free, but in fact expected to protest if it feels that any of our decisions were not in keeping with its expectations. But to go from there to suggest that Bureaucrats could be looking to ignore consensus altogether and take over RfA entirely is a giant leap, and one that is completely unjustified by the big picture.
Let's not confuse things: the Carnildo decision was not appreciated. That's one thing. Questioning the Bureaucrats' commitment to the project, that's quite different. Redux 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Redux, do you endorse or dissent? John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
John, this isn't the House Un-American Activities Committee. Please, try and remember that the bureaucrats are not on trial, and do not have to answer your questions. Maybe if you try asking in a nicer, more calm way, you'll get an answer closer to what you are looking for. However, trying to force people to answer a question isn't a productive way to discuss a topic. Thε Halo Θ 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
John, you seem to have missed my point completely. Understand that the Bureaucrats will not line up and take new "oaths" because you're telling us to. As I said, all of this started as a questioning of the method used to close and decide the outcome of a specific RfA. Questioning the entire Bureaucracy, and especially whether or not we are willing to abide by consensus, is a long, long way from that: also as I said, it's a giant leap that is completely unjustified by the big picture. Understand this: no Bureaucrat believes that s/he is above consensus, but our job consists precisely of determining consensus within the context of RfAs, as well as acting on it in the best interest of the community. That is what we were appointed to do; that is what we do. Redux 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a part of any community John Reid is a part of. —Centrx→talk • 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a break!

I'm sorry to butt out of the debates, but I shall be off wikipedia till late October starting tomorrow as I will be out of town on non-wiki related stuff. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that this b'crat "left the room" rather than endorse a statement of our core value of consensus. John Reid 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I had asked John to please consider ceasing this unproductive and uncivil badgering of bureaucrats. The last, above, I have just seen. I'm sorry but this revolting hectoring has to stop. Please, John, stop it. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Let the record show that that b'crat was kind enough to answer my question before going on holiday. And I hope that the record shall show in late October that he had a fine vacation and good weather. >Radiant< 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
John, now even I think you're pressing the issue too hard. WP:NOT a court of law. -- nae'blis 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Everyone needs to stop focusing on contributors as opposed to policy and content - this is just a warning to all those above who are clearly frustrated by this. This goes to Giano, Tony, and John. Please just cool off. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
John, please stop. This is being disruptive and unproductive. Furthermore a bit of WP:AGF might be in order. I don't think that Nichalp is taking a break just to avoid answering you. JoshuaZ 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop it John. This is just becoming a farce.Voice-of-All 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Echo what others just said. John, if you hadn't stepped over the line before you clearly did so with the "let the record show" comment. --Durin 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)