Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"80% rule"

I removed the specific "80%" threshold given in the Rules section, and re-worded the first couple sentences for grammar. It is not appropriate because, like any other page, VfA requests are to work toward consensus. Bureaucrats already know this, and the new wording sets a much better tone. -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

I disagree since it's a practical guideline for those who are nominated or just interested in the working of this process. I'm changing it back until we have some consensus on this, OK? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That stat may be informative, as you think it is, if it were based on some real data. As it is, it's just a number pulled out of the air, and shatters any concept that adminship is a consensus-drived process. If more people understood that it is less to do with the precise ratio of votes, and more to do with moving the discussion towards community agreement, I think there would be a lot less "bad blood" in the voting process. -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Netoholic, the 80% figure is the only figure that we have consensus on as being a reasonable measure of consensus. :-) It's been discussed on this talk page before -- it may well be worth discussnig again, but I think it's worth saying that we've argued over this before, and 80% was accepted as a reasonable standard. I think the reason we've had the number displayed is because without it people are too intimidated (many seem to think consensus is unanimity when they arrive here). 80% helps give a face to the general notion that we want most of the community on board before a decision is final, but if a few dissent they can't spoil things. I believe that, as a bureaucrat, if an admin candidate gets at least 80% support with no suspected sockpuppets, I would be remiss in not promoting them, even if I myself was one of the "oppose" votes. Otherwise the system breaks down. You're free to disagree, but please know that this has been discussed in the past, and 80% was the lowest number we could get a reasonable consensus in support of. If we leave it as nothing but "consensus" without offering any number as a general idea of its meaning, I think we leave the door open for promotion of admins who have ~65% support, and I don't think that's right. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Netoholic has a fair point. If you look at the current listings, there seems to be a clear consensus support for five out of the six, and the 80% rule seems generally pointless. In the sixth case, Sam Spade, even if enough users did now vote in support to constitute 80% of the total voters, the number and strength of objections so far suggest that employing the 80% guideline and making Sam Spade an admin would be divisive and hard to justify. 172.185.182.26 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I respect that position, although I partially disagree with it. If 120+ support votes appeared from established (i.e., not new) users who were clearly not sockpuppets, I don't know how on earth I could refuse to promote someone. On the other hand, it is worth considering the changes in scale. I remember when RFAs attracted an average of 10-15 votes -- at that point, 20% objections meant 2-3 people. It was easy to see that could be personality conflict or a few minor scuffle on the part of the nominee. Given, however, RFAs that attract 60-70 votes, it is well worth considering whether 80% is unwise -- if 12-14 people object, does that indicate a too-substantial body of criticism to be ignored? Perhaps it does. I'm open to talking about this, as I said before. But I think, as this site grows, partisanship is likely to increase as a factor -- the politically unpopular will be easy targets in RFAs. If 20 hardcore right wingers or left wingers decide to reject a given candidate based purely on ideology (though they offer some vague public objections like "POV" and "displays bias on userpage") and refuse to budge from their position, despite a conversation in the RFA that attempts to build consensus, are we willing to let them hold this site hostage? Or is it better to say that, as Jimmy often comments, adminship should be "no big deal"? This is a huge question, and not one we can settle in a day or even a week. But it's worth talking about. Jwrosenzweig 00:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if we're not losing sight in this discussion that not so long ago bean-counting was discouraged in determining adminship, and many objected to showing toctallies at all. Having said that, humans (male humans especially) are numbered-oriented critters, and we have hashed out that the basic sentiment is that many feel that 75% is a minimum for promotion and 80% satisfies almost everyone. We also positively established that bureaucrats should use their discretion, and closely examine contentious votes, to determine consensus, because consensus is the requirement, not a simple number. All notwithstanding, I support mention of the 75%-80% non-rule simply because newer editors (and not a few older ones) frequently ask for an explanation of how consensus is determine and the numbers are a starting point. -- Cecropia | explains it all® 00:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's because of "number orientation", but simple pragmatics: in the absence of a standard, what to do? If adminship is "no big deal", 80% seems like a high bar. But it's pretty clear from reactions to nominations that it is considered a big deal, Jimbo's pronouncement notwithstanding. VeryVerily 01:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Having a look at the current nominations, Slowking man has (36/1/0), Jallan is (19/1/0), Fire Star is (18/0/1). These are users becoming admins with over 95% acceptance. With 80%, I'd suspect there would be more real serious doubts, and with even lower there would be more so. Most admins do a good job, but I feel a handful of them abuse their powers with articles they personally feel strongly about. I think a high bar is a good idea. Ruy Lopez 18:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

We seem to have a request for bureaucratship from a relatively recent contributor, which request would appear to have considerable support. I believe some standards are called for. I would suggest:

  • That the number of bureaucrats be limited, in the interest of maintaining control. Since there are at most only a few promotions a week, this should pose no problem. I do not see a problem if promotions are delayed by as much as a few days following the close of voting.
  • That those interested people who have participated the most for the longest be chosen for bureaucrats. Generally, this is what has been done up until now, but we haven't written it down.

uc 21:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have separated bureaucrat and sysop roles. Admin promotions can be reversed like everything else, and if someone would abuse the ability to appoint admins, then the appointed user wouldn't be able to cause _that_ much more mayhem than as a regular user, in a short time. — David Remahl 01:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure they could. As I understand it, at current, bureaucrats can promote users to sysop status, but only stewards can remove that status. There are FEW stewards. If a bureaucrat went crazy or something and decided to give some vandal admin status, it could be a while before a steward could be reached to remove the status. In that time, all sorts of damage could be done. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since Grunt expressed concern about delayed promotions I ran the numbers on promotions since the beginning of August:
In August there were 16 promotions:
5 were actually made a bit before time ran out, usually by a few minutes, probably because it was convenient and promotion was evident. These promotions were made by Angela, Cecropia and Ilyanep.
8 promotions were made in less than an hour—average time: 23 minutes
3 promotions took longer than an hour: FPHLai in 1:59; Sewing in 3:32; Topbanana in 3:14.
In September and the first week of October, there were 23 promotions:
8 were made before finishing time.
6 were made in less than an hour—average time: 25 minutes
4 were made between one hour and 1:33—average time: 73 minutes
5 took longer, mostly during the period when we changed over to the new format, making end times harder to check: David Remahl in 6:58; Zoney in 7:51; Andrevan in 10:35; The Custom of Life in 14:33; and Frazydee in 7:40 -- Cecropia | explains it all® 02:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I considered running the same numbers, also. I would have said it is admirable that all promotions have been completed within a 24 hour period. Seeing these, I say "Bravo, bureaucrats!" -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat

There have been several requests for this position lately, and some discussion as to what the standard for the position should be. Bureaucrats have no other function than to promote editors to housekeeping positions, based on community consensus. The community has made it clear that they feel that bureaucrats must work to determine consensus when there is a contentious nomination.

The standard for promotion to admin has generally been that below 75% does not promote, above 80% promotes, and anything in between takes some work and discretion. Still, a Bureaucrat is expected to consider other factors, such as sockpuppetry and bogus justifications.

Question: should the standard for promotion to bureaucrat be different than for sysop, based on the added responsibility or other factors?

Tally

# Description  % Votes
1 Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo) ~75-80% 7
2 Bureaucrats should have a standard five percent higher ~80-85% 9
3 Bureaucrats should have a standard ten percent higher ~85-90% 5
4 Bureaucrats should have a standard fifteen percent higher ~90-95% 6
5 A different standard should be applied (what?)   8
6 Other opinions   1
2–4 Those in favor of some amount of increased vote percentage ~80-95% 20
2–5 Above plus the "different standard" voters, who want greater restrictions   28
Total votes cast 36
Note: This tally may be slightly out-of-date. Do not feel that you have to update this tally when you add or change your vote.

Votes

Option 1 (~75-80%)

Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo).

  1. Enough people keep an eye on this page that we can keep it sane. Perhaps require sponsorship of at least 2 existing bureaucrats, if anything. --Improv 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. If 75-80% is a consensus, then it is a consensus for both administrators and bureaucrats. Warofdreams 18:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. If they've already become a sysop, they have the community's trust. ugen64 20:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • And there are no bad sysops (or bureaucrats) right? Does this mean you think there should be no separate "bureaucrat" level? -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
      • If a bad sysop tries to get bureaucratship, obviously he or she will be opposed by far more than 20% of the community... hopefully... ugen64 22:35, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  5. The percent of voters who agree should not change; the only thing that should change is the substantive requirements. In other words, 80% of voters should agree that a user should be an admin, and 80% of voters should agree that an admin should be a bureaucrat, but the substantive standards (i.e., length of service, fairness, etc.) applied by that 80% in the latter case should be a bit higher. COGDEN 20:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
    Not arguing with your vote, but the problem is that editors can vote for or against for pretty much any reason at all. Perhaps voters should hold bureaucrat nominations to a higher standard, but that isn't quantifiable, a higher percentage is. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg 20:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. I trust people will weigh the bureaucratic status in when they make their decisions and therefore see no reason to set another standard. Sarge Baldy 23:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Option 2 (~80-85%)

Bureaucrats should have a standard five percent higher.

  1. Bureaucrats only have one (albeit an important one) additional responsibility. A standard just a little higher should suffice.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Acegikmo1 18:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Lst27 20:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. If adminship is no big deal, bureaucratship should be even less so. It's really not a big role. All they can do is make sysops following a vote. They can't remove sysop access and they can't make decisions unilaterally in the way that admins can (with CSDs for example). Angela (I moved my vote from the option above since I think 80 is a better reflection of what consensus is currently required for adminship than 75.)
    They can unilaterally make sysops. And while anything a sysop can do can be reverted by another sysop, what a bureaucrat does can not be reverted by another bureaucrat. Adminship is already a big deal, and bureaucratship is a much bigger deal even. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Conti|✉ 21:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  6. A little higher I'd say than a sysop Bureaucrats are higher in the wiki-elite so they must have a larger community mandate than just a regualar sysop--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 22:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. -JCarriker 03:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Threshold at 80%; same as for other admins. Someone wrote above "...anything a sysop can do can be reverted by another sysop...". Not true. Image deletions and history merges come to mind. And bureaucrats are, like sysops and in fact any other editor on the Wikipedia, subject to peer control (or pressure), and mistakes are usually fixed. See the recent controversial promotion to bureaucrat discussed below. It's no big deal. And it's a matter of trust, which isn't accurately measured percentage values. Lupo 10:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. After some time as an admin without any objections, this should be easy to fulfill. The standard should be higher, but not that much higher. –Andre (talk) 14:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Option 3 (~85-90%)

Bureaucrats should have a standard ten percent higher.

  1. — Kate Turner | Talk 17:13, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
  2. No position is as bound to policies and community consensus as the bureaucrat's. It is almost purely administrative. That makes it especially important that bureaucrats are excellent readers of what the community wants, and that he/she has an excellent grasp of the policies in place. I think each individual should vote without requiring _too_ much from the candidate, but that any dissenting voices should weigh very heavy. — David Remahl 17:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Looking at this page right now, three potential administrators have a 95%+ percentage - 19 or more yeses and 1 nay/neutral. This being the case, I don't see why there'd be a need to have a low bar for bureaucraticship, if they can't make it to 85% (17 yays, 3 nays), they probably have some problems that have to be addressed. Ruy Lopez 18:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. 85% is reasonable. I also think "80%" is a better description of the current consensus required than "75%". +sj+
  5. 85% is the minimum value at which I am comfortable with the word "consensus". Admin nominations for users like Zoney and Ta bu shi da yu certainly show that it is not an unattainable bar. Obviously, sock puppets and user accounts created after the vote began must not be taken into account, (and a Bureaucrat who votes either way for another Bureaucrat must not be the arbiter of whether or not consensus has been achieved in a contentious vote). func(talk) 20:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option 4 (~90-95%)

Bureaucrats should have a standard fifteen percent higher.

  1. Netoholic @ 17:25, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) -- This level is supported by past bureaucrat votes. It's a hefty level, but I think that a strong show of community backing is necessary to avoid conflicts after a contentious admin vote.
  2. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. we need far fewer bureaucrats than sysops, and the responsibility is higher. so it seems obvious to me that the standard of community support ought to be higher. i'd say 90%, with some discretion allwed at discounting known troll votes. Wolfman 14:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. fvw 15:39, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC) -- As long as no bureaucrat shortage occurs, the higher the standard the better.
  6. Xed 16:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) given the recent corruption of the adminship process, I think admins should also require 95% of votes.

Option 5: different standard

A different standard should be applied, but the criteria for bureaucratship should be stricter than adminship. Please explain your reasoning and your alternate proposal here, or do so elsewhere and provide a reference to it here.

  1. uc 21:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I actually believe that if there are substantive objections from any regular participant, that aren't voluntarily withdrawn after discussion, the request should be turned down. But then, I've never especially liked wiki-votes in the first place.
  2. uc makes sense here, but I'm not sure that any substantive objections should be a block -- let's say any that are not "clearly personal in nature, but are based on expectations of the user's actions." -- BCorr|Брайен 21:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the above, generally -- I know if I had received a legitimate oppose vote from a regular participant when I applied for the job, I'd have preferred not to become a bureaucrat. These should be users whose sense of consensus and caution is finely tuned and in sync with the community. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. 95%, which is no more than 5% higher than the threshold I'd like for admins. Also, no substantiated opposition from well regarded members of the community. It's clearly possible to achieve this sort of level in uncontroversial matters, since it happens regularly. Jamesday 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. How about this: change the nomination procedure. At present, bureaucrats are self-nominated. Instead, I propose that instead, existing sysops who have served for six months or longer be eligible for nomination for the position of bureaucrat by another sysop. The franchise (for electing bureaucrats only) should be restricted to two categories of user: (a) users who are already sysops or higher, and (b) users who have been active for a minimum of six months, and have made a minimum of 1000 edits. Promotion should be automatic, provided that (a) at least 80 percent support the nomination, and (b) not more that five persons oppose it. David Cannon 21:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. I think it would be reasonable to expect unanimous consensus of all genuine contributors who have made a significant number of edits, although exceptions could be made for votes made on obviously spurious grounds. Everyking 16:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. I've a somewhat lengthy suggestion; it's in the comments section, below. In a nutshell: elect bcrats like how we elect the arbcom, limiting the current system. • Benc • 03:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. I think uc is right for bureaucratship i.e. "no substantive objections". For adminship the bar should be a little lower, in fact I think Bcorr is very close, something like "isolated substantive objections only". e.g. if the vote was 20/0/5, a bureaucrat may decide to promote if four of the five were of the shameful personal attack variety we see, and only the one or two genuine complaint that a bureaucrat should investigate and be able to feel confident in promoting anyhow and ready to explain to other users why he feels that confidence. Pcb21| Pete 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option 6: other

  1. As I proposed on T:RfA, subjecting bureaucrats to periodic review might help avert a lot of controversy. (I'm not sure if this really answers the poll question.) VeryVerily 11:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'd also like to see some sort of minimum participation times, like 9 months on the project and 3 months as an admin, before a nomination can occur. Perhaps this doesn't need to be explicitly stated as a rule, but should be considered a major contributing factor (much like total edits is a factor for admin promotion).
  • I don't like the term 'promotion' - there is no seniority between general users, admins or bureaucrats. It's just that they are volunteering for extra tasks. Mark Richards 17:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Not true. Look at how the discussion is conducted on this page. It's not *just* volunteering -- if it were, then random folk could do the tasks without asking. There's an element of that, true, but it is indeed a promotion, based on how much trust they have earned and how their contributions have worked out. Wikis are at least partly meritocracies, and there's no shame in that. --Improv 18:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Benc here. Some of this has been said before, but these are my views and suggestions on the bureaucrat position:
    • To quote our benevolent dictator: adminship is "no big deal". Bureaucratship isn't either.
    • However, both admins and bcrats have the power to wreak havoc on the project, bcrats moreso. It makes sense to make very sure we're appointing only the most consistent, uncontroversial admins to bcratship.
    • The number of bcrats should be limited, just like the arbitration committee. We don't need too many cooks in the kitchen; a dozen bcrats or arbcom members is too many.
    • Note that the "too many cooks in the kitchen" rule of thumb applies differently to admins. The number of admins needed scales according to the number of vandals needing blocking, junk needing deletion, and so forth. The number of bcrats does not scale accordingly. Really, it doesn't make sense to include bcrat nominations on the same page as admins; they're like apples and oranges. (And arbcom members are bananas.)
    My suggested course of action:
    1. For the time being, bump the needed consensus up by 5%, 10%, or 15%.
    2. Then, as a community, come to a consensus on the number of bcrats needed.
    3. When and if more bcrats are needed (a relatively rare occurance), elect one or more from a pool of candidates, just like how the arbcom works already. Bcrats have considerably less authority than arbcom members, but their function is equally important.
    Optional: in addition to allowing bcrats to step down at any time, have them serve 12 or 24 month terms. Yeah, I know this defies the definition of "bureaucrat", but there's no reason to let the dictionary get in the way of common sense. Thoughts? • Benc • 03:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grunt

In light of the vote above indicating that most people expect a higher standard for bureaucrats than for sysops, I strongly protest against the promotion of Grunt with a bare 75% of votes. Gzornenplatz 21:15, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have formally asked Grunt Ugen64 to ask Angela to reverse his action. He is ignoring consensus. I said I did not want to act on this because of the appearance of bias, yet he made only his fourth promotion ever as a bureaucrat on an issue in which he had expressed a bias. His last promotion was six months ago. If anything I think this illustrates the importance of being more careful in bureaucrat promotion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite shocked that Grunt was simply promoted with only 75%. Ugen64 appears to be way out of line; I'm assuming based on Cecropia's comments that he did not discuss this with the other bureaucrats, as he should in such a borderline case. (This is nothing personal about Grunt, obviously.) VeryVerily 21:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another bureaucrat, chiming in -- I would not have promoted Grunt in that scenario. We are divided over how to count neutral votes, but given the doubts expressed by two neutral voters along with several openly expressed and reasonable criticisms in the oppose section, I think it's clear that consensus was not reached. And I say this as someone who voted for Grunt and who believes that he would make a good bureaucrat. I hope this will be reversed. Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add, that it is our tradition that unclear nominations remain open for additional votes, at least for adminship -- a process I would presume we would extend to bureaucratship. The 7-day period is the earliest that a nomination is supposed to be closed. It is not a deadline. In many contentious cases in the past, comment periods have been extended by several days in the hopes that a consensus could be reached through discussion, or failing that, in the hope that more voters would arrive to clarify the matter. uc 22:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Decisionmaking on IRC

I want to protest the use of IRC to discuss decisions made on Wikipedia which should be transparent and part of the permanent record. I didn't know that the issue of Grunt's promotion by Ugen64 had been discussed in this backdoor fashion. Part of the relevant discussion was sent to me by Angela with the permission of the participants. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree -- especially when the conversation appears to consist only of people who wanted to make Grunt a bureaucrat (again, I was one of them). In the absence of a dissenting voice, in a conversation that apparently lasted only a few minutes, I feel this is a really unwise decision and it sets a poor precedent if it stands. I like and respect all the people involved, so I hope they will take it well when I say that this was handled very badly, and it needs to be made right. 80% is a guideline, yes -- but given the consistent and reasonable criticism of the minority, I don't think this was an occasion to dip below the guideline (even if ever so slightly) without very careful consideration. The IRC log doesn't look like careful consideration to me, even if it felt like it at the time. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmm? The IRC chat wasn't careful consideration, I just wanted to: a. see if there was any SET IN STONE guideline (which seems to have been 75-80%, not quite "set in stone"); b. see if Grunt opposed my doing it (even if I didn't come out and ask him that). All my careful consideration was done by myself :) ugen64 22:34, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Right! The first thing that needs to be done is to reverse the promotion. Can a bureaucrat do that? if so would one of you please do it now? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Theresa, we can only create matter, not destroy it. To desysop or debureaucrat we need a developer or a steward. The only one I can remember off the top of my head who's likely to be around is Angela. Unless Ed Poor kept his developer status? I can't recall. Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll do it. SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ack! :-) I just asked mav -- I'll run back and cancel the request. Thanks, Anthere! Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done :-) Too late :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing


Thank you. Now since the decision was tight, I believe that extending the voting period for two more days perhaps might either allow consensus to be reached or make it clear that consensus will not be reached. What do other people think? (I'm off to bed now, so i won't reply until tomorrow) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think an extension of the vote a very reasonable measure, and I hope we can get everyone to allow it. Since this is certain to be contentious, I hope further that, when the time comes to end the vote and make a decision either direction, we can discuss it publically and carefully, preferably with a few disinterested bureaucrats chiming in (at least one would be nice). Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I strongly protest the reinstatement of the Grunt vote. It was already over the time. It was 79.4% at the deadline and the reason it was not removed was obviously that Grunt and the bureaucrats who supported him hoped to get this over 80% yet - instead it fell to 75%. It should be considered failed now. Gzornenplatz 23:10, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz, there is no good reason I can think of to hold the vote as closely to a week as possible. A week is the minimum a vote must stay here (to ensure it attracts sufficient attention) but it is by no means the maximum. RFA used to keep votes up for 2-3 weeks if necessary to get the adequate attention, and there's no reason to stop that. The vote is close enough that a few editors adding their ideas (and one or two deciding that Grunt has addressed their concerns) will swing it -- that's too close to impose an arbitrary deadline, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object to the suggestion that this was caused by IRC. If anything, the discussion there ought to have convinced Ugen not to bureaucrat Grunt. For example, my comment implying 75% was not enough:

<Angela> is it still below 80?
<ugen64> it's 75%
<ugen64> well i thought adminship consensus was 75%
<Angela> no, usually adminship is +80

Also someone currently anonymous because I didn't get their permission to publish this said "I was 0.4% away from getting a full scholarship into my first year of university. Why should Grunt be any luckier?" which again implies the percentage was not high enough. I only told Cecropia about the IRC discussion to try and explain Ugen's reason for doing this and thought the log might give some insight into this; it was not meant to imply decisions were or should be made on IRC. Angela. 22:51, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Angela, that implies to me that Ugen64 might have felt justified, but I see somone trying to justify what he wants to doand looking for support, so it is decisionmaking. If he had been an active bureaucrat, engaging the community, that is one thing, but IMO, he used his power inappropriately and for the first time in six months. Also I know you felt it was the right thing to do to ask for the others for permission to publish what they said, but don't you realize that even seeking that permission raises IRC to privileged information? Bad, bad stuff. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Angela, I agree that the conversation on IRC does not look to me as though others were offering reasons why Grunt should be promoted (except for Grunt in his own defense) -- I'm sorry if I said anything that implied that was the case, since a review of the IRC log shows it wasn't. What I think it does show, though, is a bureaucrat looking for someone to give him justification to promote, and no one explicitly telling him to settle it elsewhere. I don't think it was your job, Angela, or anyone else's, to remind ugen that he really should take this to the talk page, and that a vote that close is not one to be settled hastily. But I wish you would have (well, I wish someone would have) and I admit to being a little disappointed that no one saw ugen's inclinations (which may be magnified with the benefit of hindsight) and tried to steer him another way. But I will agree that no one encouraged ugen to promote except Grunt himself (and even Grunt wasn't direct about it), so my criticism isn't of their actions, it's of ugen's decision. I do hope, though, that in future people who do see this kind of discussion taking place on IRC over a fairly important decision will steer it elsewhere with an appropriate admonition or two. Thanks for your input, Angela, and again, I apologize for any offense I may have given with earlier remarks. Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugen made a bad decision. I don't think that can blamed on IRC. I really don't see what this has to do with IRC at all. He presumably would have made that decision anyway. Angela.
So Grunt, a candidate, and Ugen64, a bureaucrat, are discussing his disputed nomination on IRC and then Ugen64 promotes him? Hmmm.... do we have a name for this? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we need to get conspiratorial about it, Cecropia, which is what your comment suggests to me. It's a remarkably unwise decision by two good admins, and I hope they'll both just let this one go. I agree, it looks unbelievably bad, but I don't think it's a good indication of either Grunt or ugen's normal approach here. Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm not thinking conspiracy; I'm disturbed that they don't seem to appreciate the obvious inappropriateness of it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

This is just starting to get really ugly. Idea: Maybe the perennial proposal of having admins de-admined after inactivity or subject to periodic review should be applied to bureaucrats. Unlike admins, who can't really do anything not reversible by another admin (other than delete images), bureaucrats really are in a position of trust which perhaps needs to be renewed. This is relevant here because many of the doubts associated with this case relate to ugen64's (apparent?) period of inactivity. This could not be used against him if his status had been renewed by the community, while on the other hand if there were doubts he might not be a bureaucrat now. VeryVerily 23:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree. See Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats#Bureaucratic statistics. Angela. 23:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested "IRC important decision policy"

This proposed policy has been moved to the Meta-wiki at m:Talk:IRC channels. Please go there, read it over, and add your opinion.

Grunt's Bureaucrat Nomination

I have removed Grunt's nomination for bureaucrat. The final vote at the extended end time (and at the time of removal) was (31/11/3) or 73.81%. As is usual, this does not count the neutrals, which also expressed doubt, but they needn't be considered for consensus.

It is well known that I ended up opposing Grunt's bid and have waited three hours beyond the end time to see if any other admin was inclined to act. I have no problem doing the removal, since the nomination clearly failed by even our most liberal policy (75%-80%). For the record, of 24 votes in the current advisory poll on bureaucrat promotion, 20 editors (83%+) feel a bureaucrat should achieve 80%-85% approval, and a significant minority (11 or 45%+) would look for an even more restrictive standard, so I believe a bare minimum of 80% is what we will be looking for in the future. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just thought I'd drop a little note here, since my promotion of Neutrality could be percieved as controversial. Nominally, the vote was pretty heavily in his favor (78%), which is already in my comfort margin. Also, my "normalized" vote (IE, discounting sockpuppets and whatnot) was 82-83%. Bureaucrats are given discretionary power in making promotions, and I made it. →Raul654 04:30, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds pretty fair to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Definitely fair. Glad to see a bureaucrat step up to the plate to combat stupidity. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You ought to watch your mouth a little bit blankfaze, calling people who could not support Neutrality "stupid" and not "sane". I can't speak for the others who voted against, but I know stupid and insane doesn't describe my (weak) opposition. Pcb21| Pete 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I really don't understand the hostility. In my opinion, the majority (most, not all, (and not you, Pete)) of the users voting against Neutrality did so for stupid reasons, such as his username, or Manual of Style disputes, or grudges (Rex, Pitchka). Where I come from, people are allowed to express opinions freely. If by "watch your mouth" you mean that I should shut up and not express my feelings on things, that's not going to happen. The point is, Neutrality should be an admin. I've seen MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less worthy, qualified users get through this process. I'm glad that Raul saw that and ended this whole charade. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was hostile because I thought you were calling all opposers stupid and insane. If you were just calling some of them that and not me, then that's fine :). "Watch your mouth" emphatically does not mean "shut up" it means take care when you express your opinion to not cause collateral damage. Pcb21| Pete 06:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've asked some more questions about this decision over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Neutrality. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I've made some proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Promotion guidelines. Please add your comments. uc 15:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's adminship should be withdrawn. Neutrality did not have the requisite number of votes. Nor did Raul654 explain how he came to give Neutrality adminship, or how he came up with the 83% figure, when the actual figure is closer to 70. --- Xed 16:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do you get the closer to 70% value? Just curious. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:22, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
You're asking me when Raul won't even come clean about his methods for calculating his 83% (normalized) figure? --- Xed 08:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am also interested in Raul's counting for 82-83%. BTW, with a support of 78% (non-normalized), I think it was within the discretionary power of a bureaucrats to either promote or reject. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Depending on the method of calculating, I get 69% or 73%, well below 80%. Xed 09:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
63+17+2=82. 63 out of 82 is 77%, no matter how you slice it.
Um, no: it isn't meaningful to count the 2 neutral "votes". To do so would be essentially the same as treating them as "oppose" votes. 63+17=80. 63 out of 82 = 78% func(talk) 00:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, then there's little point in having neutral votes. But either way, my point stands: It's closer to 80%, and not 70% as Xed said, giving a figure of "69% or 73%".
  • The reason Neutrality's nomination was controversial is because he made it that way. He is vindictive, nonco-operative and arrogant all rolled into one. If he doesn't like your work on something he will just keep changing it without any communication or he'll end up putting it up for deletion. Funny while he was changing the article a hundred times he didn't think the whole thing should be erased, but as soon as his reasons for making the drastic changes were found to be pointless, he then marked it for deletion. That's not spiteful? Since he has so many fans, arguing against him is futile. My question is what about all the sockpuppets that appear to have voted in a row, mind you, for him? This vote fixing by accusing everyone who votes against someone as a sockpuppet if you feel like it isn't very democratic! Pitchka 01:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Removed instruction creep

Requests for adminship recent updates
15 Oct 2004
Candidacy notice: Self nomination of Skyler1534 withdrawn by candidate.
14 Oct 2004
Please examine and consider voting and/or commenting on UninvitedCompany's request for bureaucrat status, along with 172's. Bureaucratship is an important responsibility and deserves more attention than these nominations have received.
11 Oct 2004
Please consider and vote in the advisory poll concerning Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat.

I removed the side bar on the right from the main RFA page, as it violates the KISS principle. We don't need or want a permanent "RFA goings-on" sidebar. Having another place to update creates unnecessary work for future nominators and maintainers. Furthermore, it's instruction creep at its worst: the original vote notice ballooned into three notices, then it found itself cemented into place in a sidebar. I am unabashedly taking a crowbar to it, nipping the instruction creep in the bud.

By the way, I have nothing but respect for the well-meaning maintainers who added the bits and pieces of the creepy sidebar. Instruction creep is a collective disease; it's no single editor's fault. • Benc • 06:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd have just deleted the banners myself, but I didn't want to be called a vandal. I agree with Benc though that none of this belongs. It's a bit too garish. -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I agree with not having a permanent rolling bulletin board like the one removed. However, I intend to continue to post timely notices that relate to important current matters, such as:

  • Early removal of a nomination (but just for 24 hours so editors know why the nomination disappeared.
  • Important notices concerning a particular nomination, such as time extension (removed when the extention ends).
  • Notice of a poll significantly affecting policy (removed when major voting is finished or approximately 5-7 days) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)