Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Note:This page should be used for non-bureacrats to discuss the bureaucrat chat on the closing of Avraham's RFB —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBisanz (talk • contribs)

[edit] Discussion

Not to be a downer on Avraham, but I don't see how this could possibly pass. I guess I don't mind a crat chat, but the opposes have legit reasoning and it finished at 82%. King Turtle's summary is accurate, hopefully a few crats weigh in quickly and this is closed as no consensus without any community drama. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought...

(x-posted from King Turtle's talk page) Just to note that two opposes are declared as "weak" and several neutrals (myself included) lean to support. Feel free to repost this comment or ignore it... you guys have a tough job to do and have my trust as ever. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The merit of opposes 18 and 22 in the process of consensus-building have also been questioned at the RfB itself, as well. Paul Yeratz (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A number of the opposes worry me. Some seem outright frivolous. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, some of the opposes seem to have little merit (no offence intended to the opposer, but "elitism" seems like a charge with little backup). I too think its important to note that most of the neutrals are "lean support." Maybe this could be extended by a couple of days, rather than closed, and we can contact the neutrals for reconsideration? Avruch T 13:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys... if you are going to play this game with evaluating opposes and neutrals, then it really should be done for the 100+ supports as well. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Common refrain, but I don't think so. What is the cognitive issue that folks have with asking for details on criticism but not support? Support is the default for someone who is overtly qualified, and so doesn't need to be backed up with a hundred diffs. Avruch T 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For adminship, I would agree, but not crats. NOBIG DEAL and WTHN clearly don't apply, and there is no such thing as being "overtly qualified" for cratship. There are several nuanced qualities needed and concerns over them were brought up in opposes, it's hard for anything to be overt here. It's not that I really want the no-reason supports to be struck, it's that aside from joke votes or bad-faith votes, everything should be kept. The fact that someone is analyzing the neutrals as support-leaning and thinks we should act on that is wrong. What if the crat was at 90% but there were 20 neutrals leaning oppose? Would we ask them to come back and consider voting after the 7 days? No. That is simply not how it works. The candidate would be promoted. And here, per lack of clear consensus, the candidate should not be promoted. Furthermore, I'd actually be surprised if Avi would want to be promoted here. I consider him quite level-headed and reasonable. While he disagreed with most of his opposers, he also appeared to respect the reasoning of most of them, and with over 20 opposes and several unsure neutrals, the community is not overwhelmingly wanting him to become a crat. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<- I noted it because I'm one of the five support-leaning neutrals myself. I just thought it was a very high proportion of the neutrals. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extension

I've often wondered if, when RfA's (and RfB's) were in the infamous "grey area", that a possible standard approach might be to extend it a couple of days, and specifcally invite people (perhaps a brief note on ANI, or someplace) to re-read the whole thing, and rethink their previous position (support and oppose). That way, it's at least a little bit like a real-world consensus-driven decision, where people don't just comment and never return. Perhaps some of the opposers want to re-visit their opposes, now that others seem to have done so. Perhaps some of the early supporters would change their mind if they came back and read the oppose section. An rather than deal with the complication of re-opening only to those who have already indicated a preference, maybe keep it open to everyone for another little bit?

If it's still in the grey area after another day or two, then the 'crats can earn their gigantic salaries and make a decision. But a good first step at gauging consensus would be a gentle reminder to the community that there's a borderline RfA/B out there, and a gentle prod for people to go back, look and see what's been happening the last week, and make sure they still feel the way they felt a few days ago. --barneca (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted already, that's basically what the 7 days were for. If it didn't work there, ... you get the idea. In general I'll point you to the admittedly voluminous WT:RFA archives as this has been discussed in the past. Basically it has been held that extensions should only be used when judged necessary and that's not going to be for every close case. - Taxman Talk 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible and acceptable to extend any RfX per In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days in the RFA header. However I'm not convinced wether the intention is for those have alreadty commented, particularly those in Neutral, to "revisit" their comments - I believe it is to get further comments; for example this could be used for "low turnout" situations. Clearly this is not the case here. We ask 'crats to make a judgement call. 130 odd comments should be enough to judge without more input IMHO. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gah, had a long reply all set, and my computer crashed. I'll try to reconstruct more briefly.
I agree a simple extension would be unlikely to change things much. Seven days is long enough. I just wonder if actively encouraging people to re-visit their opinions, not just in this RfB but in any truly borderline RfX, might prove useful. Not by spamming talk pages or anything, but a gentle prod by the 'crats at some convenient location. Might make it a tiny bit less vote-like, and a tiny bit more discussion-like. This RfB actually seem more discussion-like than most (for example, one thing to consider is that, upon reflection, several opposers changed their position, but I don't believe any supporters did so), but I suspect a decent number of supporters and opposers and fence-sitters haven't come back after making their opinion known.
Anyway, if no one wants to do something new on an existing RfX, then it's moot in any case. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<massive e/c and interestingly, a flip side to Pedro> It's an interesting idea. Given that such a high proportion of us neutrals leaned towards support, I'd be interested to see what would happen if we were all invited to come back and reassess. I'm unconvinced (m)any would change their minds, but perhaps they would. I'm not bothered by this creating a damaging precedent... any process that can help Bs assess consensus accurately has to be A Good Thing and it's hardly likely to be abused... there are specific circumstances, ie a relatively close call and a large batch of support-leaning neutrals. If the Bureaucrats chose not to follow this line, I wouldn't have a problem; they're good at what they do. I just wonder if they'd appreciate having an extra weapon in their armoury on this one. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)