Misplaced Pages

:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:35, 4 April 2007 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/archive5.← Previous edit Revision as of 06:35, 5 April 2007 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/archive5.Next edit →
Line 35: Line 35:


Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. It may not be ''traditional'', but I'd rather see the crats doing the whole job than half of it. Don't we trust them this far? ] ] 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. It may not be ''traditional'', but I'd rather see the crats doing the whole job than half of it. Don't we trust them this far? ] ] 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== Disqualified? ==

Hello, I'm sorry to have to bring this up but a rather ugly situation has developed proximate to my ]. To save your time I think the fairest way to sum up the issues in as brief a manner as possible would be to say: The accumulation of concern for ] behavior on the part of myself and several others causes me to worry about whether or not it is appropriate for me to continue my RFA. I realize my approval looks pretty dismal as it is, but I had planned on letting it run it's course because things could change in the next couple of days. Thank you, and again I'm sorry to be the cause of any trouble. ] 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:Yeah, I think that, unfortunately, it's too far gone to succeed. ] (], ]) 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question was more about whether the conflict between myself and ] is something that has created an unusual situation. I know it might look like stubbornness but unless the whole community has voted, there is no reason to give up until time runs out because there is a slight chance of a change. (Of course I won't give an overdue reminder in that eventuality, I'll remove it then myself.) ] 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== Inactive Bureaurats ==

There is precedence for removing the Bureaucratic tag for inactivity. On ], the list does not distinguish who actually uses Bureaucratic tools and who does not. There are the users who are semi-active editors or active editors, who have not used their bureaucratic tools in a ''very'' long time. Some 'crats are inactive altogether, and some have almost never used their tools. Below are the inactive 'crats from the list.

*{{bureaucrat|Cprompt}} — Does not appear to have ''ever'' used tools, and user has less than 100 edits across two years
*{{bureaucrat|Stan Shebs}} — One of the first crats, ''one'' logged Bureaucratic action
*{{bureaucrat|Cimon Avaro}} — Ten logged actions since receiving rights early 2004; last action 24 August 2006
*{{bureaucrat|TUF-KAT}} — Last action Mar 17, 2004
*{{bureaucrat|Kingturtle}} — May 23, 2004
*{{bureaucrat|Infrogmation}} — One action in three years
*{{bureaucrat|UninvitedCompany}} — Once in the past year
*{{bureaucrat|Secretlondon}} — January 18, 2006
*{{bureaucrat|Jwrosenzweig}} — April 16, 2006
*{{bureaucrat|Ilyanep}} — May 8, 2006
*{{bureaucrat|Tim Starling}} — July 19, 2006
*{{bureaucrat|Pakaran}} Last action October 8, 2006; last promotion 11 December 2005
*{{bureaucrat|Bcorr}} — Has not edited since December 16, 2006; last action August 2006
*{{bureaucrat|Linuxbeak}} — Has not edited since January 19, 2007; last action December 2006

Bureaucratship has always been an extraordinarily difficult thing for a user to achieve. Yet more than half with the tag never use the tools after getting them. There should be some standard, like with stewardship, that if you do not use it, you loose it. The last time I broached the subject, fifteen months ago, certain inactive crats complained that they are never around when an RFA closes. But there is always a small backlog at WP:CHU that needs work. I really believe inactive crats, like those above, should have the tag removed. One could argue that it doesn't hurt to have the tag and not use it, but that doesn't work with Stewards and it should not apply to Crats either. Thoughts? --] - '']'' - ] 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would agree to this. It does not make any sense that they have the tools, yet never use them. It's different to administrators because admin tools tend to be given out more freely than 'crat tools, and bureaucrats require extra trust than admins in general. However, I suggested this in January, but it wasn't taken well. ''']''' ] 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::We have thousands of articles that suck (some libellously), worrying about de-crating inactive crats is just bollocks, it is a solution to one of the few problems we DON'T have. Go sort out some POV somewhere.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::De-crating inactive crats doesn't take long, so there being other more important things is irrelevant. --] 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would support de-crating anyone who hasn't used the tools in over a year. It gives a false impression of how many crats we have, perhaps de-crating the inactive ones would encourage people to support new candidates more. --] 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Waaaah, noo, those are all the sane people! <s>I need them for when I stage my revolution to take over wikip...</s>, I mean, I mean... oh heck, you caught me. <tries to look innocent at the last moment> --] 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what this accomplishes. There is no limit to the number of people who can hold a bureaucrat flag; these people are trustworthy and the community has at some point decided they deserve one. Who benefits by the removal of the flag? &mdash; ] | ] 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, the original six weren't decided by the community. And the other early ones were, but not by ''this'' community. ''']''' ] 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::That's a meaningless distinction; when do we know when we have a new community? Do you suggest that we review all the decisions made by the en.wiki community before a certain date to be sure they didn't screw anything up? If not, your observation is irrelevant, and my question still stands. &mdash; ] | ] 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::There is no way to tell. But certainly, the first six, all who still have the flag except Eloquence were hand-picked, not by community, but by Eloquence. We benefit that we have bureaucrats who are active in community discussions - certainly a 'crat inactive since 2004 would be astounded at ] RfAs, but they are a regular thing. They also hold powers that could be used more efficiently by someone else, who would actually use them to benefit everyone else. It just seems odd to hold such powers and not use them. If they are of no use to the user, I'm sure they would be willing to give them up. ''']''' ] 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You seem to be missing the point that to say "they also hold powers that could be used more efficiently by someone else" makes no sense. This is not a zero-sum game; if we trusted every user to be a bureaucrat, the software could make it so. Having some bureaucrats is not an impediment to choosing more. &mdash; ] | ] 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know crats handing out bot flags is fairly new, how long have they been able to rename users? If there are crats that haven't done anything since those 2 abilities were added, then they likely are not familiar with the relevant policies. Trust doesn't just mean we're sure they aren't malicious, it also means we're sure they know what they're doing. A lot of these inactive crats probably don't. --] 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Point me to the problem, and I'll contemplate your solutions. Where has our failure to desysop a crat caused a problem?--]<sup>g</sup> 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Nonsense. These are intelligent people; they can read policy pages like every new bureaucrat does. This is a non-issue, a manufactured complaint. &mdash; ] | ] 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On reading this, I was frankly surprised by how many bureaucrats we have that I've not only never encountered, but never heard of (or only heard of within the last month when a few 'crats who had not been using the 'crat tools seem to have gotten more active again). Notwithstanding that, I generally agree with the comments in this thread to the effect that this is not a big problem. To me, the greater problem&mdash;perhaps the biggest problem we have&mdash;is not that bureaucrats and administrators stop using their tools, but that they leave the project and stop contributing altogether. Turnover is normal in any web project as in any part of life, but the rate at which we burn out and lose many of our most dedicated people has become a huge concern. I'd be interested to know ''why'' the people on this list have reduced or stopped their work as bureaucrats.

I also think it is important not to put bureaucrats who have pretty much stopped editing Misplaced Pages in the same category as those who may simply be playing a slightly different role. A list like the one above certainly should not include Tim Starling, who is a major developer (and may need the ability to work from all the different access level interfaces to do his job), or UninvitedCompany, who does dozens of checkuser runs each week (and checkuser status was probably conferred on him based on the community trust reflected in his election to 'cratship, so in a way it ''is'' a bureaucrat action, though not recorded as such) and is a member of the Arbitration Committee. ] 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:A nice analyisis. Bcorr and Linuxbeak both appear to have left the project, or are on long wikibreaks, and Cprompt has made fewer than 100 edits in the past year, and no logged admin actions either. I would agree tim Starling and UninvitedCompany are still very much active, just not in this particular area. ''']''' ] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
* Hmm. I can see why some users would think that bureaucrats should be de-bureaucratted (is that even a word?) if they appear to have left the project, but then, the same arguments apply towards admins, and that has never picked up steam. At the same time, almost all bureaucrat nominations have one or two cases of users indicating that there is no more need for bureaucrats, that there's too many inactive ones, so... I don't know. Heh. Perhaps a middle ground is in order? Similar to voluntary adminship resignations, allow bureaucrats desysopped due to inactivity to "speedy request" the bit back to a bureaucrat if they want it? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
**An addendum to that: they can be re-crated after they're active in the community again for x amount of time. Personally, I went on a sudden wikibreak for a full month, and only came back a couple weeks ago, and I've been ''extremely'' hesitant to start using my mop again, as I know some policies and whatnot have probably changed in that time, but I haven't kept myself up-to-date with them yet. If someone is gone for such a long time, I'd like to see them be back and active for a while (and show a strong understanding of ''current'' policies et al) before jumping right back in. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
*** But then, if we trusted them in the beginning, wouldn't we trust them to be sensible enough to do that? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
****Well, there is ''that'', isn't there? I'd still like to have that extra layer, though; just because someone is usually sensible doesn't mean that they don't slip on occasion. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
***That was a silly choice on your part. Misplaced Pages is full of sanctimonious people with a sharp eye for irregularities; one will invariably correct you if you make a mistake. The bureaucrat's position, on the other hand, doesn't ever change much. We've added a few new things but these are clearly explained on the relevant pages. We have here, as so often, a solution searching earnestly for a problem. &mdash; ] | ] 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not email them and ask them if they would like to help out in doing what their position entitles them to? ] ] 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:It's odd, no one ever thinks of doing the most simple thing... ''']''' ] 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a perennial proposal? --] 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, we're doing spring cleaning; we had to pull this idea back out of the closet so it didn't get completely eaten by moths. ;) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)<br /><small>(apparently ideas are made of cloth... hmm)</small>
:: Now I just KNOW you're making things up out of whole cloth. ;-) --] 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== ais's RfA is past due ==

Do the 'crats find this kind of posts annoying? Please do tell. ] (], ]) 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, since the RFA was closed 20 mins before this message was posted. :) ] ] 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::o_O. Oh boy, I hope never to make the mistake again! ] (], ]) 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the same person, but ] is overdue as well. ] 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sure the 'crats will get to it soon ;) ''']''' ] 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


== "User X is an admin" == == "User X is an admin" ==

Revision as of 06:35, 5 April 2007

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    		 Centralized discussion
    Bureaucrat tasks

    Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50


    This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats. Click here to add a new section Shortcuts

    The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

    This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

    If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

    To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 1
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 13
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    Sennecaster 221 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 1 day, 1 hour no report
    It is 16:16:41 on December 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.



    Would a crat be willing to be the "trusted user" in a reverse RFA?

    m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access says that stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions for removal of access. They want a "trusted person" on the local wiki to inform them, with a summary of the results of the discussion. If we were to make an RFA on someone who already has sysop access, and the RFA showed a consensus to overturn the sysopping, would any crat be willing to be the "trusted user" and make the request to a steward? It seems to me that a crat ought to be in the trusted user role, since we already trust crats to promote in the first place. Anyone willing to do this, or would you see it as an undesirable expansion of crat authority? Friday (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Decisions to desysop someone lie, on en.wikipedia, with ArbCom. They do not lie with our local bureaucrats or with stewards (except, in the latter case, in cases of emergencies). --Durin 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • But, they would, if a crat was willing to ask for it and had community consensus to back it up. Hence, me being curious whether a crat would be willing to do so. Friday (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • But they wouldn't, since currently the only body given that authority at en.wikipedia is ArbCom. Bureaucrats can not take on the role by community consensus without ArbCom blessing it. --Durin 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    I think the problem is that you are trying to take a more general policy established at Meta and apply it to the English Wiki which has its own process called ARBCOM. Your question is hypothetical because it presumes that a consensus could be built via "reverse RFA". The problem with this hypothetical is that it presumes the consensus could be foremed without a massive vote against the process of "reverse RFA" itself. Many editors would oppose the "reverse RFA" on the grounds that it was "out of process".

    If you really want to do this, you need to make a proposal out of the "reverse RFA" process that you have in mind, get consensus for that proposal and only then worry about whether or not there will be a bureaucrat that would participate. If you're looking for a b'crat to give you a generic "yes, I would participate in that process" type answer, I suspect that you would really need to spell out how the "reverse RFA" process would work before you could get an answer.

    Even then, I suspect that most if not all bureaucrats would want to see that the new process was based on consensus, not something you thought of at school one day (oh, sorry, that means something else, doesn't it).

    --Richard 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    Well, sure, I expect all manner of objections along those grounds. We already know no such thing will happen. But, who better than a bureaucrat to cut through bureaucratic paralysis? :-) Friday (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    The closest thing here to a reverse RFA is CAT:AOR. ···日本穣 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    While we do have an existing process, consensus can outweigh process. Requiring Arbcom to do this does not appear to be a foundation issue, so a clear consensus could change the policy here pertaining to administrators (it is afterall "no big deal"), but the way to do that is not via a test case, but by using the policy process. Recent debates (such as the ones over RFA Reform) have made it pretty clear that the administrator status policy is unlikely ready to change. — xaosflux 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • A "trial by fire" of this nature would have two problems: the sensitivity of the issue at hand itself, and additionally, the opposition of users to using a different method to desysop a user. We can remember Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1, and how the community loudly opposed intermingling one process with another. I'm not sure the same would not happen here. Titoxd 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is this: if there is a recent major incident that calls the trust of some admin into question, then the atmosphere becomes too heated to discuss a community deop process, because people on both sides will believe the other side to be biased and this will heat a lot of tempers. If there is not a recent major incident of that sort, then there's nobody to test the system on. So we have no feasible way of implementing this suggestion. >Radiant< 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, without a change in policy, we cannot hold a "reverse RfA" and then ask a Steward to desysop based on that. Current policy on the English-language Misplaced Pages is that desysopping only happens in very specific circumstances — and in the case of involuntary desysopping due to inappropriate behavior, current policies establishes that it takes a decision by the ArbCom for it to happen. A policy change would be required beforehand if something like this were to be done.
    However, I would note something that has been upheld even by Jimbo himself: this kind of procedure, given the current state of affairs around here, could be detrimental to the role of Administrator. If all it were to take for a !vote to be held on removing someone's adminship, and usually in a badly charged environment, as noted by Radiant, were to be for someone to cry "witch!" then administrators would have a very difficult time making the more difficult decisions, and taking actions that are certain to annoy, or even anger, certain people. We should not force admins to chose between doing their job and keeping their job. Redux 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    In addition to that, such a process would quickly degenerate into the return of Quickpolls, which never were a good idea to begin with. Titoxd 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. It may not be traditional, but I'd rather see the crats doing the whole job than half of it. Don't we trust them this far? Friday (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    "User X is an admin"

    This is an odd, yet very common, edit summary used when promoting new admins. While it could be intended to mean that in their heart of hearts they were admin-material all along, or that +sysop is theoretically outside WP:RFA from a constitutional standpoint, it would make more sense to use "User X is now an admin" or somesuch. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, I always thought that as well... Majorly (o rly?) 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Being told I was now an administrator with the words "Newyorkbrad is an admin" didn't bother me. :) Although I would have spelled out "administrator" to mark the full solmenity of the occasion. :) Seriously, I've noticed that individual 'crats have different formulas but I don't know that it matters very much. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think the edit summary on promotion matters very much. I mean, they could say "Enjoy the chains of hell" and it really wouldn't change much about adminship itself, or the +sysop flag in the b-crat log. ^demon 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm glad I swallowed before reading your "Enjoy the chains of hell" comment. (^_^) ···日本穣 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I was wondering if anyone would think it was as witty as I did. ^demon 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    If I ever become a 'crat, I think I will make that my standard promotion text. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    It could reasonably be interpreted to mean "User X is already an admin, no reason to nominate him, delisting". —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I frequently interpreted it that way before I was informed otherwise. -- nae'blis 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    What about changing it to "User X has been promoted to admin"? --TeckWiz Contribs@ 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Promoted isn't politicially correct these days :P Majorly (o rly?) 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    It could be interpreted as meaning they are already an admin by the time the crat gets there because the crat doesn't make the decision, they just recognise it and implement it in the software, so you become an admin as soon as your RfA reaches consensus. --Tango 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Usurpations - minor change in eligibility

    I plan to deny any usurpation request that intend to take over an account that was created less than six months ago. Let me know if there is consensus for the move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. It's a sensitive move, given that people sometimes create accounts but then only start using them after a period of time. Redux 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    And now I know why you need time, but are we talking about the target account, the one requesting or both? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    The target account. The new user log must show that it was created (and never used, which is verified in Special:Contributions) at least 6 months prior to the posting of the usurpation request. The age of the requester's account is not concerned here. Redux 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Does the "no edit" clause preclude any other exceptions, such as consent? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you have their consent, then there is no need for usurption. They can request a new name themselves, and then the other person can be renamed to their old name. --Tango 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Unfair early closing of my RfA

    I wish to complain in the strongest terms. I have just received a message from Nichalp that he or she has closed my RfA early as "it does not enjoy the support of the community". Well, I was gaining support votes daily; people were expressing their confidence in me as a candidate all the time. Even if it was doomed to fail, I would have appreciated it running to full term to allow the community to express their feelings in full. I request that my RfA be re-opened and be allowed to run for the three remaining days it had to go, going down in flames if need be, but going down in flames fairly. This is unfair. -- Earle Martin 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Further: in this diff Nichalp says it was "a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth". Well, the people writing in my support clearly didn't think so. -- Earle Martin 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Ok, Let me clarify, I'm a he. :) Please do not twist my words. I made a generalised statememt: a clearly failing RFA not your RFA is a waste of time and bandwidth. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    And by applying that phrase in your notification that you were closing his early on someone else's talk page, you tarred it with that brush. I can't believe that you would not understand that, Nichalp. -- nae'blis 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I can't see any difference. The RFA was always failing. (oppose > support) =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I can't see any difference. - Yes, that much is clear. -- nae'blis 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    It did not have a reasonable chance of success. Promotion of admins is the only thing that RfA is for. Remember, articles are what we are here for, and continuing the RfA would not have helped in improving articles. We appreciate your desire to help, and I'm sorry you wished the RfA to continue, but it wasn't helping the project. If your desire is to help the project, I would suppose you could come to see that. - Taxman 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    "it wasn't helping the project" - would it have hurt the project to let it continue for three days more? I was more than happy to accept a fair defeat, but you've taken that away and left me with a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth, and sharply damaged my faith in the process to boot. Well done. -- Earle Martin 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. It and this debate are taking resources away from articles. That should always be minimized. Again, sorry you're upset, but it's your choice to let it leave a nasty, bitter taste in your mouth. Also, I didn't do anything but agree. - Taxman 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think you greatly exaggerate the extent of the resources involved. And no, it's not my choice. I chose to participate in the process and accept the outcome of a community-led process. -- Earle Martin 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with the withdrawal. It was obvious that it would be contested, but that's what 'crats are supposed to do, right - make tough decisions? Anyway, though I sympathize with certain aspects of your complaints, continuing it would be WP:POINT more than anything else. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    RfA isn't to see how many people support you. It's to see whether enough people support you for you to become an admin. Clearly that wasn't going to happen, so leaving this open is simply wasting people's time in your attempt to prove some point about RfA. Please use WT:RFA instead of misusing RfA like this. Nichalp did the right thing. Angela. 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Even Foundation staff agree with me that no, it isn't a point issue, and no, WT:RFA won't help. -- Earle Martin 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    David Gerard is not a Foundation staff member. TacoDeposit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Honestly? I don't think it had a chance in hell of passing (and had I participated in it, I would have !voted "Oppose"). Your attitude about the entire situation strikes me, a complete outsider to the whole thing, as a very pointed issue, to be perfectly honest (hell, even one of your supporters told you to ditch the chip on your shoulder).
    I don't think it was particularly horrible thing to leave it open, but I don't think it served much purpose, either; basically, I think you need to just accept the fact that you didn't have community support (regardless of what a Foundation staff member's opinion is).
    If you really want to show up all those who !voted oppose, I'd suggest dropping this and concentrate on improving the encyclopedia; your next RfA will then be able to pass on your actual merits, rather than people admiring your guts in not answering questions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    You are misrepresenting both what I have been saying and what actually happened. For the former, where have I ever said that I did have overall community support? To repeat myself, I would have been more than happy for it to end as a failed RfA. For the latter, for your information, I do nothing but attempt to improve the encyclopedia, day in and day out. That is precisely why I ran at RfA in the first place. Will it "show up all those who !voted oppose"? Of course not. That implies that the oppose votes were because I do not improve the encyclopedia, which is not the case. Anyway, I am here to work on the encyclopedia, not play games and try to "show up" people; it disappoints me that a bureaucrat would make such a suggestion. -- Earle Martin 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    First and foremost, I'm not a bureaucrat; I'm merely an administrator (while I'd like to run a successful RfB at some point, I'm not convinced that now is the time). Just want to make that abundantly clear so that my opinion doesn't hold more weight or authority than it should (incidentally, it shouldn't hold any more or less than any other editor; admins and 'crats aren't above other editors, necessarily; they merely have access to additional tools, which is both a blessing and a curse...).
    I'm not suggesting that people were opposing you because you don't do any encyclopedia building. What I'm saying is that if you actually work on the project for a substantial period of time, there will be all the fewer reasons to oppose you (if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to explain my hypothetical opposition to your RfA on your talk page; here is not the place for a largely unrelated matter). I also wasn't suggesting that your edits be for the express purpose of "showing up" people; it was more of a statement of what behavior modifications I think you need to make if you earnestly want to run a successful RfA.
    Also, if you're wondering why people think you're being pointed about the whole thing, it might have to do with your "RfA has decayed into a gabbling clique of process junkies who actually serve to damage the project by impeding the progress of numerous perfectly reasonable editors" statement.
    However, this is quickly degenerating into a little back-and-forth between the two of us, I'll again say that, if you want to continue this conversation, let's do it elsewhere; your talk page or mine, I'm game for either. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Get rid of tallies on RfA's

    Please participate in the discussion. It's a minor change to the template, but many people will be surprised at it. Thanks. Xiner (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    RFC-style RFA

    I'd raise this at WT:RFA but I thought it counter-productive. Given that the task of the bureaucrat is to determine whether there exists consensus to promote, the actual process by which consensus is divined is secondary, if not tertiary, so long as the process is open, public, and well-attended. That being said, if confronted by a Request for Adminship organized as a Request for Comment instead of the standard thinly-veiled vote, would a bureaucrat be willing to evaluate said request? In short, are the bureaucrats open to other paths? I'm not suggesting that this constitutes a change in policy--far from it. It's just a process tweak, really. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Categories: