User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Bureaucrats

Tim wants to distribute the task of making admins (Archive 5)

I have half a mind to do away with this task, it gets tiresome after a while. Does anyone have any ideas on how the power to create sysops can be distributed to the user level? Say, with a quorum and a vote? -- Tim Starling 02:41, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Automation suggested

Automate the process. Give them a request form where they enter the reason they want to become a sysop. Have seperate voting form which lists how long they have been here, their number of edits, and what reason they give. After exactly 2 weeks, if someone has less than a general consensus (let's say 80%) of the vote, they become a sysop. --Raul654 02:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let all admins do it and maintain a log

Why not just let any Admin promote and demote any user? Of course Admin candidates would have to go through the process of being listed here first and there would have to be a Promote/demote log in order to make sure Admins can't get away with making improper promotions/demotions. That way we don't have to depend on a developer to do this. --mav 02:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Like IRC? Note that when I put forward my sysop blocking feature, a number of people were concerned that sysops would be able to block each other. It was only when I assured these people that this was not the case that they were happy with the implementation.

Speaking of IRC, Fuzheado and JeLuF said on #wikipedia that they'd prefer a quorum, say 3 required "signatures" to perform an operation. -- Tim Starling 06:17, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Although I imagine mav's idea would be much be simpler and quicker to implement, I have to agree with the quorum idea. The one sysop (de)selects another idea is open to the possibility of mistakes (one sysop sysops a troll/vandal), a new form of "edit war", and abuse (nepotism). Foresight not being 20/20 I am not sure how serious these problems would be in practice but a quorom would certainly ameloriate them. Also having re-usable quorom code might well find uses elsewhere - although being efficient and automated like this might be considered unwiki :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course that is an even better idea! :) My concern was to easily implement something in the interim. I happen to trust that Admins ('sysop' is a user account switch not a person!) will use the ability with deliberate caution and only promote/demote accounts that have been confirmed via some process. In fact that may work so well that we don't need to implement technological ways to enforce that. Wikis are about trusting that most people will most often do good rather than evil. --mav 11:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the idea is great, but maybe the quorum could be bumped up to 4 required signatures. I would not necessarily trust 2 signatures, 3 unspecified sysops is on the limit, but I would be more comfortable with 4 (and the explicit assumption that the act be performed in accordance with prior discussion here, only after the discussion clearly had settled down and reached a reasonably consensus conclusion). We have enough sysops nowadays that finding 4 public minded ones should not be insurmountable. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:09, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ohh!

Ohh! Tim was talking about the task of actually granting the permissions. (Slaps forehead) --Raul654 02:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)174.250.208.24 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC) $7$

What's special about bureaucrats? (Archive 12)

Ummm, another technical question. I notice on the Wikimedia page that the only distinction between an Administrator and a Bureaucrat is that a Bureaucrat can promote other Admins. Is there a pressing need for more of them? As far as I can tell, Adminship requests are not THAT frequent. Isn't this really more of a status issue than anything else? - DropDeadGorgias 20:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Until recently, a developer (and there are only about 7 of them, and not all of them pay attention here) has to do it by hand. Now they have an automated way to do it, but you have to have beauracrat status which no one has as yet (except Eloquence, apparently).People are nominated/nominate themselves all the time - usually about 3-5 a week. That's a lot of work to do by hand, especially foe just 7 people. →Raul654 20:56, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks- I was a little confused by the lack of information on the process. I guess the reason I'm asking is that I don't see why every admin won't just request bureaucrat status right now. It seems like a dangerous movement; a hasty Admin can only do so much damage, but a hasty Bureaucrat could really create problems- just looking at how long the de-sysop process takes. - DropDeadGorgias 21:04, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thats why I am so horrified to see how many people were promoted behiond closed doors. While many of them might be good, I'm certainly not comfortable seeing arbitrary promotion in scorn of due process. Sam Spade 21:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam, what are you talking about? To my knowledge, no one is a buearacrat besides Eloquence (who is a developer and could do it by hand, if he wanted). So what is this talk about people being promoted behind closed doors? -- User:Raul654 03:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

what's the big deal about being a bureaucrat? Why shouldn't all admins have the ability to create new sysops? What are the particular arguments against letting all admins have the bureaucrat power? Kingturtle 23:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats should be very trusted people, because if they get in a dispute with someone, they must be trusted not to abuse their powers and sysop the other per... No, wait a moment... Never mind, that wouldn't work... Κσυπ Cyp 23:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason no-one has been made a bureacrat except Erik is probably because Brion and myself are opposed to the idea (although Brion not as strongly as me). Brion and I think allowing any sysop to make sysops would be a quite acceptable model. This model was implemented for a short period, but Erik reverted it to the bureaucrat system, explaining on my talk page that Silsor didn't think it was a good idea, and that a quorum of three sysops should be required.

Although it may be safer to require the approval of three sysops, it is much more difficult to implement. I don't see much potential for abuse in the one-sysop system, after all, sysops who abuse their powers can and should be desysopped. -- Tim Starling 03:53, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Although it's amusing that my opinion seems to carry weight now, the issue some were hashing out in the IRC channel was that a rogue admin could wreak havoc with the "make admin" function. I suggested a system where no one person could "make admin" but would require at least one other person to turn the key, so to speak, by performing the same action at some point, in a manner analogous to the separate keys required to launch nuclear missiles. This system would complement the abilities of sysops to handle regular site maintenance (that's the whole point of having sysops) while making abuse difficult and eliminating the need for a new class of users. silsor 05:26, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's not solely silsor. Improper unilateral actions have been and remain a problem. A multiple key system is a more effective way of limiting that than any highly trusted user setup and should be used for anything which is troublesome to undo. Jamesday 05:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats). There seem to be a good number of people on that list who wern't voted in. This is ominous. Why are we voting on ed, when these others have been given the power so readilly? Why the inconsistancy? If the wiki is ment to be anything other than an oligarchy, there is going to need to be a certain amount of transparancy, accountability, and perhaps even a bit of consensus ;) Sam Spade 06:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A little bit of wiki-digging reveals the source of those undemocratically selected bureaucrats: User talk:MyRedDice#Bureaucrat status, User_talk:TUF-KAT/Gospel_to_fair_use#Bureaucrat_status, User_talk:Angela/Archive8#Bureaucrat_status, User talk:Secretlondon#Bureaucrat status. - DropDeadGorgias 20:07, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Note that Ed Poor (hi! it's me!) is the first bureacrat to have been promoted through the community process -- rather than having been appointed. I hope this starts a trend away from unilateralism and toward making decisions by consensus. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) Why has BL not been added to the admins? He won his vote. See below.

...He did not "win his vote" because there was no "vote". The polling is for "consensus", not to determine a "simple majority". Please don't confuse "polling" with "elections". And please don't change the rules for determining a process's outcome, just because you don't like the outcome which those rules have produced!!!'

Poll on making all sysops bureaucrats (Archive 14)

I nominate all sysops to be bureaucrats to save having to vote on everyone twice. Angela . 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

All sysops who appear on this page? or All sysops of Wikipedia as they appear in Wikipedia:Administrators ? Optim 03:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I mean any sysop who asks to be one. I don't think there should be a vote each time. They can just put their name here and be made one right away. Angela . 04:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

angela.
Since bureaucrats can only make sysops, not de-sysop anybody, I don't see why the ability can't be given to all sysops. Also, it would get rid of the name bureaucrat, which has negative implications to many people. All sysops would have to abide by RfA procedures, of course. Creating a sysop without following the process would be a serious misuse of admin privileges. --Michael Snow 16:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of a new level of hierarchy. Like most things here, sysoping someone can, technically speaking, be undone, so it is not like it is a dangerous weapon. -- Viajero 16:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Viajero - keep the hierarchy to a minimum. →Raul654 17:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Unlike Optim, I can't think of any admin who couldn't be trusted with this ability. Certainly it makes more sense than marching the 100+ of us through here (and honestly, I think most of us would like the option to be able promote). Jwrosenzweig 17:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In my mind, this whole bureaucrat idea seems somewhat superfluous anyway. Stewart Adcock 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
conditionally. It doesn't need to be thrusted. Give it to only those who request, but to so immediately since the requests are almost occupying half this page. Giving bureaucrat status to inactive accounts is a bad idea. Unlike the other admin functions, only a few people need to hold the power. --Jia ng 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
I seriously doubt that any sysop would abuse bureaucrat powers... and in what way is making someone a bureaucrat any more dangerous than, say, vandalizing the main page or blocking sysops for no reason? ugen64 04:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Support. After speaking to Angela on IRC, I'm convinced that a whole bunch of sockpuppets would be easy to deal with. It would be noticed quickly if someone was sysopped who wasn't on Requests for adminship, and the original offending sysop can be desysopped, and his actions undone with relative ease, as well as the actions of any of his puppets. --cprompt 16:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(I have already voted Oppose above) Try to imagine what a drunk sysop who gets mad could do: he/she could grant sysop access to trolls and vandals. then, they could do the same, and start destoying Wikipedia. In such a case only an SQL query could fix the db. isn't this enough for having a separate hierarchy level? Optim 04:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Did you have someone special in mind? :-D Anyway, I don't think we should have anyone who wishes to destoy wikipedia as even a sysop. That is teh correct level for our last and only line of defence. Anyway, count me as a suppository for the concept of sysop=Bureaucrat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:07, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
You know what we do with suppositories, don't you? ;-) -- Viajero 21:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. If we can't trust sysops to be bureaucrats, we shouldn't trust them to be sysops... -- Seth Ilys 21:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Defer, too new to wikipedia. (once user:allsysops has more than 1,000,000,000,000 edits, I will support. Perl 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would support eliminating the "bureaucrat" status and replacing it instead with an interface where 2 sysops are required to elevate a user to sysop status. This would help eliminate another level of artificial heirarchy, while still stopping a "lone sysop gone crazy", or more likely, a single sysop whose interpretation of consensus differs from the community's consensus of what a consensus is. Most of the issues with sysop status is that, by precedent, once someone is a made a sysop, they are perpetually a sysop (with the exception of outright vandalism). Maximus Rex 08:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Oppose. Bureaucrathood already carries a power that I consider to be far more dangerous than the ability to delete pages or ban users. Buraeucrathood could someday carry other powers. I disagree in automatically allowing all sysops to have bureaucrat powers (although I think most of them should be, anyway!) Perhaps, to streamline the process, we can allow people to request bureaucrathood without being an admin to begin with, and a consenting vote could imply adminship as well as bureaucrathood. --cprompt 02:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. Wouldn't that defeat the point of having a separate bureaucrat status in the first place? Metasquares 13:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yes it would, but are there any sysops who would not be supported should they apply for bureaucrat status? If sysops are going to apply for it, I can't see the point of voting on them. Angela . 13:18, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I may trust someone to hit the "delete" or the "block" linky, but I may not like him/her to have the ability of sysoping. Optim 16:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. If sysops are going to have greater powers than now, this sort of snap vote is hardly the way to do it. Charles Matthews 22:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm already disturbed w all the power sysops have, why give them the power to reproduce as well?!? Sam Spade 23:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't giving them any power as all requests still have to go through this page. The only change I would suggest is that a fixed percentage of votes be decided on that allows promotion. If this were agreed on, then there would be no decision-making aspect, thereby giving sysops no additional powers. Perhaps that could be discussed on the talk page? Angela. 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  - That would be a system more clearly open to manipulation, wouldn't it? A fixed tally or percentage of votes doesn't say much, when typically under 10% of sysops vote in a given poll. Charles Matthews 15:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It nearly defeats the purpose of having burocracy/democracy if the executive branch is also the legislative/judical. Gamera2 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Horrendous risk of rogue admin promoting sock puppets. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- What if they did? Theose sock puppets could be desysopped easily enough and they wouldn't be able to do any more damage than the original rogue sysop could anyway. Angela . 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Kaihsu 18:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see much benefits with the proposal. I belive one should always keep some distance to all possibilities of 'disasters' - if a unfortunate promotion to sysadm is made, there should be some minimum time until the user might become a bureaucrat - by basically the same reason a 'ordinary user' doesn't become a sysadms immediately upon request. And, I'm not sure about how its done in practice, but is it possible for a bureaucrat, in this proposal, to create new bureaucrats? That would, for sure, be disastrous. Mikez 04:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, bureaucrats can create other bureaucrats. Angela . 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, all that separation of power fun-stuff Fennec 16:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose on the grounds that I don't like general, blanket statements. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. There needs to be a process. Kingturtle 21:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. More importantly, if there is a process, we should not have proxy votes. Votes need to be cast by each individual. Kingturtle 03:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for two reasons: 1) i dont want to be a beaurocrat, not even a fake one; 2) it would spoil the fun for everybody who thrills with nominations and votings. Muriel 07:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not trust all admins sufficiently. I decline to accept the nomination for myself. Jamesday 21:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments

(plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category) had been added to the tally totals for the nominations for bureaucrats. I removed the note because there is not a consensus supporting such a system. There isn't even a majority of people who support such a system. The vote right now is 11 supporting, 13 opposing, and 1 neutral. Users are encouraged to vote. Kingturtle 03:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why should those who have already stated they support all sysops have to continue voting on every one that comes up. As far as I'm concerned, I have already voted, as I have said that I support any sysop that applies. It's a complete waste of time to vote 160 times for each sysop! Angela . 04:05, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The primary reaso is there isn't even close to a concensus supporting the idea; in fact, supporters are in the minority. IMHO, you have to show up to vote. Also, vote counting might get confusing. Also, it sets a precendent that would make voting processes more difficult in the future. To play devil's advocate, could I state in VfD that they should cast my VfD on any high school posted? Who would keep track of all the different desires and requests? Kingturtle 04:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. The votes are up for a week, which means you just need to poke your head in every 5 days or so. Kingturtle 04:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No consensus: The poll ended with tally: 12 support, 15 oppose, 2 neutral -- ends 02:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC) -- Kaihsu 21:56, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

The above vote seems to me to be an example of why votes, rather than consensus-forming talk, are a bad thing. Let's look at the opposers reasons for example. 1) As Angela says, bureaucrats and admins are merged, so what?, 2) They would only have the technical ability to promote people NOT the mandate to abitrarily promote people - they'd have to conform with RfA votes. All admin powers are like this 3) Agrees that a vote is not the way to go. 4) See answer to 2), 5) See answer to 2), 6) See answer to 2), 7) No reason given, 8) No reason given. 9) This is a good point, see below, 10) & 11) No concrete reasons, I don't understand the points. 12) No reason given. 13) Why does there need to be a (new) process? For what? As Angela points out, who is trusted as an admin, but would not be trusted to be a bureaucrat? If there is no such person, then adminship and bureaucratship should be merged, simply to save on all the bureaucracy around here 14) - 1) You need never use this element of your powers. e.g. I've never used my ability to block anyone 2) lol. 15) Trust them to do what, though? The power is to be used for a well-defined purpose - implementing the consensus of RfA and there is a bureaucrat log so all actions are open and transparent, and easily reversible. If you don't trust people, even after they've hung around long enough to be an admin, then isn't the whole open wiki concept a bit flawed for you?

Basically apart from 9), which deserves thought, the opinions listed in the oppose column can be taken to task. But because they are votes they're opinions that are effectively set in stone (yes you can change your vote - but that doesn't happen in practice) and full consideration of the issue is blocked. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2) They would only have the technical ability to promote people NOT the mandate to abitrarily promote people - they'd have to conform with RfA votes. All admin powers are like this - I am still unconvinced. Policy is not a good way to stop someone from doing something bad. Refusing to give the technical ability is the best way to keep us safe. Optim 16:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree in three ways. Firstly keep us safe from what? Someone creating zombie sysops? What malevent purpose could zombie sysops serve anyway? Secondly, all bureaucrat actions are logged, open and reversible.. so there is little to fear. Thirdly if someone is untrustworthy then why are they sysops? They can do much worse things that temporarily create a zombie sysop... they can technically block users for example... they can delete pages. Finally the whole idea of the wiki is to be open and to allow everyone to do everything until proved unsustainable. Sysops should be bureaucrats by default, just like pages should be unprotected by default. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. For example, Angela is wrong - there already has been at least one sysop whose bureaucrat application has not found sufficient support. If people don't change their votes, it's because they don't change their opinion. This could have been discussed forever, and no one consensus would have been reached. Votes are necessary. --Wik 16:22, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'll assume you're referring to User:172. If, for example, he did receive bureaucrat powers under what Angela suggests, then what? The worst thing he could possibly do is make you a sysop (wink wink :-P). But really, even if I became a bureaucrat and made 10 people sysop, so what? They woudl be desysopped and I would probably be desysopped as well (for violating what would presumably be policy to NOT MAKE PEOPLE SYSOPS WITHOUT CONSENSUS, like for example VFD). ugen64 00:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that bureaucrat powers would be similar to the power to delete pages from VfD: do it right, cool. Do it wrong, bad. Presumably, the worst that could happen by a bureaucrat would be to make someone a sysop who goes and starts vandalizing, deleting, protecting, etc. All reversible actions, and no different or more harmful than if I (or any other sysop) were to vandalize, delete, and protect a bunch of pages... ugen64 00:29, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

It's eminently possible for a previously approved sysop not to get enough support for bureaucrat status. That's not because of anything fundamentally different in the qualifications required. Much more likely, it's because the request drew a different selection of voters (users who have had disputes with the sysop), or because over time the community's perception of the sysop has changed (in other words, the same user quite possibly would not be supported for sysop status if they were nominated now). Bureaucrat status is a useless distinction. All it does is add an additional layer of administration and turn Wikipedia into more of a hierarchical institution. --Michael Snow 17:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If there has been prior discussion on this point, I apologize. I missed it. All I saw was that Tim Starling created bureaucrats and admins as equal, and Eloquence reverted him. Then there was a vote. What were the specific circumstances of someone being refused bureaucratship? It would be interesting to find circumstances that would mean it right for someone to be admin and not a bureaucrat. I imagine the vote had the flavour of a "vote of no confidence" in the sysop rather than technical abilities... I heartily agree with Michael Snow. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172's request was removed from the page for lack of consensus, based on 8 supports, 5 opposes, and 2 neutrals (some additional comments could be interpreted to change the vote totals). See [1]. I think your expectation is correct for the nature of this particular vote. --Michael Snow 19:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll #2 (Archive 16)

Should bureaucrats be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship? IE - should they take into account who the new users are and give their votes less weight (vote "yes")? Or, should they simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting (vote "no")?

Yes (bureaucrats should be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship)

moink 18:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
— Jor (Talk) 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nico 20:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Until we are foolproof at detecting sock puppets, and as long as we're committed more to an idea of "consensus" than to specific vote totals, this makes sense. But I'm very close to the middle on this one. Jwrosenzweig 20:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A very qualified Yes, meaning they should only make a decision on new user votes as regulated by the options below. Dori | Talk 23:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
I trust them to make judgement calls, my only concern is that this is *not* what they signed up for. But if they don't mind it (as a bureaucrat indicated below) then I support this. →Raul654 23:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
I have to vote yes, because how can they not exercise some discretion when we don't have a clear definition of consensus? Cecropia 23:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Consensus cannot be determined by raw vote totals. Part of becoming a valuable contributor is learning how to recognize consensus, and making judgments accordingly. --Michael Snow 01:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Stewart Adcock 01:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jamesday 02:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) most notably in not proceeding until objections have been addressed
Mkweise Yes, the bureaucrat must judge how serious any concerns raised by the opposition are. Do not give weight to votes, give weight to arguments.
UtherSRG 16:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - There are exceptions to every rule. Everyone has a hot button they are unaware of and may get pressed accidentally. Some raw newbies are much more level headed and ready for recognized leadership than some ancient hot headed dinos. YMMV, so drive an economical Fiat.
Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) There should always be a judgement call, but the vote itself should weigh heavily.
Yes. There is no consensus, without there also being judgement. ✏ Sverdrup 19:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, bureaucrats should simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting

~~→Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)~~
Wik 18:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Pfortuny 19:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are custodians, not referees. Kingturtle 02:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) I'm not opposed in principle, but in practice I can imagine this leading to endless debates and questioning. Also, I worry about what the unintended consequences of this would be.
Mikez 16:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Until we get some kind of a 'quality rating' of the users, so judgement could be done in an objective way...

Comments (Archive 16)

I have a question for all those voting no to minimum voting criteria. At least one bureaucrat has expressed her disapproval of having to make judgement calls. The only people who can reliably discern a sockpuppet from a legitimate new user is a developer. Therefore, I want to hear what you 'no minimum' voters propose besides voting criteria to prevent sockpupptes from overrunning this page (which I think has already started). →Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of "hard" minimum voting criteria, but rather the bureaucrat applying "soft" voting criteria, and taking into account the severity of the alleged offenses and the evidence for them as well. I think that if a bureaucrat isn't comfortable making a judgement call, they should leave it to another bureaucrat, as admins do on vfd, or they should resign the bureaucrat position. An alternative suggestion (perhaps a compromise?) is to have minimum criteria for voting but make it very clear that people who don't meet the criteria can leave comments, with links to the potential admin's being-rude-to-newbies behaviour, so that the rest of us can base our votes on sound evidence. moink 18:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Moink's latter suggestion: to make it clear that those not meeting the criteria can leave comments. Perhaps make it clear in the section header. - Tεx τ urε 18:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think if the bureaucrat doesn't think the raw numbers justify appointment, then next s/he should look at the comments and discern sentiment from them, if that doesn't do it, take into consideration other factors, such as extreme new users (like the first timer who wants me in charge of a battleship). If none of that paints a clear picture, leave it for another 'crat. Cecropia 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If people are happy for bureaucrats to make judgement decisions, then I will do that, but my reservation in doing so is based on the idea that when I was made one, I was led to believe I would be simply carrying out an administrative task after the community had made a decision one way or the other. People were voted into the bureaucrat position on the understanding they would not have the power to affect RfA decisions, but would simply be doing whatever the consensus demanded of them. A bureaucrat 19:20, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying we trust you. You were promoted to bureaucrat because you had a large amount of trust from the community. You're capable of making these decisions. Anyway, "consensus" is so roughly defined that you had to make judgement calls already. On the other hand, I understand why you would not want to put yourself in the line of fire for making these judgement calls, and some users will be angry when you don't "take their side." But I think it's better than excluding newbies from the decision-making process. moink 19:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are supposed to be just that: people who act according to other people's decissions. No judgement is expected from them (at least this is how I understood their creation and the meaning of the concept). Otherwise, their role would be beyond simple administrative matters. This does not mean "trust" or "untrust", just the definition of their function. Pfortuny 19:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since there's no representative of the voters saying "this is our consensus" the bureaucrat really has to discern that, IMO, otherwise I guess you're just vote-counting. How about if anyone who's rejected with more than, say, 60% of votes can ask for a reconsideration on the talk, and then an odd number of bureaucrats (three or five, say) decide the issue on any terms they agree on, a majority of the bureaucrats voting decide? Would that work?

Otherwise, if the bureaucrat is really not supposed to evaluate, it seems to me the only thing to do is a weighted vote--maybe from -3 to +3 (strongly oppose to strongly support) then add it up and set a level of weighted approval which decides--for example, if you add all the weighted votes and the average doesn't come to at least (say) +1.5, the person is rejected for admin.

Having said that, I don't care for that system because it doesn't take into account the quality of arguments that may be made, but if the 'crat really needs clear guidance, I can't think of anything else. Cecropia 20:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quality is subjective. How new is "too new"? What about when you hear this coming from somoe who's several times newer? Is, say, Kingturtle's "too new" suggestion any better or worse than Dogmaster3000's? - Fennec

Have voters prove their identity maybe? anthony (see warning)

There is another principle that we can apply: in case of doubt, don't promote. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but how much doubt? We're back where we started. Since any bureaucrat can promote, if one doesn't want to, another could. If it's really so controversial, then I think it should go to Talk as a sort of appeal, if promotion is turned down. Cecropia 20:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How many people think the options will result in this poll (like the last one)being inconclusive? Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't expect poll #3 to be conclusive, but since this seems such a nebulous area, it might give us a sense of sentiment. Cecropia 23:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There isn't a maximum time for this. If a bureaucrat sees an issue which causes them to consider that further input is desirable, the bureaucrat should ask the community to address that question, not just act. Same for sock puppets: if a bureaucrat believes a vote is a sock puppet, say so and let the community sort it out, then act accordingly. Jamesday 02:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat judgement (Archive 16)

Thanks for all the comments and votes above. It was helpful in making a decision about Fennec, who I just made a sysop. The percentage of support was bordering around 80%, but there were a lot of new users voting, which made the decision harder. I wanted to go with 80%, both because that is what I think it should be, and because that is what the majority in the above poll suggested. Ignoring very new users did give a percentage lower than 80%, but I think this was balanced by the number of very experienced voters. For example, counting only sysops (which I would never do) gives 84% support. The neutral votes were interesting, but they were not committed either way, so I discounted them. Putting some value in the reasons given, as was suggested I should do in the poll above certainly swung me in favour of promoting Fennec as the reasons show:

Fennec has been here for two months, made 635 edits, helped fight off vandalism, contributed to policy discussions, helped with the Bird/Brain affair, is an active user, has acted responsibly, contributed to the encyclopedia and dialogue , he is good to work with, thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive, courteous, has an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies, and is friendly and trustworthy

v.

Too new, bad April Fool's Day joke.

So, depending on how and who you count, it may or may not be the 80% the majority think it should be, but as 80% of voters in the poll above thought a bureaucrat should use their judgement, I hope you're all happy with the fact I did. :) A bureaucrat.

Just a note, mostly for the sake of ironic humor. Assuming for the sake of argument that consensus = 80%, then the poll above doesn't have a consensus for the proposition that consensus = 80%. --Michael Snow 01:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's great :-) Isomorphic 01:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As someone who didn't vote one way or another on Fennec, it looked to me like there was a "consensus." Isomorphic 01:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't vote either, and I would agree. --Michael Snow 01:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Me three. moink 01:35, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy. This is a perfect example to illustrate what I meant about weighing reasons given pro and con being more meaningful than vote tally. Mkweise 02:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that you acted too soon in this case. The recent votes were in favor and waiting a week would probably have eliminated the need for judgement. Jamesday 02:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but I was thinking that if I didn't do anything, another bureaucrat would have made the decision to promote, or would have decided there wasn't consensus and removed the vote. Perhaps it needs to be made clear that in cases where it is not obvious, the vote should be ongoing rather than having to end after a week? Angela . 11:59, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest mentioning that you've considered it and have decided to review it again in at least n days to allow more time for community support to become clear. It's good for the candidate as well as the bureaucrat to be completely sure that they are well accepted, if only because it can be expected to increase the confidence with which they apply their new tools. Besides, patience is a very desirable attribute in any sysop, so it's OK, to let the process take a while if that's what it takes. Your decision was reasonable, but you did have to decide and it's probably better to use time as a tool to avoid that need. Yes, it's probably a good idea to change the wording to make it clear that there isn't a seven day limit, since that has been our practice while Tim was doing it. I'll try doing that now and lets see if what I come up with is acceptable. Jamesday 02:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is it that you expect to happen in another three, seven, ten days? From just about every case I've seen, people have pretty much made their votes and had their say at the end of seven days. Are we fighting over a big salary here? Leaving someone volunteering services to hang out to dry is not right either. Cecropia 02:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's currently about 78% support for Cecropia. Perhaps this case would be a good example of one that should be left for another few days? Angela . 02:20, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Angela, with due and honest respect I have to pose the question to you directly I asked above. What do you expect to happen in a few more days that hasn't already happened? Some rather nasty charges were made against me, my integrity, and the quality of my work by two users who are extremely emotional about two topics out of hundreds I've initiated or edited; others read this and evidently decided I was controversial. Others users have refuted the two, and several who didn't know me at all took my invitation to review my work and reported as you can observe in the comments they made. However this turns out, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that some took the trouble to spend the time and express reasoned opinions that make my efforts worthwhile. I feel as though these evaluations are considered as trash and I am being put on probation for want of 2% on an inexplicit 80% goal. Is this what is meant by consensus? Cecropia 02:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference it will make. I just suggested it as James seemed to think this should have been done for Fennec. It would probably be a good idea for a bureaucrat other than me to make this decision. Angela . 03:41, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday asked me to comment on the way I used to do this when I was the main one doing sysoppings. Originally I wasn't particularly careful in making sure everyone had been listed for some amount of time, and I was told off for it on this talk page. After that, I made sure that everyone who I sysopped had been here for at least a week. I sysopped everyone for whom there was a clear consensus, and in borderline cases I used my own judgement: either to sysop them, or to ignore the listing. If I ignored a listing, another developer could do the sysopping if they felt my judgement was incorrect. I didn't feel obliged to make a possibly controversial decision, so the task wasn't as onerous as it could have been. I didn't remove listings, I waited for someone else to make that decision. It was always an anxious wait, since I was afraid someone would challenge the fact that I was ignoring the listing. I didn't have any particular percentage threshold. In cases where very few people had bothered to vote, but those who had voted "support", I delayed sysopping them. Sometimes, in such cases, I advertised the vote on IRC. Usually such people are diligent workers who rarely get into arguments, hence they are little known. Such people will be supported by anyone who could be bothered to do the necessary research -- checking contributions and the like. I think it's important to give such people sysopship -- they often ask for pragmatic reasons rather than status reasons. -- Tim Starling 05:12, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Poll (Archive 17)

Should there be a fixed percentage of support votes needed to become admin, or should any bureaucrat be able to exercise their individual judgment to promote someone to admin, based on the bureaucrat's interpretation of the vote?

Is this poll determinant in any way? Pfortuny 18:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fixed percentage

Wik 18:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC). Note that a vote for bureaucrat judgment means nothing more or less than that bureaucrats should have a greater say than ordinary users in who becomes an admin. What will happen is simply that whenever a bureaucrat likes a candidate he will be inclined to say "oh, those 75% are a good enough consensus, those opposing votes just make no sense" while on the other hand, if he does not like the candidate, he will be inclined to say "oh, those 80% are not a good enough consensus, there are some serious issues here". --Wik 18:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
- With the very pronounced caveat that I do not speak for Angela or Ed, Let me allow your mind some rest on this precise question. I have had very minimal contact with Zero0000 before I made my decision. I did not recognize him at all from any context. I did not examine his edit history at all. I only went by the votes. Clearly they were against him by pure numbers. I thought is that where I can hang my hat on. The numbers were there. That is all she wrote? Why am I here then? Not some machine? I looked: "Is there any legitimate reason why the raw numbers should not count?"; and the answer was cler to me: Yup. Both opposing and supporting votes were very heavily weighted with users whose contributions were of a dubious pedigree. And this is where it got difficult for me. The numbers were clearly there to not sysop; if I wanted to, but did I have the right to want it? No. Not without further cause. And I am not likely to get it either... Wik is right in saying there is no justification in what I did where our rules are concerned.

Bureaucrat judgment

Michael Snow 18:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
moink 18:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 18:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) With the caveat that it's obvious the community is demanding a fairly high supermajority standard (though the exact number is disagreed on), and that bureaucrats need to respect the community opinion (i.e., no promotions of users who win their vote 20-19). I have faith that the bureaucrats will, in fact, do this.
older ≠ wiser 19:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) But there should be some guidelines and in cases where they exercise discretion they should have to give some sort of explanation. Guidelines such as more than 80% is clear consensus, no discretion; 70-80% dicretionary; below 70% unadvisable without an extremely good case for extenuating circumstances. Valid reasons *might* include discounting suspected sock puppets or very new users, or where one or two highly biased users might have poisoned the vote by making candidates appear more controversial than they are. (Though I'd hope the guidelines would not be too legalistic, 'cause once you start down that road there is no end to the proliferation of clauses and exceptions.)
→Raul654 19:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
This no longer affects me personally, but my basic feelings remain the same. Either we have to give bureaucrats some discretion to look into contentious cases in the 75-80% or so range, or we have to make some kind of ironclad rules. But even then, it does not seem as simple to me as xx% good, xx%-1 no good. You should also figure total number of votes that show interest. We have admins appointed this year with 4 to 6 votes total. Is that the definition of consensus? No disrepect to the admins involved--they were appointed before this became a battle zone. My case I had 36 positive votes and 10 negatives (1 vote less than 80% on a huge voting base), with spirited and specific debate. What that says to me is: if you want to be an admin, never try to work on a contentious subject. No matter how fair you feel you are being, an advocate for one view or the other will decide you are poison.

I especially can't see 80% as hard and fast when any one negative wipes out four positives. Do you take into account that someone has been campaigning (notes on user pages, etc.) for or against a nomination? What about where people are convinced to vote by an opponent's baseless, notably POV, or simply lying charge? As in real-world politics, many good people will decide that the destination is not worth the journey. Cecropia 19:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia raises good points, and I think the nature of the votes should be considered. Users who edit in controversial areas plagued by factionalism are likely to make some enemies. Unless the opposition is fact-based and relevant, it need not be given a great deal of weight. And yes, I too believe that this should remain "no big deal." UninvitedCompany 21:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we let bureaucrats decide which opposition is "relevant" we don't need to vote in the first place. Just let the bureaucrats promote whoever they want. --Wik 21:04, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 13:09, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
As the matter is not seemingly going to be automatized, then in any case it would require a bureaucrat making a judgment (at least "I am going to promote this one"). Pfortuny 18:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neither

Anyone who can prove their identity and asks for adminship should be an admin until de-adminned. anthony (see warning)

Comments

Reagrding Wik's comments, I can't answer for the bureaucrats, but I know that, were I to be one, I would be very careful to preserve fairness -- anyone below 80% that I had vocally supported, I would probably leave for someone else to make the final decision on. I believe I can trust the bureaucrats to do this. Jwrosenzweig 18:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having bureaucrat judgement will tend to bias a bit in favor of making people admins, since it only takes one bureaucrat saying "Ok, I believe this is consensus." But, since Jimbo has said that this should be "no big deal," I think that that is the appropriate bias. I also note I can't ever recall Wik voting in favor of someone. He only picks and chooses who he will vote against. That may have something to do with his desire for tighter standards. Isomorphic 20:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In all fairness, Wik does vote in favor of people on some (rare) occasions. If I were not aware of those specific cases, I might be inclined to say the same thing. →Raul654 22:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratic judgment (Archive 17)

I pressed the "grant sysop rights" button for Cecropia. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but I think it was the right one.

Based on numbers alone, of course, he did not "win". If winning is defined as getting 80% support from those "voting", then 78% was a tad short. But the "dangling chad" in the whole thing was that it should be no big deal.

The over-arching principle of stewardship has always been, and always will be, what is best for the mission of Wikipedia.

Based on the comments and "votes" I made a judgment call: that Wikipedia would be better off with than without Cecropia's adminship. (If he messes up totally and goes on a bin Laden or Ashcroft rampage with his sysop powers, I'll pay a big price, to be sure!) But we never agreed to make "rank" a popularity contest.

The king is still Jimbo. I serve the king. --Uncle Ed 13:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Really, Unca Ed, even the people (or person) who opposed me the most can get a good night's sleep and find Wikipedia much the way it was before I became an Admin. The thing that surprised me was the intensity of one editor's attacks, essentially because of one article, which I probably wouldn't even have bothered with much if it wasn't such an incredible polemic when I first saw it. Frankly, I'm happiest when I'm rewriting the unreadable of which I have some knowledge, when I'm adding a new bit of arcana, or I'm starting a new article on an esoteric subject. However, I will say that edit wars are bad enough, but trying to drive out people you disagree with is a little over the line. -- Cecropia 17:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dare say the two of you make this way too much into a personal issue. ;->

— Try to see the Case Cecropia as the illustration of the problem instead!

--Ruhrjung 00:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats (Archive 22)

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 (Archive 22)

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).

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)
If 75-80% is a consensus, then it is a consensus for both administrators and bureaucrats. Warofdreams 18:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Jayjg 20:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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.

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)
Acegikmo1 18:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 20:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
Conti|✉ 21:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
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)
-JCarriker 03:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.

— Kate Turner | Talk 17:13, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
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)
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)
85% is reasonable. I also think "80%" is a better description of the current consensus required than "75%". +sj +
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.

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.
Gzornenplatz 18:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
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)
fvw 15:39, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC) -- As long as no bureaucrat shortage occurs, the higher the standard the better.
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.

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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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

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.) Very Verily 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 (Archive 22)

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.) Very Verily 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 (Archive 22)

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. Very Verily 23:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Too many bureaucrats? (Archive 24)

User:Cribcage brought up an interesting question. A lot of users have recently objected to bureaucrat nominations with objections like "we don't need more bureaucrats right now," "we shouldn't have too many bureaucrats," etc., and Cribcage asked "[...]what problem would be caused by having 'too many bureaucrats.'?"

One view was expressed by User:Isomorphic that: "It's a very limited job and the handful we have are doing it. Second, I think bureaucrats should be 'pillars of the community': editors who are well-respected and known by virtually everyone. This is a practical matter: if everyone knows who a bureaucrat is, they're less likely to second-guess an adminship decision." Another is that having many bureaucrats increases the chances of having some that would make ill-considered promotions and be difficult to restrain or clean up after (only Stewards do de-sysoping at the present time), leading to hard feelings and unnecessary arguments, so better to choose fewer Bureaucrats as long as the job is getting done.

Other reasons have been hinted at, and rather than guess at them, I'm asking: "if you think we don't need more bureaucrats, or that the number should be limited or controlled, why?" -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answers

Few bureaucrats seem to be doing any actual work right now (Cecropia being the notable exception). If there's not enough work to go around, it's clear to me that there's an excess of bureaucrats. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:32, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
- Due respect, you didn't address the question. Let's assume you're right: There is an excess of bureaucrats, many of whom do not use their privileges. Where's the harm? Cribcage 00:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think all qualified users should have these privileges. Including recent nominations of Grunt, Rdsmith4, Sarge Baldy (though I voted neutral, I've since found him to be a good user), and myself (not to be conceited, but the only oppose votes were "we don't need any more bureaucrats"). Andre (talk) 05:01, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
IMO ideally users should have as much access as they can be trusted with. People like Rdsmith4, Grunt, Andre etc. clearly meet this criteria. I doubt anyone who has been a trusted sysop for months is suddenly going to start making bad oppings when they become a bureaucrat. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 20:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia has been diligent in promoting users promptly. This is a fine thing and he should be commended for it, particularly as few others have shown interest in participation in routine promotions. I do believe, though, that the project would be better served by having the bureaucrat duties shared among a wider group. I participate and perform promotions for this reason. There are really very few bureaucrats, and many of them are heavily involved in other important parts of Wikipedia - the board, the arbitration committee -- and decline to participate here so that they need not recuse themselves if an RFA decision is later appealed to them. While I opposed Grunt's bureaucratship on the grounds that there are more seasoned candidates available, I now believe that this was a mistake on my part, as I come to realize that the group of long-tenure editors whose trustworthiness is beyond doubt is really quite small, particularly once the people involved in the arbcom and the board are excluded. So, I've changed my mind, I guess, and believe at this point that we really would be better served by a larger group of bureaucrats than we have at present, particularly if the new bureaucrats are willing to be involved in promotions regularly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Ludraman, above. Cribcage 00:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also agree. While I have promoted few users since becoming a bureaucrat, I have on occasion promoted one who had been waiting some time. Cecropia has been doing an excellent job, but a wider group of bureaucrats would mean that Cecropia doesn't have to all the work - and that people are promoted even when Cecropia isn't about. Warofdreams 11:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thinking over this, I don't mind people opposing on the grounds of not enought experience or time being a sysop etc. However I do mind a lot people objecting on the grounds of there being enough bureaucrats. Not anything against these people themselves, but if this is the case then RfB has no purpose. So I suggest we clarify this by having a discussion or brainstorm or poll or something. Should the number of bureaucrats be limited to a set quota and be operated like arbcom? Because if so, RfB is wasting everyone's time. Otherwise, RfB should be kept open and anyone who qualifies can be made a bureaucrat and the "too many bureaucrats" objection won't really be actionable. I personally feel the second way is better but we should see what everyone else has to say. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 17:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that having "too many" bureaucrats is harmful, or anything like that. I definitely don't advocate having a fixed number of bureaucrats or adding any extra rules. I just think we can afford to be picky because there isn't much work for bureaucrats. It's not like adminship where there's a backlog of chores. To clarify: I basically opposed Rdsmith4 because I didn't feel he was well-known enough. The comment about not needing bureaucrats was meant to explain why I was using such a high standard for "well-known enough". Isomorphic 18:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to having a poll about whether the number of bureaucrats should limited? Then this can be cleared up. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 16:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need. After all, anyone who thinks there should be a fixed number of bureaucrats can just choose not to vote for any more after we reach the "preferred" number. The rest of us can vote differently. There's no reason to try to force a consensus. Isomorphic 20:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True. I'm sorry, it must seem like I'm pestering people on this, but this thing annoys me. I suppose you're right. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 21:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with Ludraman. Andre (talk) 22:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we can hold elections, like the way the U.S. Congressional elections work. Bureaucrats can serve 6 month terms, and at the end of the 6 months, we elect someone new or reelect that candidate. There could be 15 bureaucrat seats, and elections for each seat should be separate (There shouldn't be 100 candidates, and the 15 people with the most votes take the 15 seats). --Lst27 (talk) 01:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how there can be "too many bureaucrats". Bureaucrats are given one extra privilege, and this privilege should be given to anyone who can handle it responsibly. I'm afraid people are treating it as a higher level on the Wikipedia social hierarchy that should only be granted to the Wikipedia elite, and I am strongly opposed to having any such hierarchy. Wikipedia thrives on a privilege based system based on the responsibility of its users. I won't argue the benefits of a lax policy on bureaucratship are great, nor that we need more bureaucrats to handle the increasing influx of new administrator candidates, but I condemn it on the grounds that it serves to create a power structure that I strongly feel is unnecessary and inappropriate on Wikipedia. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 22:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think the heart of the problem comes when you express being a bureaucrat as "one extra privilege." There is no quantifible prviliege to being a bureaucrat in the sense that one can do something that others can't. A bureaucrat is supposed to do the job of carrying out the community's wishes. That is, I don't feel (neither does the community) that I have the right to make people I like admins (that would be a "privilege") and deny it to people I don't. When I ran for the position I promised two things: (1) that I would not leave people hanging when consensus was in doubt; and (2) I specified in detail the standards I would use to promote. Have I succeeded?

Now I see no problem of having "too many" bureaucrats. I actually think we could use more active bureaucrats, but this is not achieved simply by making a bunch of self-selected candidates bureaucrats. What is the harm? Some of us take adminship very seriously. They examine the candidates, discuss and vote. In straw polls the consensus seems to go with those taking adminship seriously, as the polls show Wikipedians setting a fairly high bar of 75%-80% to be an admin, 85%-90% to be a bureaucrat. Others take a very lax view, that everyone should be an admin that won't blow up the joint (we hope), because adminship is "no big deal." Both views are worthy of respect, IMO, but both views also need to be represented. The problem in lax choosing of bureaucrats is that a flood of careless choices will set adminship to the lowest common denominator. Since any bureaucrat can promote, it means the standard for promotion becomes whatever the most liberal bureaucrat thinks it is. We have already had a situation where an inactive bureaucrat popped up to promote an embattled candidate for bureaucracy while debate was still going on, then stonewalling requests for an explantion or withdrawal of the action.

I'm not sure exactly what process we should have to make bureaucrats but I do feel the current system is "broke." I think at a minimum, we need a few things. (1) a consensus that we need more bureaucrats and how many; that determined, let anyone interested "run" for the position; (2) as with ArbCom, if we think we need two bureaucrats, the top two vote-getters will be bureaucrats; (3) have all bureaucrats stand for re-election periodically--this will weed out those who have lost interest, wandered off, made doubtful promotions, etc; (4) have the candidates explain a few basics: why they want to be a bureaucrat, exactly how they will determine consensus; how they will deal with difficult nominations. "I'll pass those off to other bureaucrats" is not a good answer. IMO, a dumb program can make unopposed promotions. Anyone who wants to be a bureaucrat should make an explicit commitment to explain promotions to any editor making a reasonable query. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hell no, we do not need another election mess here too. If anything, the problem is that beurocrats can promote but not demote admins. Perhaps each level should be able to both promote and demote people at the level below. That would solve the problem you mention. Shane King 05:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I swear to god if I see the word election or poll on wikipedia one more time, I'm going to vomit. There must be (easily) 150 of them going on right now. Polls are going out of control. NO MORE VOTING!!! →Raul654 06:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

No one has to participate in a vote or election. How would you determine community sentiment? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you and everybody else need to read m:Don't vote on everything. →Raul654 07:14, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

So you would determine consensus on this issue by...? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attempting to achieve consensus, which votes do not do. Little things like discussing, actually addressing objections, finding common ground, deciding how much of your position you are prepared to give up and accepting that there do not need to be rules for everything. Votes are, as a general rule, inimical to consensus building. Filiocht 09:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

How did this get off on a tangent of "no more voting"? I didn't propose a vote on my idea, which contains elements we have already been discussing. We already vote on bureaucrats and admins, and people have been complaining frequently that there is no process except the tedious ArbCom to de-admin or de-bureaucrat and, in fact ArbCom just threw a de-sysoping in our laps to vote on. And, if it comes down to formalizing a policy change that we reach by consensus after "addressing objections, finding common ground"" we typically vote on it, so attacking the process isn't bringing us any closer to addressing the issue. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I was against elections, not voting. I don't mind voting, so long as it's not a competition of which people get the most votes. I consider elections harmful, as wikipedia should not be based on competition, but on co-operation. Shane King 22:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

On Weighting RfA Votes (Archive 25)

I hardly think I can add anything to Jwrosenzweig's lucid and excellent discussion, but since the original question was in response to my comment, I will anyway. ;-)

I will not discard or devalue anyone's vote, including Node's, as long they meet the requirement that they be from signed-in editors. People vote for and against for all kinds of reasons, good and bad, and I don't feel it's up to the bureaucrat to pick and choose which votes to count. However, when the final result in is the area where a bureaucrat is expected to use discretion, the entire body of votes and their underlying reasoning need to be considered. So to put a positive spin on it, shouldn't a bureaucrat in those circumstances give more weight to a voter who writes: "Candidate UltimateTroll has persistently vandalized user pages of Wikipedians he dislikes" and gives examples that the 'crat finds are accurate than one who simply writes: "He's a self-nom" or "fewer than 5,000 edits doesn't meet my standards"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think any bureaucrat that admits wieghing one person's vote more than another, for reasons they may not personally agree with, should be subject to "re-election". In essence, you are also saying that a vote of "Oppose" with no explanation is more valuable than one that says "Oppose, not enough edits". Do you also weigh "Keep" votes using similar standards? What if one user votes "Support - s/he patrols RC, handles conflict well" and one vote "Support. Down with edit-counting", "Support, I like their user name" or the like. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

If you read what I said, I am not valuing one vote above another. The standard for promotion (as I've said innumerable times) is consensus. The number of votes is a guideline. When the votes fall in the range or under a circumstance where a bureaucrat is expected to make a decision rather than simply push (or not) a button, the number of votes then becomes secondary to actually evaluating the comments and charges that voters have made, pro and con, and the candidate him/herself. This is what I did, and explained in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni. Obviously, comments like "down with edit counts" and "doesn't meet my personal standards" and not very useful when push comes to shove. In that case, the most constructive comments must be looked at and evaluated, and the exact numbers are immaterial.

I clearly said above "I will not discard or devalue anyone's vote, including Node's, as long they meet the requirement that they be from signed-in editors." I also did not say I discount votes for reasons of personal agreement, so kindly do not put words in mouth. In you have doubt as to the "essence" of what I'm saying, ask me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As has already been noted, adminship requests are not a vote, so "weighting votes" is beside the point. I know that Cecropia uses the 75-80% range as the "judgement required region," but even that isn't set in stone. If I remember correctly, plenty of editors felt that the range should be higher, lower, or wider. Numbers are not the point; the point is to determine whether Wikipedia will benefit by a user becoming an admin. Isomorphic 08:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats (Archive 26)

I have been bold and added to the Bureaucrat rubric to say that the last few candidates have attracted comments about there being no need for new appointments. I suggest that potential candidates should start a discussion about the need for new bureaucrats but I coudl not decide where the best place to do that might be. Is it on this talk page? --Theo (Talk) 10:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought that on the project page is better — it's more likely to be seen. By the way, I've just reinstated your text, after it had been deleted as being PoV. I can't see how it's PoV, but I'm hoping that the editor involved will explain here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it seemed fine. James F. (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you why it is POV...because "the three failed applicants since that time all attracted comments that there seemed little need for new bureaucrats" makes it sound like that was the single issue in the consensus - it makes it sound like no need for bureaucrats was the primary reason - and it wasn't at all. For Golbez, there were

4 supporting votes

3 opposing votes because of EXPERIENCE ISSUES, 1 opposing vote because of no need for bureaucrats, and 1 opposing vote who made no comment at all

4 neutral votes because of no need for bureacrats and 1 neutral vote because of lack of experience.

Taking all that into account, when looking at only the supporting and opposing votes, only 1 out of 9 who said that no need for bureaucrats was the only determining factor. When adding in the neutral votes, 5 out of 14 said that no need for more bureaucrats was the only determining factor. Experience was a more determining factor.

I am going to remove the POV text from the article again. Kingturtle 19:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kingturtle's assessment. →Raul654 19:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It was a factor however, albeit a small one. It should be mentioned, but maybe in a less POV way. Howabout1 19:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not opposed to someone re-writing the text in a NPOV manner. Kingturtle 19:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I made an attempt at it, is it any better? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 20:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kingturtle's understanding of Theo's original text is surprising; I certainly didn't read it in the way that he did (and I don't see that the English supports such a reading). In any case, it isn't a question of point of view; he's really complaining that it's inaccurate, which is a different matter entirely. To improve the accuracy (in so far as that was really needed) is one thing; to delete it with the claim that it was PoV is much more aggressive, and much less acceptable.

Brockert's replacement makes an assumption that's not obviously justified (what's the basis for the claim that some votes are automatic?), and fails to give the crucial advice to would-be bureaucrats. I've gone back to Theo's version, but made some changes to emphasise the points that Kingturtle found unclear. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Kingturtle's new version doesn't change the meaning at all, to my eye, but if it keeps everyone happy... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The current text reflects my original intention (which was to encourage potential candidates to seek agreement that more bureaucrats are needed before entering a candidacy that may lead to feelings of personal rejection when the problem is not personal). I would, however, prefer the phrase "attracted comment" to "provoked comment", because the former is milder. I would also like us to state that the discussion should be started in that section. Does anyone object to these changes?--Theo (Talk) 23:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching these pages for some time. There have been a number of people who vote a specific way on every nomination, based upon one criterion. They are automatic, in that they follow rules and do not vary from one vote to the next. I don't doubt that the best of editors could nominate himself and get at least one "don't need" vote. In the six failed noms, one had four opposes because of this, one had two opposes and four nuetrals, one had three neutrals, one had one oppose, and none of that counts the number of votes with no reason at all. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed policy for bureaucrats regarding RFA (Archive 27)

To try to make the process more consistent and predictable, I propose:

That all nominations be permitted to run for exactly seven full days unless declined by the nominee. Nominations will not be removed earlier, by virtue of being frivilous, due to voting irregularities, or due to overwhelming opposition. Nominations will not be closed prior to the end time by bureaucrats even if the outcome is clear.
However, bureaucrats may optionally extend nominations to a total of ten days if there are fewer than 15 votes when the original end time is reached.
That a bureaucrat may not promote, remove, or extend a nomination if they voted on it themselves in the last 48 hours it was active.
That votes after a nomination's end time will not be considered by bureaucrats. That way, bureacrats have the opportunity to consult with each other and other community leaders to decide whether promotion is appropriate, without having the voting tally constantly change.
That bureaucrats may disregard at their discretion votes made by sock puppets, votes made in poor faith or in an effort to prove a point, and votes made from new accounts that appear to have been created primarily for the purpose of making RFA votes.
That votes on matters other than promotion of new admins and bureaucrats are inappropriate for RFA and may be moved elsewhere by any user.
That bureaucrats may, at the conclusion of the seven day period, decline to promote in cases where voting irregularities, wiki downtime, or other factors make it impossible to determine community sentiment with accuracy.

I believe that these are common-sense rules that would serve to make the process more clear, transparent, and fair. In some cases this is codification of existing practice. I invite comment.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you have many good and reasonable suggestions above, I believe you are complicating a process which has worked well. Codifying rules to the point of micromanagment, is going to lead to more argumentation any time someone disagrees with the result of an adminship. So step one is not to find out if Wikipedians consider the process "broke" before we "fix" it. To that end, I have started a poll below. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that step one is ~~not~~ to find out if Wikipedians consider the process "broke" before we "fix" it. --MarSch 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like m:instruction creep. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. R adiant _>|< 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely instruction creep. I see no need for any of these restrictions. Kelly Martin 19:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Is Bureaucracy in Need of Reform (Archive 27)

Is the process of deciding on the making of admins working well, or does it need new, explicit guidelines?

Working well. Bureaucrats are trusted to make difficult decisions

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--cesarb 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
smoddy 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Angela . 17:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
-Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 17:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Un focused 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I'm of two opinions on this matter. See "Guidelines" vote below.)
I think the system works well as-is, and that this poll is unnecessary. Cecropia: relax - you're doing a fine job :) →Raul654 18:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
-siafu 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Shanes 18:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also, m:don't vote on everything. R adiant _>|< 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
--Carnildo 19:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Didn't we already have a poll defining the job of a bureaucrat? — Dan | Talk 19:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
While I would agree with don't vote on everything, I'll add my voice to the consensus. Just because there has been a lot of whining, doesn't mean the process isn't being done right. So far there haven't been any concrete explanations of any major problems. - Taxman ^Talk 20:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Not perfect, but Nothing is. Bluemoose 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A vote on bureaucracy, I love it! Seriously though: the problems with RfA are not the fault of the bureaucrats, who do a sometimes difficult job very well. Rje 00:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
+sj + 01:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problems whatsoever. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:02, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
69.182.48.34 04:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm yet to see any problem that needs a solution. —Stormie 10:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. Grutness...wha? 11:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ain't broke; agree with Grutness above; also I'm impressed with the decisions made by the bureaucrats so far. Antandrus (talk) 17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's fine. It's only when disruptive users try to mess it up that it can be annoying. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- JCarriker 17:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
90% of the time the decision is obvious. The other 10%, generally, the person shouldn't be made an admin. This link is Broken 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)
Never change a running system; you can't make everyone happy. And be happy to have someone who makes the difficult decisions for you Lectonar 30 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk July 8, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
There is a level of trust that is placed in the hierarchy, and those supported by peers enough seem to have risen to the occasion for the most part. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Needs reform. Bureaucrats need explicit instruction

Guidelines would be helpful, but should not be in the form of explicit instructions

--Un focused 17:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But I think we already have them. I trust the bureaucrats to use their discretion where required: a straitjacket is not required. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would support a guideline policy but I believe the status quo works pretty good. Falphin 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The procedure for RfA should be changed

I have drafted a replacement proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I don't think that anything is wrong...the general public presents their opinions on whether the person should be made an admin. It shouldn't be an elite clan. There are processes for dealing with troublesome admins. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no need for this poll. --cesarb 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh gracious - the bureaucrats are asking for revalidation now... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken. But (1) this is not about whether I or anyone else should remain a bureaucrat; (2) this is being mounted in talk, where it belongs, not "Requests for Bureaucratship," and (3) Bureaucrats have to carry out a process, and discussions of that are always appropriate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's why they are bureaucrats. Because we trust them. smoddy 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~People who design straw polls should be more careful not to present false dichotomies. Un focused 17:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ See apology by Cecropia below. --Un focused 18:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The process is working well, but I see no harm in clarifying the process. This also allows bureacrats to point somewhere if there is an argument over the followed procedure. Still sometimes it is necessary to deviate from the rules. I don't think rule 3 about voting xor promoting/removing/extending is particularly useful. How much rules do we have now anyway? --MarSch 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On "Guidelines." We have had polls and discussions in which many points of guidelines have been discussed and community sentiment expressed. This has included that Bureaucrats should use discretion. See the talk archives linked from this page. So it is not as though Bureaucrats just do as they please. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The presence of archives should not be interpreted as foreclosing any possibility of discussing the same issues again. It is the Wiki way to back off, reformulate, and then reconsider as often as the community desires. --Unfocused 18:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I am attempting to foreclose nothing. I am pointing out that many of these points have been discussed in detail, and this process is not anarchic. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The system ain't broke, our bureaucrats consistently act with savvy and sagacity. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I explicitly apologize for failing to have a "neutral" option in this vote. I returned to add one, but saw it had already been done. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this all about the Weyes thing? That's a tempest in a teapot. The system works fine, the bureaucrats are doing a good job. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be called bureaucratcy? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
- No! Learn to spell! — Chameleon 29 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)
  - What? Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 30 00:38 (UTC)

Bureaucrat reform (Archive 28)

Following from the discussion above about bureaucrat appointment and removal I think there are a few things that should potentially be looked at

The election of bureaucrats could be more like election to the ArbCom- so a wider range of the community is involved, and so the position is not permanent.
It would be beneficial if there were fewer of them since presumably the workload isn't huge and it would potentially avoid conflicting decisions.
The policy regarding who can de-syssop needs to be more clearly defined; should de-syssoping only occur via an ArbCom decision?

That being said I also think that if Cecropia were to set himself up here like Raul has done on FAC, and was the one and only person that dealt with the decision making on admin appointments then there wouldn't be many complaints.--nixie 04:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

1 sounds like a good idea. Regarding 2, I don't actually know how many there are :) but I suppose three would be a nice number (if they're reasonably active). 3 is once more a can of worms, but to prevent RFDA mobfests (as demonstrated by the previous two attempts to create such a policy) it would be best if the ArbCom handled both RFDA and RFDB. This would prevent deopping of anyone who is merely impopular but hasn't actually done anything the consensus thinks to be seriously wrong. Radiant_>|< 09:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- A few thoughts. 1--I don't know what exactly is meant, since any contributing member (read: non-vandal, non-anon) can vote in an RfBureaucratship nomination. A time limit on service might make sense, although if there isn't one for admins, I wonder why one is necessary for bureaucrats. 2--We once had only 7 or 8, and then almost all of them went inactive (a common problem around here)....now we have maybe 20? (I know, I should check, but I feel lazy) and usually any nomination of an additional one is shouted down for being unnecessary. The only reason I can see to have fewer B's is to reduce the number of admins promoted (since it would mean that for borderline cases there would be a reduced possibility that one bureaucrat would decide to promote), but I don't see that this has been a problem. 3--Bureaucrats can't desysop--the software doesn't allow it. Only m:stewards can do that, and that's a pretty exclusive group. If what's being referred to is Ed's action of a few months ago, I believe he managed that via his developer access (which he has since voluntarily given up). I think discussion about reform is just fine....I'm just not convinced that these 3 principles are the ones to focus on. And if anyone thinks I should give up my status (goodness knows I don't use it often at all), please do so -- I'm happy to discuss it with you, and open to agreeing with you, since I don't think I've been much help in the last few months. Jwrosenzweig 10:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Don't you DARE! I'd like for old users to stick around, and keep helping out with admin tasks. Practically everything you do is reversible if people really don't agree with it. I'd prefer old users to bumble a bit, but do so in good faith and with a clear view on where things are going - than I'd want to see newbies trying to even figure out what the community is, and dropping the ball entirely with no-one to look to for help. Better to have some of the old hands current with current practice then, even if they do fumble a bit while (re)-picking it up.Kim Bruning 15:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    - I tend to agree with Kim. I think it's important for institutional memory to keep experienced users in visible positions. However, I must say I was very disturbed by Ed's "veto" comment. My concern about institutional memory is especially strong because consensus model decision-making is not the norm in most modern cultures, so it's important for the community to have guides who really understand and have experience with WP:CON. Its all the more counter-productive when someone with decision-making abilities flouts that process. I think we need to be able to address those situations, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by automatically term-limitting. -Satori 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Er Kim, nobody is suggesting a term limit for admins. The suggestion was to model the Bureaucrat process after the ArbCom process. R adiant _>|< 08:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        Radiant, unless I'm mistaken, Kim was responding to my comment that I was willing to be de-bureaucratized if it was thought prudent. I couldn't tell if that was the intent of reform (to oust some of us less reliable types) and so I made the offer, perhaps foolishly. Sorry. :-) Jwrosenzweig 08:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        Ah okay. I was unaware that you were a 'Crat :) That would explain Kim's response. R adiant _>|< 09:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        
        I just want to point out that #2 seems to be asking to have the bureaucrat status of many revoked. I don't think any of us are willing to go that far with any of this (well, some people probably have one in mind). I guess what you're really saying is that when some of the current bureaucrats become inactive, we should not replace them all too quickly. (That is unless it's Cecropia, Secretlondon, or UC) Dmcdevit·t 09:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - FWIW, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats suggests that there are 20 current bureaucrats, but at least one has been inactive for over a year. No new bureaucrats have been created since October last year, BTW. Please also note that a conversation between myself and Evilphoenix listed above at the bottom of the Lucky 6.9 section also relates directly to this discussion. Grutness...wha? 10:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding to nixie's original suggestions:

The most recent ArbCom election was hardly a model of ideal group decisionmaking. It was unnecessarily divisive and parochial. There are process issues being worked, and I would hope that future such elections would work out better for everyone. I don't believe we would be well-served to utilize that process elsewhere until it is fixed.
The main problem with the promotion process that actually needs to be fixed is the occasional problem we have with normally inactive bureaucrats showing up and closing nominations where they feel strongly. There have been three instances of this of which I'm aware, User:Grunt's bureaucratship nomination, (a matter begining with the promotion and then demotion of Grunt in rapid succession, and ending in the "de-bureaucratting" of the person who promoted) and the near misses withUser:William M. Connolley and User:Lucky 6.9's adminship nominations.
I believe that the best way to fix that problem is to modify the closure process in such a way that bureaucrats have an opportunity to discuss the handling of unclear cases amongst themselves. At present there is something of a race to see who can act first once the vote concludes, and that discourages discussion.

"there is something of a race to see who can act first once the vote concludes, and that discourages discussion." Is that your motivation? That's not my motivation. First you were complaining about the way I was handling the process, and now you're claiming that we have dueling admins. You mainly seem interested in changing the process. You seem to be one of the very few who think the process is broken. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The original idea behind the "bureaucrats" was that the promotion process would be shared more or less evenly amongst them, much as the closing of VfD nominations is shared among a fairly broad group of interested admins. Prior to the existence of "bureaucrats," Ed Poor made substantially all the promotions using SQL queries.

Where do you get that idea from (that bureaucrat work was intended to be evenly shared). You certainly weren't making much effort to "evenly share" the work until I suggested that you might be a more active bureaucrat if you wanted to influence the process. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong to de-lurk suddenly and take it upon myself to decide Dr. C.'s and Lucky's RFAdmin's. I have told UC and the arbcom that I will never do this sort of thing again. This includes making "remarks" as well as taking action.

I also don't think bureaucrat work need be evenly shared. Cecropria can keep doing 90% of the promotions, for all I care. I'm only going to jump in and do the 30 to 1 cases - where there is no controversy and no need to wait. Okay? Uncle Ed 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Promotion standards for bureaucrats (Archive 29)

Somewhere we have a page on this, but I can't find it.

I'd like to remind everyone that the promotion standards for bureaucrats are:

Loosely defined
Higher numerically than the standards for admins
Require a stronger conesnsus. That is, plausible objections are taken very seriously particularly when voiced by more than one user.

This is important because "oppose" voters should be aware that such votes are taken very seriously. Voters should consider any bureaucratship nomination to be a close vote, where their vote may well make the difference. Please vote with this in mind.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the 'best' we have is Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22#Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat. -Splash 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Better Title for Bureaucrats? (Archive 29)

See Time for a change?

Are we getting a little full of overselves around here, or what? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think Lambies is the way to go. Acetic '^Acid 15:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Baaaaaaaa, -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The drawback to Lambies is that people might be tempted to beat them with a Shepherd's crook or chase them with dogs. As if they're not already... *RUNS AWAY QUICKLY* --Un focused 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine. How about Lambies on Steroids? Acetic '^Acid 16:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Don't much care for the steroids, but can I have my bureaucrats served with a side of rice and nice cranberry sauce? Dragons flight 18:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

How 'bout Grand Poobah? android 79 17:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

How about Big Kahuna? — JIP | Talk 09:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How about calling them Bats? To me, at least, bats are such beautiful creatures, and, of course, it is just a shortened form, SqueakBox 18:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bats sound more like a cute nickname, rather than an official name change. Acetic '^Acid 20:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The very name admin, with its super-user connotations in computer parlance, implies a bigger deal than it really is, I think. I tentatively propose that admins be renamed wardens (they're given a few extra features in order to help maintain order), and bureaucrats be renamed to the slightly stronger guardians or sentries. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the name change of admin, or something that conotes that b-crats do more to protect the wiki. I do strongly want a name change on b-crats. (see, I even say that without thinking) Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think that, if there's a change, it should be one that's recognisable outside the wikicommunity. If a newbie is faced with comments from an admin, they're likely to take notice. If they're faced with comments from a bat? Thir first question is likely to be "what's a bat?" So, even if we think wikipedia should be completely egalitarian, some title that indicates a chain of command would be useful. For that reason, I'd like to suggest "Managers". Grutness...wha? 00:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grutness on the recognisability, and with Howabout1 on the need for an egalitarian framework of names. I've thought about it some more and think that:

Administrator (user rights)

would be ideal. It would:

Acknowledge the actual responsibilities of the position, rather than being Wikipedia-specific language usage
Make it clear that this group is really just a specialized group of administrators, rather than a class of its own. Implying, perhaps, that there may be other such groups with other isolated responsibilities in some particular area in the future, if necessary.
Eliminate the spectacle of editors making comments on talk pages to the effect of "besides, he's a Bureaucrat" with the attendant implication of hierarchy, by virtue of posing semantic difficulty sufficient to hinder offhand remarks.
Remove the unnecessary negative connotations of "bureaucrat"

An alternative would be "Administrator (user rights and name changes)," though that strikes me as too wordy.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps just "user rights administrator"? — Dan | Talk 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggested on the other page the term "Judge," which is a fairly accurate description of what Bureaucrats do. Andre (talk) 01:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the bit where we started off a few years ago: Adminship is no big deal. A bureaucrat has no greater authority than an admin has no greater authority than an editor. If any of them are doing things for themselves instead of for the community, that's a problem. Yes, calling someone a moderator will help them scare off vandals, but in the long run I'd rather have a few more vandals and a few less misconceptions. I'd prefer janitors and mop-cleaners. --fvw * 01:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Superintendent? ...or is that too "powerful"? It's a synonym of janitor. K1Bond007 03:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Senior Janitor? Master of the Custodial Arts? Janitor with Keys to the Executive Washroom? Aquillion 04:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How about adjudicators? Grutness...wha? 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I like it, actually. Andre (talk) 03:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to me that this suggests the function of an arbitrator. — Dan | Talk 03:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "magistrates"? --Alan Au 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that it is the name alone stopping any user reasonable enough to be a suitable bureaucrat from accepting the post. I like the lack of glamour, myself, and with name changes now added to the duties the paper-pushing connotations are perhaps more apt, though a Wikipedia bureaucrat ought to have more perception and understanding of the community than your garden-variety bureaucrat usually exhibits!

Why the name change, really? Not for the bureaucrats or prospective bureaucrats themselves: I really think that the name ought not to matter. If someone can propose a name that makes their function clearer I won't object. "Admin (user rights)" isn't bad, if a bit cumbersome.

Side note: I propose this section be merged with the section in Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Choosing this page to respond on myself because it's more visible and I liked the tenor of this thread better. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with all of mindspillages points. Keep the name frumpish, it goes along with the work. →Raul654 04:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I like the title "Bureaucrat". It has a nice tongue-in-cheek flavor. After all, Wikipedia is actually one of the least bureaucratic organizations I've been around. Besides, you aren't going to come up with a title that meaningfully combines the tasks of promoting admins and changing usernames. "Adjudicator" would have worked before the new duty was added, but not anymore. Isomorphic 05:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If we need a change, what about Administrator+ or Administrator* with the Admin+, Admin*, A+' and/or A* (e.g. RfA+ or RfA*) abbreviations working. It sums up the job in that its basically just a couple of responsibilites in addition to plain administrators. Of the two I prefer + over * as the latter indicates there is a catch (e.g. "All items half price*" *between 1am and 6am only). Thryduulf 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

All right. On a more serious note (though I still like Lambies), how about Chief? Or Commissioner? Or Secretary of Admissions? Acetic '^Acid 12:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Raul654, they should be called frumpish, though Frumps may sound better. Func( t, c, @, ) 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

how abut simplistic... overseers...Gavin the Chosen 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the historic reference: "General Secretary". --Carnildo 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was always a big fan of President for Life. Acetic '^Acid 19:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about "Administrator Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary"? Ground Zero | t 19:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest "Administrative Officials", "executives", "superintendents", "overseers", "principals", "paramounts" or "preponderants". Take your pick :)

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Firmly suppressing my preference for Holy Roman Emperor, how about Consul? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikipedia is not Holy, Roman, nor an Empire - I think Holy Roman Emperor would be ideal!-Satori ^(talk) 21:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you can't do that. Because I'm the Holy Roman Emperor, and no-one else can use that title. Ground Zero | t 21:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Lord High Everything Else - I freely license my right to the title. Septentrionalis 21:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Resurrecting the anagram-ish theme, there's "Ubercrats". We could then rename admins as "untercrats" and the rest of us "userlings". -Splash

Er, speaking as a potential "untercrat" and an inveterate mistyper and transposer of letters, I can't raise any enthusiasm for this... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My preference is for Supreme Leader and Dictator-for-Life; barring that, First Tiger or El Presidente. :-) — Dan | Talk 22:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest calling bureaucrats "uncles", in honour of Ed. (I'm not making fun, just saying that he's the only one with an useful name. Admins would, of course, have to all be renamed smoddies. Normal users can be Kims, as he seems to like being one. :-) [[smoddy]] 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I applaud Smoddy's willingness to have his user name changed as inappropriate :} Septentrionalis 23:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It does mean I actually can change my user name... The pains of having too many edits. [[smoddy]] 23:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have more edits! Anyway, I prefer this scheme: Admin>>Ñolmo ('pursuer of wisdom') and Bureaucrat>>Iñgōlemo ('wise person'). Iñgōlemo ^talk 23:22, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Pedants and Advanced Pedants? android 79 23:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, 'Bureaucrats' is the only name that fits.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Poll (Archive 29)

Please fill out the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre (talk) 19:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nominations (Archive 39)

I don't know if this should be here or in Wikipedia talk:Recently created bureaucrats, but I'll put it here. Going through the bureaucrat nominations (purely for interests sake) I noticed a lot of people opposing because they don't feel we need any more bureaucrats. To me this makes no sense at all. Why don't we need any more? What possible harm could having more bureaucrats cause? There is no limit, no guideline as to the number we need, and just because we are not currently suffering from a lack of bureaucrats does not mean that having more would be a bad thing. So could someone who thinks this way please explain to me why having more bureaucrats is a bad thing? Raven4x4x 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

One way of looking at it; we already have a number of inactive bureaucrats (inactive in the sense they have not recently done anything needing bureaucrat rights). Nominees that clear RfA are being given admin rights in an appropriate time frame. Thus, there's no need for new bureaucrats. What argument is there for creating new bureaucrats who are going to, essentially, be inactive bureaucrats? We can never have enough admins. With bureaucrats, you can have enough and it seems we do. --Durin 03:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

(inserted after edit conflict with Durin, so there's some overlap in content)

Briefly, for every bureaucrat there is a small but non-zero probability that "something bad" will happen. It may be related to the bureaucrat; he could go insane and sysop Willy on Wheels. It could happen that someone else gains access to the bureaucrat's privileges—someone shoulder surfs his password; a miscreant installs a keylogger at a shared computer; the bureaucrat doesn't log out and his younger sibling starts messing around....

The single real power that a bureaucrat has on the English Wikipedia is the ability to create administrators. As long as admin promotions continue to happen without any major backlogs or lengthy interruptions, then there likely won't be a perceived need for new bureaucrats. (Of course, if the bureaucrats themselves started to complain about their workload, that would also create a perception of need.)

Since the ability to create new admins is potentially very dangerous, we try to keep a lid on the bureaucrat population. Being a bureaucrat doesn't do anything to make editing or Wikipedia maintenance easier, so there's much less incentive to become a bureaucrat. In other words, as long as admin promotions happen smoothly, there's no perceived problem that could be solved by creating more bureaucrats, but there is a perceived increase in risk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Like TenOfAllTrades touched on a bit, people perceive bureaucrats as having much more power than admins, and that makes then weary if giving it away when there is no real need for more bureacrats. I certainly would never oppose someone's nom because I felt we didn't need more, we might need more in the future. If I trust someone, I would have no problem with them being a b-crat. But I can certainly see where the "we have enough already" crowd is coming from. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see some fair points here, but I would say that more bureaucrats would mean more opportunity for discussion if a difficult admin nomination came up. I feel that this would outweigh the risk, which I would say is very small. If someone did start sysoping anyone and everyone, surely there would be a very quick de-sysoping going on. Raven4x4x 13:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats cannot de-sysop. Only stewards can. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are at WP:RIG. Andre (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if we need more bureaucrats, but I do think we need more stewards. With more admins, we see more conflicts between admins, and more inappropriate actions taken by hot-headed ones. Stewards are considered a voice of authority on all Wikiprojects; that combined with the power to discipline admins (since you can't effectively block an admin without desysoping him first) makes stewards a necessary moderating and rule-enforcing figure.

As an alternate solution, I think it would be a big improvement if Bureaucrats on en-wiki did have the power to desysop admins (but not other b'crats). Then their primary task would be keeping an eye on admins, especially the newer inexperienced ones (but also on the long-timers who think they're above the law...). Once that happens, we'll definitely need more bureaucrats. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally am for giving bureaucrats the ability to desysop. What if for example you went to give ABCD admin rights and you accidentally gave them to ABC... you should be able to undo it immediately. Stewards would still be differentiated in that they can promote/demote on any wiki, but point is this wiki is so large we should be able to have our bureaucrats demote and not bring in a steward who isn't even there half the time to come and do stuff... and as for this argument... Nichalp, the bureaucrat who has been the most active in promoting, recently endorsed and conominated my bureaucratic bid, saying more bureaucrats would be a good thing. I believe any well respected admin who is trustable and we know can interpret consensus should be an admin, there is no real harm to having excess bureaucrats. TenOfAllTrades makes a good point with breakdown... well what if something less dramatic happens and out 11 or so active bureaucrats go on break, its just about as likely. Then no one gets promoted... Ah, and add 'Stable' to the bureaucratic criteria. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that bureaucrats can sysop users but not de-sysop? It doesn't make sense to me. With the very high standards that new bureaucrat nominations are held under, I'd have expected them to be able to do more than just promote admins. Raven4x4x 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with Raven on this one. Voting against someone because "we don't need anymore bureaucrats" is absolute nonsense and shouldn't be entertained. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So what do you want to do about it? Discard those votes? Then what if the same people keep voting in that manner, but don't give a reason? Can they be pressed for a reason? Then can we apply the same pressure to people who vote "support" to provide a reason? Unfortunately, it's not as simple as saying "that shouldn't be allowed". - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We should assume good faith, and only discount votes when they are for bad reasons. Phil Sandifer 04:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, we should only discount votes made in bad faith. --Carnildo 04:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work—wouldn't that just result in Oppose. This candidate isn't ready for this responsibility votes? If we decide to rule out good-faith votes made for the 'wrong' reasons, it will have two effects. First, it will annoy the hell out of the people whose votes you discount. Second, they'll figure out very rapidly that they can lie about the reasons for their votes. The hoped-for end won't be achieved, and the process will be poisoned to boot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Especially since I said it first. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RFBs (Archive 40)

I am sometimes a little bit at loss with the bureaucratship self-nominations. It really seems to be a matter of anyone's guess whether we "need" more bureaucrats, and self-nominations hardly seem motivated by pity towards the overworked existing bureaucrats so much as guided by thinking of these ranks as some sort of hierarchy in the community. I would propose some sort of nomination system similar to RFA. According to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, we have 11 active ones. I never hear about them having an unmanageable backlog. If they do, let them announce that they could do with another member. My suspicion is that 11 is already more than we really need. If at some point we decide to give bureaucrats additional powers, such as usercheck, we may need more, because they will have more duties, but all the more carefully should candidates be selected. So, my suggestion is really that we recommend that before you nominate yourself for bureaucratship, you get in touch with one of the bureaucrats and inquire about their workload, do they think another bureaucrat would make sense, and would they support your nomination. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the harm is in having more since as I've said several times (nobody seems to have read anything I wrote on my RFB and apparently don't seem to care what I think) there will be a larger workload in the future that should be accomdated now rather than later, more users = more RFA's, also hopefully the devs will be able to fix the issues with renameuser which when enabled would need a constant group to work on requests as to keep minimum time between the request being made and processed. I for the life of me don't understand yours and others exabureaucratiphobia (an irrational fear of excess bureaucrats) since like RFA there shouldn't be a limit to the number of bureaucrats and I for the life of me don't see why people are afraid of electing new bureaucrats. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 10:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record the bureaucrats likely won't get checkuser rights. In a somewhat controversial move, the arbcom decided to give half of their number checkuser rights. See meta:Requests_for_permissions for the discussion. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- that's great then. checkuser was only meant as an example of a possible increased bureaucrat portfolio in the future; jtk, I am not "afraid" of bureaucrats, I simply don't see why we should elect any if we don't need them. You say that bureaucrats should be elected now because there may be an increased workload in the future. This is very well, I just don't happen to share that impression. Most of the time, bureaucrats just do 'menial work', but every now and again, a bureaucrat needs to make a controversial decision (75% 'consensuses' with many sockpuppety votes and much mudslinging). I have always been happy with our acting bureaucrats' decisions, and I like to elect bureaucrats with care, so that people may remain happy with their future decisions. For the life of me (not quite) I don't see why you must be a bureaucrat at this point, and why you seem to take it as a personal rebuke if people tell you "thanks, jtk, but we'd like to see you be an admin for some more time first, even if we thought we needed more bureaucrats". This is nothing personal, not even in the abstract sense of 'personal' current of Wikipedia. I would not have voted support in this case even if I thought your admin record was spotless. But the above suggestion was intended to be independent of the present case; I said that I would be more willing to support future candidates if they had an active bureaucrat backing up their nomination. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  - (copied from the RfB): I'm going to chip in my two cents here to this discussion, given that I've opposed the two recent RfBs based mainly on the issue above. Bureaucratship is vastly different from adminship, and parallels between the two should be taken cautiously. While adminship "isn't a big deal" (the often referred clichè by now), bureaucratship is a big deal. We only have a handful of bureaucrats (22, I think?), and all of them are highly regarded users that we have absolute trust in. While I'm not saying that we don't trust you, all of the bureaucrats (if I remember correctly from last time) had significantly more than three months of adminship under their belts and the vast majority had been on Wikipedia for more than the amount of time you have been here. You were granted admin rights August 29; it is less than three months since you were granted adminship. Time, while certainly not the sole factor to be taken into account, is a huge factor in bureaucratships. Time shows commitment to the project, and our bureaucrats should show the highest level of commitment to the project. Time allows us to adequately analyze a bureaucratship candidate, and time can often distinguish good men from great men. Bureaucratship is a big deal, and we must not let our standards slip — it is an elite position that should only be granted to those that have proven their trustworthy-ness. Those that stick with the project, through rough times and good times, often prove themselves worthy of bureaucratship. Time is the greatest test that candidates face. In addition, we must also draw on past precedents — is it really fair to apply different standards to bureaucratship candidates when there has been little change in the way bureaucrats work? Combined with the fact that there is no pressing need for more bureaucrats (though I would never oppose solely on such grounds), I must oppose your candidacy. Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 14:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is long stading practice on wikipedia that we don't do anything until we have exusted the option of doing nothing. I assume this applies to getting more buracrats.Geni 15:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the working pays off in the long run but laziness pays off now approach. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

when it comes to the manageing side it appears to work on wikipedia for the most part.Geni 20:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you can all begin your party now, I withdrew my nomination. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We haven't exusted the option of not haveing a party.Geni 21:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you if you did, it seems that there are at least a few editors who are violently opposed to me ever becoming a bureaucrat and then there's an entire group who are strongly opposed to us having any more bureaucrats ever. I don't see why we don't just remove the instructions for requesting it then if everyone is so against us ever have any more bureaucrats. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a real problem with expecting a user to edit for around a year before being made a bureaucrat. We have over 600 admins and about 20 bureaucrats. It's never been easy to become a bureaucrat and I just don't see a compelling reason why that should change. There's no backlog on RfA and username changes are often disabled. I'm puzzled by users becoming annoyed when they've only been here a few months and their RfB fails. It doesn't mean they're a bad user or admin; it just means that the community doesn't (yet) judge them to be among the 3% of admins who are promoted to bureaucrat. Carbonite | Talk 22:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I share the same feelings as Carbonite. As I stated above, time is definitely an important factor for such a big deal as bureaucratcy. RfB candidates shouldn't take those votes personally. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

yeah but should it be one that overreaches all overs and makes all other criteria irrelevant? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Trust is the criteria that overshadows all others. It's very difficult to determine trust based on a few months as an admin. Time is important because it's something that can't be inflated or distorted (unlike edit counts). I obviously don't think we should have strict time standards, such that a user who's been on Wikipedia for 366 days passes an RfB while one with 364 days fails. Since every voter has different ideas of time standards, opposition on the basis of insufficient time will decrease as the candidate's tenure increases. In general, the opposition is high when the candidate has edited for less than one year. Again, keep in mind that a candidate in an RfB is claiming to be one of the top 3% most trusted admins on Wikipedia. It takes time to prove such a claim. Carbonite | Talk 00:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is it's become more of an elite status position than one based on the interests of Wikipedia. I don't think there's any administrators I wouldn't also trust as bureaucrats, and there's no reason for people not to be promoted. I tried running for the position a year ago on a campaign of it not being a big deal, without success. Since then the situation has only worsened, and getting in is more a matter of winning a popularity contest then actually being a trusted editor. The only reason people have trouble accepting a new bureaucrat is because there's so few at present that adding new one comes across as a very "big deal". I find this in direct contradiction to the attitudes that makes wikis work so effectively in the first place. Sarge Baldy 00:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, both adminship and bureaucratship have become fairly elitist (I'm probably one of the few admins who will actually admit it) and I don't know if there's a way to reverse that trend. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

People keep saying to let the bureaucrats ask for help: Well, if you check my bureaucratic nom, you'll see Nichalp conominating, and Nichalp is a bureaucrat, that is if I recall correctly. ;-) R e dwolf24 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, the issue is simply one of time. Redwolf24, I opposed your RfB for the same reason I opposed Jtkiefer: time and nothing more. Many users have stated in this discussion their feeling that a user should be with the project a significant amount of time before being granted Bureaucratic rights, and I fully agree with that. Even if the Bureaucrats were clamoring for more colleagues (which they are not), I would still have opposed both of you, because neither of you meet my time criteria, and I will oppose any nomination that does not (for the record, I'm looking for ten months to a year). You are both great editors and great administrators, but Bureaucrats should have been with the project long enough to gain a strong sense of perspective, having observed and watched the Wiki grow and develop as they grow and develop as editors. Personally, I hope that adminship is not elitist. In my mind, we need all the good administrators we can get, so I feel that granting of administrator rights should be liberal, but that granting of Bureaucratic rights should be very conservative. Evilpheonix

To be honest, I sometimes wonder why anyone wants to become a bureaucrat. Given the amount of scrutiny and high standards they are subject to, they really can't do an awful lot more than regular admins. I really was surprised when I found out that all they can do was promote admins. It's an important job to be sure, and one requiring great responsibility, but I really do feel they should be given more to do (eg. desysopping)Raven4x4x 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been discussion of that but it hasn't gone anywhere since desysopping is extremely rare and can only be done at the order of Arbcom, Jimbo, or the almighty Wikimedia Board and only a handful of users have ever had to be desysopped. Jtkiefer

Yes, but remember Wonderfool at wiktionary? What if someone did that here? What's easier to find, a bureaucrat, who's been watching, and knows what's going on, or a steward at meta who has to go and confirm there's been abuse while it continues? Wonderfool didn't do that much damage, considering there's not even that many admins there to revert him, but there are a handful of admins here who know where all the most important MediaWiki pages are, and could easily screw up wikipedia a lot, which is why I think bureaucrats should be able to desysop, just to stop the people in mid-tantrum. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You've piqued my interest, but I can't find anywhere on Wiktionary as to what Wonderfool actually did. You're right that an admin could do an awful lot of damage, and I'd have thought it obvious that we need some way to remove those that cause problems. Please tell me that there is something to stop a rogue admin unprotecting then deleting the main page? I'd hate to think what that would do.

I also seem to remember hearing somewhere that blocked admins are able to unblock themselves. Does anyone else think this is a really bad system? Raven4x4x 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

you are talking as if we have never had a rogue admin on wikipedia. We have. They were deadmined by a developer in extreamly short order. As for deleting the front page you are aware that an admin acidentialy managed to perform a pagemove on it recenty?Geni 17:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of that, but I think I can imagine the effects. How recently was it (I've only been here since July). If you got the impression that I thought there had never been a rogue admin on wikipedia, it's because I don't know of any specific cases as I probably haven't been around long enough to run into any. That's the reason why I'm interested in this sort of thing; I'd like to know how bad the possable consequences would be so I can make up my mind on policy and the like. Raven4x4x 00:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, the Main Page move event happened because the new admin was trying to impress someone with a demo of "How easy it is to edit on Wikipedia", temporarily stepped away to answer the phone, and returned to learn that the innocent user had actually pressed the buttons to move the Main Page. The side effect was that this potential new user will NEVER edit Wikipedia again, for fear of screwing things up again. This is documented in the archives of the Main Page from last month or so. --Ancheta Wis 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have wondered the same thing for a long time now. Why on Earth would anyone want to be a bureaucrat? Becaming a bureaucray is far more difficult than becoming an admin. All you have to do to become an admin is be on Wikipedia for a few months and don't vandalise. To become a bureaucrat, OTOH, you have to become familiar with many other recurring Wikipedians, be active at being an admin, and participate in Wikipedia community functions. And what do you get for becoming a bureaucrat? The ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats. That's it. Really, nothing more. Admins, OTOH, get three powerful new toys: deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking other Wikipedians. I have asked this question before on the Help Desk, and someone said that perhaps I would want to become a steward, but I don't think I do. Becoming a steward is even harder than becoming a bureaucrat, and all you get is the ability to set arbitrary user rights. — JIP | Talk 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To help the project maybe, to be there in case more people are needed for the job especially since as it is if for some reason one or two of the few bureaucrats who stalk RFA are unavailable or god forbid leave the project either temporarily or permanently having extra is better than having too few so the question I have to ask in response is why are people so afraid of having a few more bureaucrats especially since even the staunchest critics of having more bureaucrats admit that only on a rare occasion have never really had an administrator who has gone an administrator who has completely rogue and only a few who have ever even had to be desysopped (Stevertigo's the latest) and that the chances of having a bureaucrat go rogue are tinier then the biggest troll's :). Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your reply was rather hard to parse, as the sentences seem to run on from each other. I'm not afraid of having more bureaucrats, I think there should be more of them. I just don't want to be one myself as I see it's too much of a hassle. — JIP | Talk 08:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Backlog?! (Archive 41)

I know the answer to my question is "because the 'crats didn't get around to it yet", but why is there a 2 day backlog here? It's very unusual, unless these RfAs have been extended somehow, in which case a note would be in order. If it's to wait for a consensus...then...if there isn't a consensus...-Splash^talk 05:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

because the 'crats didn't get around to it yet. Quentin Pierce 05:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have warned people several times that this would happen but nooo people still claimed that we had no use for more bureaucrats so I don't think anyone can blame me when I say that I have little sympathy for complaints about a backlog on RFA. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what happens when people refuse to vote in additional bureaucrats on the grounds that "we don't need more bureaucrats".... Seriously, it's a holiday in the US, the European b'cats are all in bed, and the Australian ones haven't really woken up yet. Give it a few hours. It was three days after my RfA closed before I was promoted. The world won't end if your sysop bit isn't flipped on instantly. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

shrug* I've said it before: our current bureaucrats are no longer the most active people at wikipedia. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Never the less, I poked Raul654 to close a few. Back to editing then! R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice when there's a bureaucrat on IRC or whatever that you can poke to close a few but it shouldn't be necessary. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Between travelling and Thanksgiving, I've had but a few minutes free in the past two days. I expect this is the same for many of the bureaucrats. Adding two or three more would decrease the average time between end of nomination and promotion by only a small margin, and no matter how many bureaucrats there are, there will always be a time in which all are busy. Two days' backlog is certainly an anomaly. — Dan | Talk 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite as passionate about this as Jtkiefer, but I do feel that if we had a few more bureaucrats there wouldn't be a time when they're all busy. Granted we'd need about 100 for that though <_<. But look at our bureaucrats, how many are still really active? About 8? R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My response to the statement that having more bureaucrats would not especially decrease the turnover time is that I disagree, I think having more bureaucrats would give us a wider range of times when someone would be on to help users who request renames (yes the devs finally got around to re-activating that) and dealing with rfa closings. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to nominate myself for bureaucratship due to this situation. I think my timezone and culture (I don't celebrate Thanksgving :-p) as well as my copious amounts of spare time will allow me to alleviate and prevent such backlogs in the future. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good luck, you've been here so long you're immune to the scourges of editcountitis and timecountitis though we are working on a cure for both. I even broke my personal rule of not voting on people I haven't personally interacted with for you since after viewing your contributions you seem like such a great editor. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see a need for more active bureaucrats. I don't get much time these days to log into WP during the week. With a 2 day backlog, I think more active bureaucrats would help ease the situation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2 days? sometime I'll tell you about trying to get something through requests for permission over at meta (it was a dark and stormy night). Ok then any volenteers?

Let me rephrase that. I meant if the backlogs continue then the situation calls for more b'crats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A two day backlog seems rather unusual. (Frex, I just looked at Kelly Martin's RFA, and there was no significant delay at all in the actual promotion (see the bureaucrat log), only somewhat over one day in informing the candidate, which would be simple omission, not backlog as such.) I suppose this demonstrates that the active bureaucrats are rather US-centred, though Christmas would be a more general "problem" in the anglophone and European world. So nominations as "holiday cover" certainly has at least some merit. The people arguing there's some more general problem than two holidays a year, though: what are you suggesting an acceptable "service level" is, and just how many people do you think need to be promoted to achieve it? At least as far this page is concerned, what we're talking about is on the order of ten edits per day, total. Given that there are 11 "active" 'crats, and 20 total, it's hard to see a "too few for the task" argument. Nor do I see any postings at WP:BN on such backlogs, which should surely be the first recourse if people are getting impatient, or are concerned that the system is falling apart. Alai 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My question to your question to the bureaucrats about how many they think is a good number is why do you think there needs to be a given number. I am starting to get tired of the same old useless rant that there has to be a concrete number since setting an inflexible number would be just setting us up for issues when the number ends up too low (which I guarantee it will be) because people are paranoid about having a few more bureaucrats. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I ask "how many?" not because I suggest there should be a fixed number (or because I felt in need of a "useless rant", but it's been known to happen), but because I think the current number is fine -- if not unduly large for the modest nature of their main task. While others, such as yourself, assert that there are self-evidently far too few. So it seems entirely reasonable to ask "so, how many would be enough, and how would we tell?" Hence my phrasing the question partly in terms of a desirable service level. At no point did I say there should be "concrete", or "inflexible" number; I'm entirely in favour of promoting on the basis of current need, and the availability of clearly suitable candidates. If you can't or won't answer the question in either terms, I don't see how you expect anyone to be convinced of the "clear need", unless they were itching to have more bureaucrats already. Alai 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As WP grows, the current problems with backlogs will be getting worse. The Wiki needs trustworthy people to take up the load. To ask that we place this increasing work load on such a few individuals is not logical or fair, to them or the community. When Jimbo made the recent appointments, it was out of the desperate need. And I forsee this thing growing exponentialy. Can you imagine when all these little, fresh faced, $100 laptop kiddies get ahold of WP? Ay Carumba, dude! Hamster Sandwich 22:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be of the confusing/ed opinion that we have enough admins and 'crats but need more of both. By which I mean that neither the admins nor the bureaucrats are so overwhelmed by their tasks that we must urgently promote all and sundry who make Requests. On the other hand, there are shortages in a few key places (eg. AfD/Old) and so we should not deny A/Bship to good candidates who could reliably help out with the various backlogs as and when they appear. The final part of my previous sentence is obviously the difficult bit. -Splash^talk 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Both Hamster Sandwich and Splash's comments, above, seem to conflate several different classes of backlog. You don't solve backlogs at RfAr, or at AfD, etc, by appointing more bureaucrats, which there are by any reasonable measure still an excess of. If the supposed numbers are being bulked out by those that are never actually accurate, maybe a good start would be for the inactive to fall on their mksysop bits, rather than simply enlarging the size of the pool, without necessarily increasing its net activity. I agree those other matters are entirely real and live issues, and by all means let us enlarge the arbcom, and continue to appoint more admins, which isn't exactly grinding to a halt as a process. Wikipedia can continue to grow as exponentially as it likes (no great crystal ball required there), and this alleged bottleneck will get by quite happily for quite some time to come, with a fairly gentle trickle of new 'crats, at most. A two day backlog about twice a year, which has yet to even make it to the appropriate noticeboard, much less any possible other means of prodding our existing Bs into performing their appointed task, does not in any way refute that. Personally I'm inclining towards supporting our current nominee, and think some of the grounds for opposition are distinctly slight; but I continue to not remotely buy the "urgency and necessity" argument. Alai 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog and I'm sure that you'll see that waiting two days for your admin rights isn't a big deal. R adiant _>|< 01:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I had to wait two days for mine so it's not a completely new situation (ok not on this project but so?).Geni 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A two day wait on this project would seem to be pretty unusual, however. When was the last time, prior to last week, that it actually occurred? I'd have considerable sympathy with someone with an ultra-close RFA left "swinging in the wind", not knowing whether they were actually going to be promoted, but equally those are the cases that might take time anyway, if the bureaucracy has to have a pow-wow with itself about it. If one's vote has clearly succeeded, or equally, if it's clearly failed, a delay in the actual promotion (or closure without same) really shouldn't be "a big deal", indeed. I'm just trying to elicit some more precise requirements from the demanders-of-more-Bs: is it their position that if there's ever a two-day backlog, that's unacceptable, and a prima facie case for urgent RFBs? Or only if this happens regularly, or if a longer delay occurs? Alai 01:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's closing (Archive 45)

I voted for four candidates (Wgfinley, Rogerd, Alex Bakharev, Sceptre; I did not vote against yet, since I didn't have chance to make bad opinions) and I am glad that three of them passed the nomination. However at my talk page Alex Bakharev notified me that he failed, and I would like to know the reason why. The rules mention "75-80%" as rough threshold, and I understand that the decision to fail was at the discretion of closing bureaucrat.

I noticed that "Articles For Deletion" are closed with (1) verdict (2) explanation of the decision in cases of not clear consensus and (3) signature. All three are missing in RFA. I believe votes for adminship are much more important and I would kindly ask to amend the FRA policy similarly, even as a matter of politeness with respect to failed candidates.

I may explain why I became particularly interested in this case. The official tally in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev is 70/23/2, which gives 70/95=0.736842105. Then I noticed that the counter of "oppose" is set to 25, so I concluded that the Bureaucrat discounted some votes. Lots of red ink also attracted my atttention, and I see that user Bonaparte was convicted for sock puppets. This must result in at least three votes discounted, not two. (Bonaparte and two proven sock puppets. The fourth one (user:yodo) was not proven. I looked into his history and see that he didn't edit a single article after casting his vote, so a malicious intent is very clear, but I don't know how wikipedia policy looks at that. It was also very funny to see "My name is Yodo. I come from POLAND." and his edit Romania article only.)

Since it was not clear who closed the vote, I looked into page history to find the bureaucrat to inform him that the tally must be corrected. And in the history I noticed that one vote was cast after the official deadline for the vote (Deadline: 00:24 January 12, Vote: 01:39, 12 January 2006 Johntex (→Alex Bakharev - Oppose)). As a result, 4 (or 5) votes ar to be discounted, rather than 2, which gives 70/93 = 0.752688172 (or 70/92= 0.760869565). Allah is wise and without doubt he has the reason to play with scales in this way.

Page history says "02:14, 12 January 2006 Francs2000 (archiving)", so I guess that user:Francs2000 was the bureaycrat that made the decision.

A am afraid that this long text may be confusing, so I am summarizing my questions:

Is it reasonable to request that bureaucrats close RFC in the same way as AFD?
Will my arithmetics change the decision of Francs2000?

My apologies for wasting your precious time, Mukadderat 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologize for wasting a bureaucrat's time. Any bureaucracy worth its salt is committed to wasting YOUR time. :)

Francs2000 is the removing bureaucrat in this case, and I imagine he will be here to discuss this, or you can leave him a message on his talk. But to answer one question, the decision has been made by a bureaucrat in good faith, is within policy guidelines, and will not be changed. Alex Bakharev may be put up for admin again in a month or later. At that time discussion concerning the validity of any voting in the new RfA may be made, before promotion or removal. In reference to manner of closing, RfA closing involves counting votes until the actual closing rather than the formal endtime, unless there is suspicioun of foul play or the post-end-time votes would significantly alter the outcome, notifying the promoted candidate and now we will probably also notify non-promoted candidates. Explanations are not standard in disputed cases but the bureaucrat is generally expected to respond if anyone has a question. Months and months ago I used to always explain my close decisions but found that this tended to encourage dissent, second-guessings and Wikilawyering. Now I also usually respond only to queries about nominations. -- Cecropia 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your two questions:

Feel free to propose a policy change with regard to the way that these things get closed. There are no guidelines at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for closing failed nominations so perhaps there should be. I made sure everything was where it should be; I apologise that edit summaries were not to your satisfaction.
No. I have to be fair to all editors, and if I take into account the alledged sockpuppet activity in the oppose section, I also have to take into account alledged sockpuppet activity in the support section. There were at least three votes under support where questions were raised with regard to their edit histories before voting, a common sign that they are sock- or meat-puppets.

I have explained at Alex Bakharev's talk page the reason for deciding that consensus was not reached, and he has since responded at my talk page to say that he accepts this reasoning. I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. -- Francs 2000

00:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to the important role of administrators and bureaucrats, I find the expressed attitude towards malicious actions troublesome. I was talking not about "alleged" sock puppets. I was talking about proven sockpuppets. With this attitude I can generate a hundred socks and kill any administrator nomination, and you will never have (Allah forbid!) a single new administrator.

Also it is disturbing that a significant person phrases his apology in a manner of insult: "feel free to propoes... edit summaries were not to your satisfaction", which I read as a polite "none of your business how I do it, as long as I do it by the book, and it is none of my business that the book is only one and half page", and which are in fact evasion of the answer. My primary complain was that there was no any explanations, rather than "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" explanations.

Your explanations at Alex Bakharev talk page also leave an upleasant impression: you write "80% was not reached", i.e., failing to indicate 75-80 guideline and making it to appear as if it was not your decision, but Allah's will.

While reading various wikipedia policies, I was amazed to see heated talks about admin abuse. I am absolutely sure that 90% of them are flames uf punished wrongdoers, but I begin to be frightened too. An openly rogue administrator is an easy target. Much more harm is done in shadowy areas of polite dodging. Mukadderat 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked into who bureaucrats are, and I see that there is only a few of them and there is a strong will to keep only few of them. In my uneducated opinion, this situation immensely increases the nessessity of transparency and accountability of the position. Which is not necessarily much increases the burden upon them, since they have only a few additional but important functions. Mukadderat 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To take last first, we are always looking to increase transparency, as in the direction to bureaucrats to discuss difficult promotions only with each other, and to have no contact with those who wish to influence a promotion except in Wikipedia space, for all to see. Bureaucrats are committed to explaining their decisions when asked civilly (not referring to your question) and not changing those decisions once made. There is no hard limit on the number of bureaucrats and, in theory, we could have dozens or hundreds, but most Wikipedians seem to feel that having a large number could lead to an increased potention for bad decisions, or even abuse. The small number of bureaucrats means that those who do the work are well known and people most Wikipedians feel comfortable with. In the case of Alex Bakharev, the Bcrat's decision not to promote took into account the socks, and even without the socks, it was still in the discretionary area. When Alex'snomination comes around again (this isn't a football tournament--losing doesn't mean forever) let's hope the action is more civil. -- Cecropia 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not questioning Bcrat's decision: I am well aware that even under most favoreable tallying Alex Bakharev's is on the lower boundary of slack threshold. I asked about changing simply because I don't know the tradition here. If not then not, I don't especially care. What bothers me is an element of dishonesty, may be unintentional. For example, you wrote that you stopped writing explanations because you "found that this tended to encourage dissent...etc." This statement is honest, and the reason is understandable. Some other person could like to always prove that they are right. But you have a different character, and your decision may be disagreable, but respected. But the statements of your colleague, mentioned in my previous post, left an impression, possibly unintentionally, that their author was unscrupulous to a degree. And I find this disturbing because he belongs to a kind of elite. History shows that power corrupts. I hope you have mechanisms to deal with this. And I hope that you think about what I wrote previously, and comment not only to the questions that have a comfortable answer. Mukadderat 09:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a profanation of the voting process when three trolls and three socks rig the vote and a bureaucrat abuses his discretion to take their side. What's the point of voting for the best wikipedians around? It's just not worth it. Trolls and socks, supported by bureaucrats, always win. I believe you, me and other editors should learn their lessons from this disgusting situation. No more voting on RfA. Let the trolls, socks, and bureaucrats have their fun. --Ghirla | talk 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know precisely what I am being accused of here. I discount a small number of votes in an RFA closing per policy, and all of a sudden there are people posting messages about vote rigging and bureaucrats taking sides with sockpuppets and trolls! Has something been done in my name that I'm not being told about??? -- Francs 2000

16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see what was going on that page, you never will. There was the side of wikipedians and the side of trolls/socks, and you chose to give credit to the latter. Good luck, bureaucrat. --Ghirla | talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what page you've been reading but it doesn't appear to be this one. I clearly pointed out above I have to be fair to all editors, and if I take into account the alledged sockpuppet activity in the oppose section, I also have to take into account alledged sockpuppet activity in the support section. There were at least three votes under support where questions were raised with regard to their edit histories before voting, a common sign that they are sock- or meat-puppets. That means I discounted all sockpuppet votes, not just the ones on the side you support as you clearly appear to be suggesting. Please remain civil, or I will refuse to answer any further questions from you. -- Francs 2000

17:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember having asked you any question at all. It was you who started asking questions. If you had read Alex's RfA carefully, you would have known that the doubts as to support votes were raised by an archtroll who is about to be banned from editing Wikipedia by ArbCom precisely for vote rigging. He stalks me and Alex for having exposed his vote frauds in the past and brought the arbitration case against him. It was demonstrated by me that the accounts questioned by him are active and long-standing editors of ru.wiki. No evidence of their sockpuppetry ever surfaced, and one of the alleged socks even responded to impertinent accusations in an angry tone. Bonny's socks, on the other hand, were exposed and proven by Kelly Martin using a checkuser procedure. If you see no difference between AndriyK's habitual trolling and the checkuser procedure performed by an arbitrator, I can't help you there. --Ghirla | talk 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's wrap-up time. This was a very stressful nomination, one of the most convoluted nominations I can recall. Francs took it on and made his decision in good faith. Whether or not he (or anyone) could have done it better is a moot point now. It was within guidelines. The problem was not with Francs, or with the nominee, or with the process, or with Wikipedia in general. There are something close to 800 people are admins, almost all made within the last 2-1/2 or so years, and the bureaucrat system has worked quite well, with the occasional inevitable flare-up. It is unfair (and rather insulting, absent some very specific knowledge) to accuse Francs of siding with the socks. Even with the provable socks eliminated, the nomination was still in the area of Bcrat discretion. I myself hadn't formed an opinion of the nomination (though I'd followed it somewhat) and when Francs made the decision, I didn't have to. If there was a problem, it was that some Wikipedians decided to make war over this nomination--there were evidentally passions that had little to do with the nominee's fitness or non-fitness. If anything could be "reformed," it would be the tendency of some to carry over feelings of anger and spite into the process. If there were a way to deal with that, I'd like to know about it. But that's why we have Bcrats instead of strict numbers.

OK. I'm just trying to understand how the system works. If you bureaucrats discount some votes only because a troll questioned them, one can rig up any vote by writing hysterically in red link under it: "Sockpuppetry is suspected in this vote; chekuser strongly requested, etc", without proceeding to request the actual check. Say, User:Jimbo Wales casts a vote tomorrow, and I will question it like this - would you dismiss it as a falsification? --Ghirla | talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And so, in less than a month, Alex Bakharev's nomination can come up again. I will be watching, as will many others. Let's all mellow out until then. -- Cecropia 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To comment on "admin abuse," we have greatly increased the number of admins and ease of getting adminship. There are 700-some admins, and I believe about half of those were made just in 2005. The process used to be much tighter in that a total vote for admin of more than 40 or 50 votes (pro and con) was rare. Now they are common and they can go well over 100 votes. There were typically maybe 5-10 nominations at any one time, and self-noms were looked upon with disfavor by many. Now there are many self-noms and around 20 nominations going at any one time. Efforts to reign that in are viewed as "clubby" or "elitist" by many. I am taking no position on these since it is up to the community to set the standards, and the standards now are liberal. What we have lost is that when there were fewer nominations at any one time and a relatively smaller number of "regulars" voting each nomination was more carefully looked at. Now we have a broader "democracy" in voting but also more admin problems. Reasonably speaking, we should have a better way of dealing with rogue admins, but that is beyond what can be done here. -- Cecropia 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Mukadderat, I am sorry that my earlier response was not satisfactory. I answered your two summary questions as well as I could, and closed with a statement that Alex himself is fine with the reasoning given behind the decision to close. What would you like me to say? -- Francs 2000 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reclusing from this discussion, since I see much uglier things are happening around this page. Still, I find it alarming that you failed to understand my concerns. Mukadderat 18:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree that "much harm is done in shadowy areas of polite dodging" and believe that the newly-promoted bureaucrat could have started his term by doing something more positive than extending his hand to inveterate trolls and proven sockpuppets. His closing action left a sour aftertaste, especially after he alleged that some support votes should be somehow discredited. The guy seems to see no difference between Bonny's socks and well-established users from ru.wikipedia, who had been editing en.wiki when neither me nor Alex were anywhere around. IMHO his closing demonstrated contempt for all those great wikipedians who voted in support and encouraged the trolls and socks who disrupted the nomination to continue their activity in future nominations, as it ultimately results in success. I formerly thought that admin standard was too lax, but actually the quality of bureaucrats is not any better. Or perhaps the former proceeds from the latter. --Ghirla | talk 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into the area of personal attacks. What is this all about? A nomination that could have gone either way was closed by one of the Bcrats. Enormous verbiage has been placed here and the decision was viewed by many and chewed over and over. I am personally very disturbed by the increasing lack of civility in some of the nominations, and that is certainly true in Alex's nomination. Read back the many archives of RfA talk and you will find that, when asked, the vast majority of the community trusts the bureaucrats. It is bad policy in any system to try to layer on rules to meet complaints about one, or even a few, discretionary actions. Suppose new rules are put in and the results are still not to your satisfaction? Shall we continue to tweak and twiddle the rules until they produce the result you want?

Now you allege that [Francs2000] "seems to see no difference between Bonny's socks and well-established users from ru.wikipedia, who had been editing en.wiki when neither me nor Alex were anywhere around." It is not fair for you to expect a functionary at en.wikipedia to know the users and internal politics of ru.wikipedia. To say that he "extend[ed] his hand to inveterate trolls and proven sockpuppets" and that "expressed [...] contempt" is out of line. You should assume some good faith. -- Cecropia 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to explain that I do not have any problems with Francs or his actions on my RfA. He acted within his discretion and with a good faith. I do not have any problems with his announcement on my talk page and find it quite polite and to the point. On the other hand, I feel that the rules and the guidelines are wrong. There should be a single number for the threshold (either 75% or 80%), not the current 75-80%, as it put to much pressure on the closing bureaucrat, who, in the case like mine, has to single-handily make a decision that a hundred people hotly argued during a week. I feel also it is good idea to require the closing bureaucrat to put a few words in the closing statement including the explanation which votes were discarded and why and the final tally. It might be a worth to protect the RfA after the closing, as in my case it became a subject of a revert war. Once again it is not a criticism of Franc2000 but the current rules and practices. abakharev 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that, however placing each vote disregarded and why in the edit summary is impractical - the edit summary does not allow enough characters to do that in some cases. -- Francs 2000

22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for misunderstanding. I meant that there would be nice to ask the closing bureaucrat to add a short note to the RfA. Like:

At the closing time, the vote was xx/yy/zz that gives the candidate x1% support, after discarding the proven sockpupeet the vote became xx1/yy1/zz1 that gives the candidate x2% support. There were a few suspicious votes that may be of sockpupeets on both side of the vote. Discounting them, may change the vote from x3% to x4%. After closing time there were z votes, all of the oppose, that may indicate that the community opinion of the candidate may be more negative that seen from the vote. Taking into the account this, and an unusual amount of tension during the voting, I decide that the higher limit of the threshold for the consensus should be used that was never reached by any way to count the votes. Thus, I declare the RfA as failed. It does not require much time but saves many people the task to do the math themselves and answered many questions. I think it is a good idea to insert something like this into the rules. abakharev 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bakharev, this is a matter of some discretion. Francs judged your nomination as he did, in good faith as we have both acknowledged, and used his best judgment. And since you are OK with that, I don't think we need to discuss that further at this point. However, the issue is not a hard number, so no hard number can be stated. The standard here is and always has been consensus. If we could have a hard number, promotions could be done by a bot and all the bureaucrats, myself included, could go back to an honest non-living of editing, or be put out in the grassy pasture and trade tales of glory days.

In a contentious nomination, the bureaucrat is always expected to be ready to answer civil questions about his/her decision. If this has not been done; i.e., if a Bcrat has been approached and does not respond, this is clearly outside of policy. As to "too much pressure on the bureaucrat"--nonsense! Any management functionary must be able to deal with pressure.

As to the issue of a "hard number," the nature of votes is too variable and subjective. There have been some 500 or so promotions just in the last two years, and we shouldn't identify an occasional strain on the system as an indication that it is broken. -- Cecropia 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would still prefer to have a hard number as a recommended threshold, with a bureaucrat's discretion to alter the decision if there is a clear-cut reason to do so. Alternatively, there might be indications in the guidelines as when to have 75% and when to have 80%. The number of editors of wikipedia doubles every year. I assume this also the case with the number of admins, bureacrats and RfAs. The system that worked for 1 RfA per week might not work that well for for a few RfAs per day. abakharev 23:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There are too many variables. The more precise you make the instructions, the more fights there will be. People make the decisions and people make the instructions. The same fallability applies to both. And if you were to give a hard number "with exceptions" you're in the same boat. Suppose you split the difference and say "77.5% is the hard number," then what's the discretion? +/- 2%? 2-1/2%, 3%. Right back where we started, or worse. -- Cecropia 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, currently the guidelines tell (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support). That means that the discreetion is not limited to 75-80 range, just there should be reasons to go outside the range. Similarly, the proposed discreeton should be proportional to the cited reason to modify the threshold. E.g., if a canidate run a paid advertisemnt on Fox News accusing Wikipedia of supporting Al Qaida and urging all people to vote for his nomination, or if there suspected a massive vote fraud, then even a near 100% support vote can be ignored, if one of a voters is suspected in e.g. sockpupetery, than the adjustment should be less than a vote, etc. abakharev 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bureauclosing: Second attempt

I am very sorry that the discussion veered in the direction I did not intend. Also I am a bit offended by the remark "decided to make war over this nomination". If you read from the beginning, it started simply from curiosity how things work. The answers were unsatisfactory for me; I explained why; bureaucrats chose to ignore my concerns; I decided not to go further, since I basically agreed that at the moment this is not the most serious problem with policies and processes. But I see some people went into actual questioning on the vote, which was not my intention.

Therefore let us forget about the vote and the tally; I am repeating: I never challenged the decision. Therefore let me restate my TWO (only) concerns, with an addition what kind of answer I would like to see instead what I have seen.

When I asked: "Is it reasonable to request that bureaucrats close RFC in the same way as AFD?" I was answered: "Feel free to propose a policy change with regard to the way that these things get closed." In the whole context I read it: "I feel good the way it is. Go fill forms in triplicate, and we shall talk." Because in fact, what I did was exactly a very clear policy proposal, and in the proper place too: the talk page for the page that defines the RFA process. What I expected is one of : "No, you suggestion is silly"/"It is being discussed"/"It was rejected"/"It has merits; please state it formally according to our rules <btw, what are the rules of policy change proposals?>"
I was told: "I have explained at Alex Bakharev's talk page". A looked at this explanation and found it deficient: it said "... because ...an 80% consensus was still not reached". I find this misleading, because it is phrased as if 80% is an ironclad rule, rather than Bcrat's decision (which I don't question). I may well believe this was not done in a deliberate attempt to mislead the nominee (hand washing). But I am worried that no one seem to understand this my concern: if someone makes a decision within a slack of the rule, they must say loud and clear "this was my decision, within my rights" or "with respect to this process I decided to use the 80% threshold as my guideline [always / in your case]".

I hope this clarifies my concerns. Mukadderat 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the bureaucrat's decision to apply 80% threshold when the socks wanted just that. He must live with this conscience and meet eternal judgement someday :) --Ghirla | talk 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "in the same way as they close AFD"? As far as I understand it there are no hard and fast rules for closing AFD discussions either so I don't understand your concern. I closed the nomination as prescribed by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and I personally don't see a problem with the way it was closed. I have explained to several people my reasoning for dismissing certain votes, I have been accused of vote rigging, siding with trolls and allowing sockpuppets to proliferate and to be honest, I'm getting fed up with this subject being brought up yet again.
- In the original post I wrote: "Articles For Deletion" are closed with (1) verdict (2) explanation of the decision in cases of not clear consensus and (3) signature. As I see it now, it is not a policy, but rather a good tradition. I suggest to make it into policy both for afd and rfa. Mukadderat 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If 80% was an ironclad rule we would have no need for bureaucrats. I closed it at my own discretion based on criteria already explained in triplicate to several people.
- I am not questioning this (and I am saying this for 4th time). I am questioning your weaselish way of explanation in Alex user talk page. (Sorry for this insulting formulation; I stated it twice in different, more polite ways, but it looks like I have a poor command of English, since you are every time answering the question I did not ask). Mukadderat 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I find the statement He must live with this conscience and meet eternal judgement someday extremely offensive and I refuse to answer any further questions with regard to this issue. It's been done, it'll come up again very soon and when it does I wish Alex every success in becoming an admin. Thank you. -- Francs2000 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that you are pledging not to answer User:Ghirlandajo, since you warned him about his improper behavior. I believe my two questions were stated reasonably.
Since User:Francs2000 is obviously frustrated by vigorous, but improper way of defence by Alex's friends, I no longer insist him to answer me. But I would really like to know an opinion of some other admin, whether my suggestion about updating the policy: Votes in various pages must be closed with (1) verdict (2) explanation of the decision in cases of not clear consensus and (3) signature. Mukadderat 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It is important not to reduce it to a numeric algorithm which a bot can simulate. The point is to remain transparent so that humans can stay on top of the situation. Otherwise you will get coordinated attacks by bots which can game an algorithmic system. What you are espousing is a conversation between human 'crats and human contributors, each playing their role. That is division of labor and balance of powers. That's Good, in my opinion. But the trick is not to un-earth defensive behavior. That tends to reduce communication and harden positions. That's Bad, in my opinion. That said, please note that User:Francs2000 is properly playing his role, in my opinion. In other words, I must disagree with the wording "must" in any policy. That simply allows someone to game the systems by forcing humans to behave like bots. --Ancheta Wis 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RfB (Archive 49)

So, it's kinda like a middle school dance. Everybody's waiting on the sides of the basketball court while cheezy music plays. But when one person finally steps out, seems like everyone else hops forward. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should elect bureaucrats like we do Stewards. Have a bunch of candidates run all at once, and promote the top vote getters. NoSeptember ^talk 13:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the system ain't broke, so no need to change it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you were the one saying we should have a basketball shoot-out to pick our bureaucrats :-), or did I misread your comment? ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you did, he was talking about a dance on a basketball court, not a basketball game. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, from the perspective of one of the candidates, I didn't "wait" for anyone to submit a RfB first; I had already given the choice much thought and already began preparing the statement. However, ZScout's nomination beat me to it, and Jtkiefer immediately followed. I decided to wait another day or two before submitting, and it was coincidence that Essjay submitted a RfB prior to mine. If no one else had submitted one, I would have still gone ahead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 is no longer a bureaucrat (Archive 50)

I am no longer a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia.

During the AzaToth RfA I made an error when I closed a discussion early because I forgot the clocks had gone forward the night before, and I was no longer working at UTC but at UTC+1. Believing this to be a fairly minor error I immediately apologised on the bureaucrats' noticeboard and asked for advice from others as to the best action to take. A can of worms was then opened in which I was heavily criticised, my judgement was called into question and I received emails and a message on my talk page informing me that I was no longer trusted as a bureaucrat. This is only partly why I have stood down.

When the stress of Wikipedia started exceeding the stress of paid employment I did what I always did in the past and went on Wikibreak because real life is more important. I then received more criticism telling me that as a bureaucrat going on Wikibreak at that point was an error in judgement. This is why I have handed in my bureaucratship, because real life takes priority. I cannot be tied down to a project where my real life is effected by the levels of stress the project is producing, and when I am criticised for placing my livelihood and my family as a priority over Wikipedia, that's when I know I'm in the wrong place.

I don't know if I will continue to participate in future RfAs. I have withdrawn my opposition from current RfB nominations because my judgement is no longer trusted. -- Francs 2000 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, don't they? One can be forgiven if he makes mistakes. Don't get yourself so guilty over this matter. However, I have to respect your decision. All the best to your real life activities and you will still be a good admin and editor. ;) --Ter e nc e Ong 13:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you some day can return to be a bureaucrat. _→AzaToth 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Also sorry to hear that. I think your error was minor and not a resigning matter, but since I do trust your judgement I can hardly call into question your judgement on this matter! I hope you stick around as an editor and admin. --kingboyk 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you are resigning as a bureaucrat but I agree with the previous comments that this was a minor error (and, speaking for myself, calls into question the judgement of those who jumped all over you about this). I wish you the best and hope this doesn't sour you on Wikipedia as a whole.--Alabamaboy 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering they are 1 million+ users, 800+ admins and only 8 bureaucrats... may I be bold enough to ask you to reconsider if your resignation is not accepted as yet? --h y dka t 14:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry to see the person who started my talkpage so stressed. Cheer up, Francs2000, I hope other activities will make you feel better. Conscious 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course real life comes first - anyone who says otherwise is frankly nuts. Taking a wikibreak to defuse a period of wikistress strikes me as exactly the right thing to do. Don't worry - most of us still trust you. (Having said that, a brief explanation of why AzaToth's RFA was unsuccessful would not go amiss, though. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that it would have been quite unusual for it to have succeeded, but that does not mean that an explanation is not in order when one is requested - just point me at it if it already exists.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you have decided to resign, but you've got your priorities exactly right. Life (family, friends, work (in that order)) trumps Wikipedia. FWIW, I think the math error was more of a big deal in this RfA than the slightly early close. But both are miniscule in my view... Here's hoping everything works out for you whatever you choose to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As the one who left the comment on you talk page, I hope that you saw that yesterday I withdrew my statement about my trust being misplaced and explained what the basis of the original statement was. I've also mentioned on your talk page and in discussions elsewhere comments stating that it was unfortuneate that your relatively small mistakes were magnified so much in the course of the discussion regarding the controversy. I also said I respected your decision to absent yourself from the discussion. So I am going to take at face value the note you left on my talk page that this is not about anything I have said and is indeed about prioritizing your life. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs, I hope you reconsider. What you did was a very small mistake, and what was too blame was an excessive zeal of one or two supporters of that RfA which could not pass in anyway. You are right in all you say above. Please reconsider. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs, if you don't want bear the Wikistress involved at RfA then it is not unreasonable to withdraw. Unfortunately, while most bureaucrat action is routine, it is bound to involve conflict from time to time; however, please put out of your mind the concept that your are "not trusted" at Wikipedia. I see nothing at all to back up that assumption. -- Cecropia 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider too, though the last thing I'd want would be if you were to feel further pressured by such calls. I see absolutely no reason at all why 'crats shouldn't be as entitled to wikibreaks as anyone else; or to going on a 'crat-break, as quite manifestly this is a right that many of the corps are even now exercising! If by some strange chance all of our active bureaucrats go on break, and none of the inactives return to duty, then we can worry about the urgency of the situation. Alai 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this to be a very minor error. In fact, I was rather annoyed by the fact that MediaWiki does not yet have an option to automatically adjust DST for those who live in countries which observe it. I'd ask you to reconsider your resignation, since you always seemed to be one of the most level-headed of all admins and bureaucrats, for that matter, to me; I can understand if the stress has become too much for you, though. (You wouldn't believe the amount of stress I currently endure in real life — in comparison, Wikipedia is like a vacation to me. =]) Cheers, —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Nightstallion's comment. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Lar's comment. Wikipedia is after all a volunteer project, which is dependent on the volunteers being able to donate the time they are willing and able to donate. You may be willing to spend more time in Wiki, but sometimes, you just can't, and it is perfectly appropriate to do so. In fact, it is the most reasonable thing to do, as you then are able to come back to your duties in better shape, without the stress polluting your mind. I, for one, still trust your judgment, and I urge you to reconsider your withdrawal. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As above - I don't think that either a minor error nor the issue of Wikibreak are matters upon which your bureaucratship should hinge. If you want to continue as a b'crat, then please do continue. If you think it isn't worth the stress, then please don't feel like you are obliged to remain. As for the Wikibreak - b'crats go on Wikibreaks like everyone else. It's a non-issue, regardless of what people think. Guettarda 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sakes it was a clock error! I blame the time council for this. Francs, you still have my trust. Shame on them. Shame on them all! (it was a CLOCK error:) --Jay(Reply) 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to take a simple error so hard, Franks2000. The only people who are perfect and don't make mistakes are those who don't get up in the morning. Your's was a simple mistake and easily explained, understood and forgiven. Please continue. The error was just a drop in the bucket of the rubble that ensued and that you were not at all responsible for. I'm convinced it would have ensued anyway which is why I've proposed to clarify the language on the process to sysop someone (i.e., to help preventing such confrontations going forward). It would really be too bad to see someone good and dedicated step down over this. That would not make the Pedia better. Please reconsider and continue if the error and needed breaks from time to time are the only reason you want to step down. Everyone has other commitments and everyone needs breaks and semi-breaks at times. Just because you became a crat doesn't remove them and I don't think anyone would expect it would. It would be great if you continued on as a crat. --Mmounties (Talk)

05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have allowed a small time-based calculation affect you so much. As bureaucrat/admin people throw a lot at you and you have to deal with the situation as per your conscience. Since you believed you were right, you should have politely replied to the accusations and ignored it any further. My suggestion to you is to go on a wikibreak and forget about this incident, and you should feel a lot better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs: Have you simply abandonded Bureaucratic responsibilty, or have you formally asked a steward to remove your tag? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's resigned. Sorry that you feel guilty for what you did Francs, you are one of the best admins we have around here, and that error you made was minute, human, and ultimately of no real consequence or harm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that sentiment...without any intention of insulting those that were impacted.--MONGO 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs' resignation is a principled action, which does honor to the position. Francs, thank you for your services as a respected member of the community. --Ancheta Wis 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential problem brewing (Archive 50)

Recent events on RfA/RfB have resulted in the resignation of two bureaucrats. Losing anyone under such circumstances is distinctly regrettable. In particular, I would like to note that Cecropia's resignation as a bureaucrat has left a gaping hole with huge shoes to fill. Some may be aware (most probably are not) that Cecropia has been by far the most active bureaucrat. Over the last year, he has performed just over 50% of all promotions. The next most active bureaucrat (Nichalp) has performed just 12%. While it is true that some promotions might have been done by other bureaucrats had Cecropia not gotten to them, the fact is that a huge amount of effort available to us by Cecropia's helpfulness is now gone.

The last several RfBs have frequently seen people vote in opposition because of the perception that we don't need more bureaucrats. That is most definitely not the case anymore. Over the last year, 14 other bureaucrats did less promotions than Cecropia by himself. If the other bureaucrats do not step up their activity level, then we're in need of a dozen or more new bureaucrats.

Let's not put forth candidates that are weak. But, let's find strong candidates who are willing to do this thankless job, and will clearly pass standards people have for RfB. 90% is a difficult level of approval to meet. Let's not drag people before RfB that are not ready, and are not likely to easily pass. We don't want to turn this period into something terribly ugly. We need to work through it and move forward gracefully. and before anyone asks, no I will not run for bureaucrat as I don't pass my own standards...in particular being an admin for a year. I've still six months to go --Durin 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that we do not need more B'crats is still valid. If the b'crats we have bothered to step up, then it will become evident that more are not needed. The potential workload is easily managable if the moderately active b'crats were willing to spread the work. If they aren't willing to do the very narrowly assigned task the community has entrusted in them, then they need to be de'b'crated. Then, and only then, may we need more b'crats. Until that time, despite the gargantuan hole left in Cecropia's wake, my standards remain unchanged. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the bureaucrats that we have now are doing as much as they can. We don't know. I've placed requests with the next four most active bureaucrats (Nichalp, Rdsmith4, UninvitedCompany, and Raul654) to step up their work in this area. They are the only ones with 20 or more promotions in the last year other than Cecropia. Personally, I think we burned Cecropia out. Heaving heavier burdens onto the shoulders of the remaining bureaucrats is probably not the best solution. In my opinion, it is at best a stop gap. Also note that in the last year the rate of admin promotions has trended up about 70%. Further, 81 of the last 100 promotions were done by Cecropia. --Durin 19:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If all the b'crats would bother to do their jobs, we wouldn't be talking. But lets say we can convince at least seven b'crats to be, well, b'crats. Two promotions a day is not too much to ask for, no? That's fourteen a day amongst the lot, assuming perfect consistency - that is (ignoring withdrawn and speedy-removed pile-on noms) 98 a week. Right now, there fifteen active RfAs. Fifteen. The need just does not exist at the moment, and the fifteen that are there now, across seven days, could easily be handeled by one b'crat. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes there aren't 2 a day to promote, much less for each b'crat. Every time I check, an RfA is about 3 hours from p-hour, but when I get back to it it's gone :\ — Ilyan e p (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there's a perfect solution for that. Just log on 3 hours late everyday.;-) —Encephalon 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Durin, have you started thinking about candidate criteria, the way you have for Adminship? Your admin candidates sail through precisely because they tend to be so well suited. Perhaps some further thinking/discussion about criteria by you and others might be useful? (and as a PS I'd support your RfB in a second, if and when (in 6 months...?) you decided to stand) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought about? Yes. Done much yet? No. What little I've done is here. I think that whatever measures I came up with would have a lot of similarity to the measures that I apply in nominating someone for RfA. The reviews I do for them take a minimum of two hours in large part because I check literally hundreds of edits. I think this would have to be the case as well for any bureaucrat candidate I put forth. That aside, I'm not the most successful RfA nominator. Since June 27, 2005 there have been 18 nominators with 3 or more noms that have had all of their nominations succeed. Of those, five had a higher percentage of support votes than my nominations. They are User:Cyberjunkie (3 noms, 99.21% support), User:Sjakkalle (3 noms, 98.55% support), User:Nichalp (3 noms, 98.43% support), User:Bluemoose (7 noms, 97.27% support), and User:Jfdwolff (3 noms, 97.25% support). They might be better suited to determining good criteria for RfB nominations. --Durin 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we run to prop it up, why don't we breathe in and wait to see if the sky is, in fact, falling? Cecropia is an enormous loss, but we simply don't know ahead of time how things are going to. As they say on financial products in the UK, "past performance is not necessarily any guide to the future". -Splash^talk 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Durin states that "While it is true that some promotions might have been done by other bureaucrats had Cecropia not gotten to them[...]". I think it's pretty self-evident that all of them would have been by other BCs. This "potential problem" argument ignores the actual workload involved (or else, is insisting on a very high "service level" of promotion speediness, as per the howls of outrage at a short interlude last Thanksgiving). The "dozen or more" figure is accurate only if a) no existing BC does a stroke more BC work, and b) we work hard to select only new BCs who similarly, solemnly promise not to promote more than a person a fortnight each, and adhere rigidly to such an ethic. i.e., it's not reasonable in the least.

Let's worry about this as an issue if either such complaints happen in practice, or more seriously, if existing BCs indicate it's a problem as regards the burden on them. Alai 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(to everyone, not just Alai) In the very section title I noted this is a potential problem. I didn't say that it is in fact a problem. It behooves us to anticipate potential problems and have solutions ready if the problem becomes significant. Scrambling at the last moment to find somebody willing to do promotions might not yield the best bureaucrat candidate(s). The crux of the debate here seems to be, on one side, that the existing bureaucrats are ready and willing to respond to the increased demands on their time. On the other side, that the existing bureaucrats have already demonstrated their time capacity for promotions over the last year. There's no hard and firm answers here. I readily grant both sides have good points, and never meant to imply that the sky is falling and we must do something right now or else. I meant to state that there is a potential problem and that we should work methodically in addressing the issue.
As a related issue, I would like to point out that a number of people get quite upset when an RfA is closed early. It is precisely for this reason that I've taken great pains to correct the end times and dates of RfAs over the last many months. On the other side of this, some people have expressed concern when RfAs aren't closed in a timely manner after their end times have passed. Certainly there are less complaints about this issue than early closes, but it too is an issue. For example, there's been occasional debate about whether a vote counts when it's past the close time but not yet closed. In sum, the timeliness of closings is important. Cecropia's done a masterful job of keeping such debates to a minimum. So, it is quite true that some of the RfAs that Cecropia closed would most likely have been closed on time by another bureaucrat...but it is, in my opinion, unlikely that they all would be. The proof for that being that Cecropia has usually gotten to them first, meaning the other bureaucrats have not been as on top of it as Cecropia has been. If other bureaucrats do not step up their activity levels, we will see a rise in such debates.
Much as it might be a pain to collect the data, I think I may begin collecting data on the timeliness of RfA closings. This would at least help to clarify whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed or not. The first piece of data (and pretty worthless in isolation); the first promotion done after Cecropia stepped down was 7 hours late. Cecropia's last promotion; 1 hour late. --Durin 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

- The argument that 'it's a potential problem, therefore we should do something' is only sound if the "problem" outcome is either more likely, or more serious, than possible difficulties with the "solution". I think I've argued why I don't think it's at all likely: if people disagree, a first step in addressing the issue should be demonstrating that the existing bureaucrats are not happy to do more promotions, etc -- say, by asking them. Or that in practice "service levels" are dropping below what the community is happy with. That first of all requires determining what people are demanding in that respect. Who said anything about "on time"? What I said is that they'd have been closed. As "on time" isn't really defined, it's begging the question. Let's bear in mind that "backlogs" are generally measured in days, weeks, or months: talk of promotions being "late" by a matter of hours should be kept in that perspective. (Earliness is a separate issue, and indeed an unrelated one.) If late closure is thought to be having a distorting effect on outcomes, or people's perceptions thereof, then allow non-BC "clerking" closures (to further voting, pending BC action on the promotion itself).
- As for the potential problems with having too many: I think those are sufficiently clear that I won't bother to enumerate them at this point. Certainly I think they're more serious than people complaining that their bits weren't set quite soon enough. Alai 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of bureaucrats (Archive 50)

To add some (possibly unrelated) numbers to the discussion whether we need more bureaucrats, here's the number of bureaucrats on the largest ten Wikipedias (from Special:Listusers):

en	de	es	it	fr	ja	nl	pl	pt	sv
21	2	63	4	6	3	3	6	3	4

On the German Wikipedia, one of the only two bureaucrats performed all of the last 100 promotions. Does anybody know why the Spanish Wikipedia has so many bureaucrats? The recent promotions I see there give bureaucrat and sysop powers at the same time, but I can't really read all the related policy pages. Kusma (討論) 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All active admins can be bureaucrats on eswiki. -Splash^talk 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If we only have 21 bureaucrats on en, then why is there persistant voting on RFB's saying we don't need anymore. It's a little absurd to me. I never looked up the # of bureaucrats we had but that's a really low number compared to the number I thought we had. IMO, I think we do need more. Moe ε 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely absurd and ones where that's the only oppose reason should just be discounted by the closing person since it's a fairly invalid reason to oppose. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look up one thread to see why it is a decidedly valid reason to oppose. These numbers mean nothing compared to the current and potential reality our existing b'crats need to deal with. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your by far in the minority as far as opinions as to the number of needed bureaucrats is concerned. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging by what? And even if so, so what? Correct and incorrect have nothing to do with majority. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Count me in this alleged minority too. We keep getting these essentially circular arguments that because 20 people don't evenly divide between them a task -- that realistically it'd take one person to do -- it's clearly actually impossible to do it properly with less than 30. Add a few more if you want closure to be consistently relatively rapid, and for "holiday cover" (and to facilitate this consultation thing we keep hearing so much about). De-BC the entirely inactive ones, and monitor how we do with a mere dozen for a while. The argument that we need lots more, now, is applying the precautionary principle entirely backwards. Alai 14:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't perform any particularly time-sensitive or crucial tasks, so we really only need two or three active ones; the entire b'crat workload is a few promotions and a few name changes daily. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA/RfB promotions are particularly time sensitive, as we've seen from the frequent debates about early closings and the less frequent (but still present) concerns over late closings. --Durin 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's certainly been debates, but I'd judge that more as evidence of captiousness than of a genuine problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that Cecropia managed to do over 50% promotions makes it clear that two bureaucrats (as active as him) could do all the work. (btw, thank you Cecropia for all the work you've done!) Conscious 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I define a problem in this case as when significant objections are raised. Significant objections are raised frequently enough, in my opinion, to show that timeliness is an issue. I don't think we need to deride the objections of some people in order to gain a better understanding of whether there is a problem or not. --Durin 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If the German Wiki can get by with 2 then 20 ought to be sufficient here. Marskell 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Methinks the point is that we don't have 20. We have a couple of active ones, several semi-active ones and quite a few inactive ones. That's very different. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point Sam Korn. We can get by with 2-3 b'crats but what happens when they become inactive like the rest of them? Why can't we appoint outstandingly great admins to b'crat status so when the others leave, we have more? I don't see why great users like Titoxd and others have cannot have b'crat status when the are fully capable of the job. Moe ε 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because we don't nee-- oh wait. Often people find anything to nitpick on, or expect the applicant to have a lot of experience e.g. more than a year as an admin. Problem is that these two are often mutually exclusive in practice. Anyone who's been around that long will have one or two bad things to his/her name, and anyone who doesn't have one or two black marks usually hasn't been here that long. Some exceptions to that rule are those incredibly saint-like people such as almost everyone on the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I leave for a day and get my name thrown into the mix... sigh... the thing is, bureaucrats should be highly trusted users because they are responsible for promoting adminstrators; if a bureaucrat is not trusted, that "stain", to call it that, is transferred to the promotions he does, tainting them. Perhaps I'm capable, right, but I won't try again until I have at least one year here, ideally at least a year as an admin, and/or someone drags me down to it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think that everyone on the arbcom in saint-like. Nobody can be absolutly perfect. (Except Jimbo :-D) But seriously, if a user can be trusted with the admin tools and are well-liked within the community, they should be able to handle being a b'crat. But what is bureaucratship but more than a couple more tools? I just looked it up and the actual stats on b'crats are as follows:

14 are active
4 semi-active
1 on wikibreak
2 recently left (Cecropia and Francs2000)

Moe ε 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I make that 10 active on either promotions or renames, and 3 semi-active. And the 7 "inactives", most of whom are active as editors and admins, and yet whom it's assumed will never again take a BC action, even in the unlikely event that the other 13 somehow totally flake out. I don't take this seriously, and won't until such time as they declare it to be so, they are de-BC'd, or events make it clear that this is the case. To those who think that 20 aren't enough: just how many would be? Durin's "another 12" seems very strange to me, but I'll give him at least this much: he's one of the few who demand more, that's even attempted to quantify this. Alai 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need 12 more. I'm pointing out that that is one way of looking at the workload that Cecropia took upon himself, and one way of potentially quantifying what is now missing from the bureaucrat pool...just one way.

Something that I think is being missed here is the human element of our bureaucrats. They are, after all, just people. They have likes, dislikes, demands on their time, stresses, etc. Can one bureaucrat handle all of the promotions? I think so. Cecropia certainly demonstrated that. But maybe they don't want to spend all of their available wikitime doing promotions. Maybe they want to help in this area some, but not have it be their main focus. That doesn't make them less of a good choice as a bureaucrat. We don't have to have supermen like Cecropia in order to make the bureaucrat pool work. Insisting that the current bureaucrat pool be considerably more active in promotions might not be the right answer; we could cause these bureaucrats to burn-out on promotions, and that's good for nobody. A bureaucrat who does on promotion a month is doing the job they were promoted to do. Sure, it'd be nice to see them more active in promotions. But, there's no job criteria that states "thou must promote at least two candidates a week else lose bureaucrat flag". Wikipedia is, by definition, a communal effort. We work together as a team. Don't despise a bureaucrat because they don't promote frequently. Instead, thank them for the efforts they have made. Every little bit helps. --Durin 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

- One a quarter might be a good plan, though, no? The above is continuing to overstate the actual workload involved (as distinct from the responsibility and the possible grief). I'm fighting the urge to refute point-by-point, but in fact there's no workload analysis here, just a lot of loaded language making reference to it. If you're going to argue that we must have enough BCs even if they all only promote one a month, we'll need about 60 -- and that makes no guarantees about how soon said closures will be after the closing time, which is by any statistical analysis going to be shorter and more consistent if you have a small number of regularly active BCs, than a large number happening by on an entirely ad hoc basis. (I'm not suggesting you are arguing for 60, I'm just pointing there's no basis to conclude any number greater than the present one is warranted, either.) Alai 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The evaluation of how much workload there is can only be gauged by the capacity/willingness of the current pool to do that work. Let's say we agree the work load is infinitesimally small. If you have no bureaucrats willing to do that work, the infinitesimally small becomes infinitely large. Thus, any evaluation of the amount of work that needs to be done is irrelvant without considering the amount of work that the current pool of bureaucrats is willing to do.
You know guys, all I'm saying is there might be a problem and gee wouldn't it be nice to be thinking about potential solutions to the potential problem if it comes about? What a debate we weave over minor points. Sheesh! :-) I feel like I showed up at a vegetarians convention asking if anyone would like a slice of meat lover's pizza. :-) Everybody seems to want to say there is no problem. Ok, fine, there's no problem. End of issue for me. We'll let time tell. All the best, --Durin 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What would a real problem be? An RfA is twelve hours past its deadline and no 'crat can be found to close it on Talk, IRC, via e-mail etc. I very much doubt that would happen and if it occurred the Wiki would hardly grind to a stop. Marskell 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A real problem would be the generation of a significant backlog due to bureaucrat inactivity. There are other processes in Wikipedia that are backlogged. Such a problem would not be unprecedented. 12 hours isn't a problem; days, weeks of backlog would be. --Durin 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If this page is ever backed-up days or weeks, I'll join the chorus demanding more 'crats. But given how well you've tracked the stats here :) you know as well as anyone that RfA remains scaleable (more of an issue is how 900 people allow AfD to get back-logged, but that's another story). I'm personally totally amendable to allowing 'crats more power (desysopping for example). If and when we do that, I'll agree we need more of them. For the time being, the number of 'crats is quite sufficient for the job at hand. Marskell 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt it was a potential problem because the bureaucrat responsible for 50% of the promotions over the last year and 81% of the last 100 has stepped down leaving a gaping hole. I think that's plenty of reason to think there may be a problem. Plenty of others apparently think not. As I noted above, fine...there's no problem. End of issue. :) and the mouse quietly works away waiting for more data to come in --Durin 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

All we have to do is add the

RfA

to this page for bureaucrat assistance ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 02:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts about this: the problem with having too many bureaucrats is having a lack of uniformity in standards, encouraging cherry-picking of bureaucrats. However, as long as clear guidelines are in effect, that won't happen. Should we have 800 bureaucrats? No. Should we have one doing half of the load? IMO, we shouldn't, it causes burnout. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal (Archive 50)

It is probably a perennial proposal, but anyway. We have an extremely high requirements for the bureaucrats, so all bureaucrats should have have an enormous trust of the community. On the other hand we do not have enough work for the existent b'crats. It seems to be a waste to have a pool of highly trusted people but to not use them. How about giving the bureaucrats an additional job that require a lot of trust? E.g. give them a power to suspend the sysop privilege's for a short time (say for less than 48h). abakharev 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion from February. NoSeptember ^talk 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew it should be a perennial proposal. I was thinking I am proposing something less drastic than what discussed in the link you provided. Not to give a full power to de-sysop, but only a power to temporarily suspend the adminship according to the well-defined formal rules (e.g. for the self-unblocking, violation of the 3RR in the wheel war, etc.), the bigger or less formal things should still be done by the stewards abakharev 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you have the current bureaucrats do their current job. Then you worry about giving them extra stuff to do, no? -- Cecropia 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually both proposals would somehow increase the number of characters that b'crats are to type. They both have the potential to decrease the number of characters typed by the other users, complaining about some controversies. abakharev 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats (Archive 52)

After looking at this page yesterday, I realized that there's kind of a shortage of b-crats. Here's my question--why? There's no shortage of great administators out there; why don't some of them run? Just throwing that out... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The question whether there is a shortage of bureaucrats depends on how much work you expect every single one of them to do. The workload could easily be handled by four or five, given that on the German wikipedia, all admin promotions are done by one bureaucrat. So it is unclear whether more bureaucrats are needed; perhaps more bureaucrat activity is needed, but whether that will be provided by electing additional bureaucrats is also not clear. Kusma (討論) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. More bureaucrat activity would be best. I myself am not always around (I'm a college student... busy busy) but I try to make time for Wikipedia as often as I can. The reason why we don't like having too many bureaucrats is a matter of security. You don't want to promote someone to bureaucrat that might end up going rogue. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, that explanation is the first rational reason I have heard for why there aren't too many bureaucrats. Before I thought it was silly not to have a a bunch more but after hearing this little fact I've changed my mind. (And before anyone says anything, I'm sure Linuxbeak's point was made before on these discussion pages but this is the first time I've heard it.) Thanks, --Alabamaboy 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

With Essjay promoted, I doubt we will have problems anyway.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Essjay has not taken a pledge to never go on vacation or to avoid getting busy with other things. Reliance on any one individual is not a good idea. We shouldn't promote unqualified candidates, but there is no good reason to reject a good trustworthy candidate. NoSeptember ^talk 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I am not saying that we only need Essjay, but that with the addition of a new crat (him), we should be OK. I'd still support a good nom though.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I realy hate the say we do RfBs. We let someone nominate themselves, and then we simmultaneously have the 'do we need more crats?' and the 'if we do, do we want him' debates. (It is like going for an arduous job interview, when you arn't even told in advance if the job exists.) It would be better to agree how many more (if any) we need at present (or let the existng crats tell us). Then let anyone apply, and vote by approval/diapproval voting - the highest get appointed - any others with high approval form a reserve lists when the existing crats decide they need reinforcement. When/if the list is used up, we open for new nominations again.--Doc ^ask? 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

An ArbCom style election would be fine, as would a Steward style election, but when discussed here it got mixed reviews. NoSeptember ^talk 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't subscribe to the "we have enough 'crats" idea, but it does motivate me to have high standards for 'crats. If the only concern is that a 'crat might go on a rampage, then select those who won't go on a rampage. It's as simple as that. I normally wouldn't feel so strongly about this, since on a wiki we ought to be eventualist (how much does it matter if we get a few delayed promotions now and then? How many of these delayed RfAs would be controversial?), but as Doc has pointed out, this creates a nasty problem with RfBs. We shouldn't be turning qualified people down and yet at the same time leaving applications open if we have "enough" crats. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Does a Bureaucrat check history before closing a RfA (Archive 52)

I am just wondering if someone check history before closing a RfA. There is possibility that some other user signs with different user to have fake voting at a RfA. So, I just wanted to know this query. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many experienced users around at the RfA forum. Trying to fake a signature is highly unlikely to succeed. Bureaucrats are, by definition, very experienced users, so it would be very surprising if any of them were to miss such a crude attempt at tampering with a RfA. Normally, Bureaucrats don't even need to "unmask" that sort of thing themselves. Usually, other users will have already posted pointing out any attempts against the proper functioning of a RfA. Regards, Redux 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not so much easy job that you are understanding. It is difficult to check without checking history and crosschecking sign and user who have posted the signature. So I just wanted to know this. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes: if the perpetrator has a minimal understanding as to how Wikipedia works, the forgery is only apparent by cross-checking the history. But that's pretty much on autopilot for a user with at least some experience — not that people are always specifically on the lookout for forgeries and other dishonest tricks, but it's just something we do. And on RfA, we always check the history. So, while it is possible (although not likely) that something like this could slip passed one [experienced] user, someone else will catch it in time, and the final outcome of the RfA will not be affected by something like this. Redux 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely it would take a lot of fake signitures to make a difference since it's not a vote, it's concensus, and one or two extra "votes" won't change that. That's one of the best things about the 5% "burocrat's discretion" band, forgeries that are going to really change the result would need to take it all the way over that 5% band, otherwise the buro will be making a far more detailed check before making a decision. --Tango 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that an individual's vote has no significance. Then I do not agree with you. Every single vote has the same value. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a vote. It is not a vote. It is NOT a VOTE. The Land 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the template say "Vote here"? :-) --W.marsh 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess he wanted to say that theoretically, it's not a vote. Practically, it is :-) F e tofs ^Hello! 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a democracy. We don't guarantee that an individual's vote will have any significance -- in theory we shouldn't be having any votes at all. RfA has the trappings of a vote, but it is modelled on straw polling, where we aim for consensus; this is where bureaucrats' discretion comes in. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I take my words back and assume Wikipedia is not a vote. But it does not answer my question. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The significance of a "vote" depends on how the bureaucrat views it. "Votes" from suspected meat- or sockpuppets ought to be discounted, and so on. There's no hard and clear way to answer your question -- as I said, it depends on the bureaucrats' discretion. This doesn't mean a "vote" is insignificant; its significance merely varies depending on the circumstances. Johnleemk | Talk 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming a reasonable number of people have "voted" then no, a single "vote" is not significant. It has a value, certainly, but that value isn't enough to change the result, so it's not significant. --Tango 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose theoretically, it would be conceivable that, in a very close RfA, someone with a serious attitude problem and who may deeply dislike the candidate could try to forge a vote (also by creating sock puppets, v.g.) in order to sway consensus and cause the RfA to fail — I mean, an 80% consensus is required for promotion, and, depending on how things are progressing, a single "oppose" can "offset" three or four "support" in terms of the percentage required for promotion. In theory, one single "oppose" can bring down to 73% or 74% (under the cut off for Bureaucrat discretion) a consensus that was at 75% or 76%. But then, back to what I said: something like this will not be allowed to stand — remembering that the original question was: would something like this possibly go unnoticed? Absolutely not. And all that notwithstanding (have I been using that word too much? :)), impersonation is unacceptable behavior under any circumstance, and if it's done in a place such as a RfA, it's that much worse. Whether or not the action had an actual relevance in the RfA where it took place is not essential in that regard. Redux 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux, you are quite correct for a single fake vote. Let's assume an user has one non-detectable sock-puppet account (reason may be using different proxy or IP for sock-puppet account). He/She signs a particular RfA with one or two fake votes per user account. This adds total 5 signs from his/her side. If (s)he does this process in very beginning of a RfA. Let's say (s)he opposes by all these 5 votes and other users have signed 4 supports and 2 opposes. By adding this particular user's contribution RfA stats is (4/7/0). I am just guessing (not sure) other users may follow the same trend as majority opposes the vote and it may be converted to unsuccesful promotion while it was deserved a succesful promotion. It's just a virtual incident. So it may matter too much. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this conversation trend be dropped and the above deleted per WP:BEANS. JoshuaZ 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deletion per above, if it can create such kind of situation. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can drop it, although this is nothing new around here. This is "Disruption 101". And the message I'd be sending out is: it won't work, if you do it, you'll get busted. But since the original point was to address Shyam's doubts, if he's satisfied, there's no reason to continue this discussion. If you would like me to explain more, you can copy your latest questions to my talk page, and I'll explain as best I can. At your discretion. Redux 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Who may/should close RfAs/RfBs (Archive 68)

I reiterate my point on Redux's talk page: Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs that are not clear failures. This one was within a few percentage points, and should have been left to a bureaucrat to close, even when it was past its stated deadline. I assume that this was an honest mistake, VOA closes many failures, but this was the first I can remember that was truly close and should have been left alone. NoSeptember 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I only closed voting per the voting time period already laid out. It is a hard number that was well passed, I did not close the whole RfA. A bcrat still had to come by and make the promotion decision and archive it.Voice-of-All 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing off voting is a big deal. Can you point to other cases when admins have closed off voting while still expecting a bureaucrat to make a pass/fail decision? And an extention was not out of the question in this case, or a bureaucrat just deciding to leave it run a few more hours without saying anything to see how it developed. Your action had an impact that wasn't up to you to make. Since when do we non-bureaucrats have the right to tell people to stop voting on an otherwise still pending RfA? NoSeptember 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to be confrontational, but I agree. Comments up until a bcrat closes a nomination should be taken into the consensus, so close ones should never be closed by anyone but a bureaucrat. - Taxman ^Talk 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It strikes me that the "partial close" concept appears to be a new one, a bit of a surprise. Had I realized you two were already discussing this, I wouldn't have brought it up again (having already done so at Redux's talk page). Cheers, NoSeptember 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask this question. If "Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs that are not clear failures", then in light of the recent Carnildo decision, maybe what you meant to say is "Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs in any case", since in the case of Carnildo, this was a clear failure under previous precedent? -- RM 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, by the time an RfA has run for nearly a full week, there is rarely any good reason for anyone but a bureaucrat to close it (a candidate withdrawal is the obvious exception), it would have been closed early if there was a good reason to close it. We have had discussions about closes earlier in the process, like this discussion, but if it isn't under 50%, or if it hasn't acquired a bunch of oppose votes without any real support, and its not a joke or trolling, then it should not be closed lightly. There was precedent for former admins being promoted with a lower support level, so Carnildo's RfA was certainly close enough to leave alone, and as a full term RfA, should be handled by a bureaucrat in any case. NoSeptember 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that all makes perfect sense. I just wasn't sure what you were saying by your comment, but your clarification makes sense to me, and is in line with what I would expect. -- RM 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

IF you're being deliberately difficult, please don't. IMV no non-bcrat should ever have closed or removed a case like Carnildo's where there was over 60% support and heated arguments on both sides. Non-bcrats should only close genuinely obvious failures - like when there's one support vote and 10 opposes and the user has less than 200 edits... The Land 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The following should not be read as sarcastic or cynical but just matter-of-fact: At this point, we do not know what the lower floor is on support levels required for promotion. It could be 60%, it could be 51%. So I would advise against any closure of an RFA that has substantial support (i.e. close to 50%). Someone could be running 45% support / 45% oppose and then in the last day bump just over the 50% mark via some last minute votes. Who knows if that person might be a "special case" that the b'crats decide can be promoted with just 51% support?

Now, I have to admit that I did not realize that non-b'crats and non-admins could close an RFA. Does this mean I (a non-admin) could have closed Qrc2006's obviously hopeless RFA? Where do I find instructions for closing an RFA? --Richard 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFAF and study recent RfAs that were closed early by admins, and stick to doing only those that are as obvious failures as the ones listed there. And you can copy the tags etc. from a closed RfA to get it closed out in the proper format. NoSeptember 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with fellow bureaucrat Essjay's reasoning that an RfA should never be closed early unless it is clear there is no chance of success and less than 25% support after a substantial number of contributors to the consensus is a decent guideline for bureaucrats. I would prefer non bureaucrats to stick to even more obvious cases like trolling, sockpuppet candidates after a substantial number of votes, or people that have withdrawn. But I'll point out that there are respected people that don't feel anyone but a bureaucrat should close anything other than a withdrawn nomination and that if people nominate themselves or others they should be allowed to go the full time. I don't fully agree, and I believe that opinion is in the minority, but it should be considered as a valid reason to seriously limit the cases where a non bureaucrat should close nominations. - Taxman ^Talk 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've closed a couple of withdrawals, mainly to get them off the page as fast as possible and spare the nominee any additional discomfort, and maybe one troll, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have closed many requests, almost certainly more than any non-crat, without any complaints. I have never closed a request even close to 25% approval and, to be completely honest, I don't feel I am any less qualified to make the decision than a bureaucrat. I close these requests with the sole purpose of protecting the candidates and with no intention of challenging the authority of the bureaucrats. We elect bureaucrats to make the tough calls, not the blindingly obvious ones, anyone can make those. Just as anyone can close an easy AfD debate, there is no conceivable reason, beyond sheer bloody-minded bureaucracy, why non-crats shouldn't be allowed to close an RfA that has clearly failed. It is especially important in this situation as real people, with real emotions, are involved. If a bureaucrat doesn't close a clearly failing nomination in order to protect the editor involved, I have no problem whatsoever in doing it. Rje 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved. There is nothing unclear about this. The wording has been up there ten months and as straightforward as you could want it to be. Marskell 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be changed; the general consensus is that users can close a nom if it's obviously failing, like 0/20/0 in the first 12 hours. It's silly to wait until a crat comes around to end the piling on. --Rory096 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Which someone did today (see below), although the tally wasn't 0/20/0 (more like 11/32/5). I noticed this wasn't consistent with what's written above, but the combination of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW seems to have carried the day. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Role of bureaucrats in RfA (Archive 68)

I have noted with concern that some people have hinted that bureaucrats are the final deciders of who is fit for adminship, and that they have some sort of veto over promoting particular people. This is most definitely not the case. Bureaucrats' opinions are worth nothing more than other admins or, indeed, non-admin members of the Wikipedia community. Users who are promoted to bureaucrat status by the community are given that role for technical purposes, not as some special executive role with power to overrule "community consensus". Until the process is changed, the votes on RfA are taken to represent community consensus, and it is a dereliction of their duties to the community for bureaucrats to ignore an RfA's result. The only ones who can overrule such a representation of consensus are the ArbCom and Office, and if they want to do so they should do so explicitly and transparently. - Mark 05:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You may believe that's the case; you may think that should be the case; I may tend to agree with you. But I wouldn't bet against a change in process being effected by the 'crats themselves, arbcom, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation, rather than necessarily with explicit community approval, given the mess that policy-making is in, and the formal suspension of logic at WP:IAR. Alai 07:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules does require logic, thanks :-) Kim Bruning 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR defeats logic by its present construction. Whether logic would be required in either devising or applying a different version that wasn't essentially a restatement of the Epimenides paradox is an interesting hypothetical. (Its current policy box stating its "deep, subtle meaning" seems to be more or less an exercise in waving hands desparately and intoning "ignore the man behind the curtain".) A more accurate statement as to what it requires would be an opinion as to what's necessary to improve or maintain WP, and a sufficiently large hammer to beat down the amount of opposition engendered thereby. Alai 12:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I tend to feel that anything here that could be described as having a "deep, subtle meaning" is so obscure as to be useless within the context of a global effort to build an encyclopedia. If a concept can not be described in clear, precise terms that can be understood across cultures, national borders, and continents, then its usefulness is extremely suspect. --Durin 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR is understood across cultures. Just not by everyone. It's to do with being a Mapper or a Packer [2]. Stephen B Streater 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, it's to do with poor governance being passed off as poor understanding on the part of those that would like a bit more transparency. This is not an "inventiveness" issue, this is a "my judgement trumps your judgement" issue. Alai 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is how to try out new types of things. The original visionaries are mappers, but the packers are in a huge majority and the rules they create are limited and limiting. The rules are written by people who think they have covered every eventuality. But lack of foresight always means some things are beyond the scope of the rules. Stephen B Streater 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the ruleset is both imperfect and incomplete, so something like IAR that enables dealing with unforeseen circumstances is indeed essential. But that's not the problem with the current policy-negating policy: it's a lack of any expression of determining consensus, or of documenting the circumstance that led to the exception, in order that others can see the basis for it, and go forth and do likewise (or not). Rather, it encourages the mentality that there are some people that have licence to unilaterally implement their "common-sense", overriding both any past or present documented practice, or other people's common sense. Alai 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(Way too many asterisks :P) IAR should only be used when a process/policy is damaging the encyclopedia, which really isn't happening here. There is no reason to use it in order to make one person's opinion worth more than any other. That's an abuse of power. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't support overriding a genuine consensus in an irreversible way. But this is a wiki, so if an experiment doesn't work out, everything can be fixed. The important thing is to remain on good terms as personal relationships are harder to fix up. IAR must come with a willingness to engage and listen on all sides. Existing process should be the beginning not the end. Stephen B Streater 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Beaucrats: Not mindless drones, a rant by EFG (Archive 69)

I'm going to go ahead and stand against popular belief: Beaucrats are not mindless drones. When a user, such as Spartaz, votes oppose on an RFA, such as The Halo, and the rationale is somewhat controversial, such as being based partly on the nominator, the closing beaucrat will be able to discern the merit of that vote without ten meaningless responses which add little to the overall discussion and mostly question how much they can harass user(s) who dared to vote oppose on ridiculous/spiteful/evil grounds. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps the jist of that sentence could be added to the top of WP:RFA? EFG 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a few links to RfA decisions by bureaucrats that reflect their "model behaviour?" Are there precedents we can turn to for guidance? Rama's arrow 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

RfB standards (Archive 74)

I was wondering, if someone ran for Bureaucratship, what would, on the most basic level, be expected? Some of the standards appear to contradict each other, resulting in unavoidable opposes (and only a few will sink an RfB). Here are the criteria I'd suspect most people share:

User is at least moderately active
User has experience as both an editor and as one who determines consensus by looking at discussions, see User:Voice_of_All/Consensus.
User has months of experience as an admin
User has good form, open-minded, and respectful. Some room for mistakes or disagreement should be tolerated.

There some criteria that are not as widely shared:

User demonstrates the need for more crats
User has never made major mistakes

And there some other criteria that seem to be sticking points however:

User will always follow the polls (exepting sock puppets/vandalism and attack votes) for <70% and >=75% no matter what. Crats that don't do this are ignoring the community.
User will not always follow the polls (excepting sock puppets) for <70% and >=75%; the "wider consensus" is considered and "nitpicking/no expanation" votes don't count. Crats that don't do this are ignoring the community.
User will not always follow the polls (excepting sock puppets) for <70% and >=75%; clearly bad candidates should not be promoted, this is about "whats good for the wiki" not "consensus on RfA".

Unless these are reconciled, the role of bureaucrats will remain clouded and RfBs invariably stressful and confusing.Voice-of-All 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, we've had 18 RfBs. 4 have passed, 14 failed. More importantly; bureaucrat processes are not backlogged. We seem to be promoting bureaucrats well enough to avoid problems of being impossible to pass. --Durin 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:CHU has been in serious need of more bureaucrat participation; there's been a backlog of up to a week, when I've been away. Warofdreams talk 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite true, but Redux has offered to help out again there and Essjay has returned today from a long hiatus, and worked on 5 of the 17 currently listed requests. --Durin 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the answer to backlogs on WP:CHU being to create more overhead and take more time of highly trusted users. There are so much more important things to work on that help the project. Almost anything we do is more valuable to the project than changing usernames. Meaing, you're a good editor Warofdreams, and I'd rather have you do that. And clearly there's no major concern over CHU as I made a proposal to fix the backlog problem and I got almost no response if I recall. Simply reduce the acceptable reasons to request/grant CHU to those needed to comply with the username policy or for privacy reasons. - Taxman ^Talk 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And that still completely fails to answer what the consensus on the role and requirements of a bureaucrat are, which seems to have become extremely unclear ever since the Carnildo RfA.Voice-of-All 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly an issue regarding the definition of consensus, but it's not really a problem with RfB, it's a problem with RfA. Plenty of people have proposed plenty of possible solutions to this, and the general consensus has always been that, while not perfect, RfA does work. --Tango 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And RfBs have failed over the details of how consensus will work. It hangs on a thread. I just want to know what the requirements are and what the roll of bcrats are. I don't know why this is seen as another "we need to reform RfA thread".Voice-of-All 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so much that, but it strikes me a bit as trying to nail down what is a valid oppose vote for RfB. Just as in RfA, people have their own ideas of what is a valid basis for oppose or support. There's never been consensus to prevent votes based on some predetermined criteria on what counts and does not count. The consensus issue is deliberately open-ended, and is so for a reason. --Durin 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if people disagree on the basic bread and butter foundation of their role, especially given the 90% threshold, RfB will become highly unstable. Many of the last ones barely passed, and with the issues after Carnildo's promotion, a tight situation has already gotten much worse.Voice-of-All 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly true, but you can't fix that in RfB, you have to fix it in RfA, as that's what the disagreement is about. If you think you can fix RfA in some way that is better than all the other rejected suggestions, then by all means try, but I wouldn't hold your breath. RfA is very controversial at times, which means the job of being a 'crat can be very controversial, which means selecting 'crats will be inherently controversial. Getting an overwhelming consensus on a controversial issue is pretty much impossible (almost by definition), so RfB will always be very hard to succeed at, as you have to please everybody, even when they contradict each other. So far, a few people have managed that (I don't really know how), but such people will always be a minority. --Tango 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the numbers from Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats there have only been 7 successful RfBs in the last 2 years with the following percent support 99, 97, 90, 93, 98, 92, and 98. That's a pretty small sample size to say many barely passed, and given 90% is not a set in stone bar to pass, I'm not sure you could say any barely passed. And I can recall only one that was unsuccessful and could be considered close in that time. But as Rx StrangeLove mentioned, the Giano arbitration case pretty much removed any uncertainty in the area of RfA. They want more or less numerical promotion within a fairly narrow band even if there are extenuating circumstances. Pragmatically I can see why, because if you follow the numbers nobody can really complain. - Taxman ^Talk 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous resources available to train, evaluate, and assist potential admin candidates. Do the 'crats similarly groom and prepare potential 'crat candidates? If not, would it be a good idea for them to do so? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good idea for adminship; it's even less of a good idea for bureaucrats. —Centrx→talk • 05:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there's seems to be renewed energy being put into admin coaching, don't think that's a good idea and by extension bureaucratship coaching probably isn't a good idea either. But on the larger question of their roles, I think the first 3 principles in Giano's arbitration [3] narrows down bureaucrats roles (in RFA's anyway) which should ease some of the concerns people have in that area. Rx StrangeLove 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

More bureaucrats? (Archive 76)

We need more 'crats. The turnover means the ones we do have aren't as active. Redux was right.--Kchase T 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't run, as I'm not an admin, so that means you're going to have to. I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary that RfAs be closed quickly. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not urgent. —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We probably could use a couple more bureaucrats, but it's never easy to select one: the required support level for a bureaucrat nominee is around 90% these days, and most administrators well-known enough to be credible 'crat candidates have managed to step on enough toes at some point that that attaining that support level is complicated. Plus, it's self-nomination, so there's no way of prodding an admin to seek 'cratitude except, I guess, by pushing him or her directly.

Come to think of it, when's the last time a new bureaucrat was chosen, anyway? I've been active on this page since July or August and don't recall any. Newyorkbrad 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

June 12, Redux's. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A common problem with elections everywhere. The same reason why members of Congress have a hard time becoming President, because they have too long a voting record where all sorts of reasons for opposition can be found. :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 06:13Z

Hmm... I was pondering running for bureaucrat in the future at one point. I don't think I would pass right now, today, though, even if I decided I wanted to run right now. And I agree, it's not exactly urgent. Grand master ka 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

zOMG! GMK for Prez. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There are something like, what, a thousand active admins? Surely there must be at least a couple out there who have done a lot of routine admin work, and hasn't been involved in any kind of controversy? As I read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, the most challenging part of the job is judging "consensus" on an RfA. Maybe someone with a lot of (successful) closing experience with AfDs/MfDs? John Broughton | Talk 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo - someone with a lot of AFD and MFD closing experience, but still failing for other matters. AFD/MFD closing isn't all there is, unfortunately. – Ch acor 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, apparently that's a redlink, anyone got the correct link? – Ch acor 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the link (had to change from a capital to lowercase "d" in "diablo"). Newyorkbrad 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing some kind of terrible bureaucrat backlog? Are there RFAs waiting days to be promoted? Namechanges going weeks? Bot flags waiting months? The main thing that is needed is patience, not more bureaucrats; I had to wait two hours to get my first sysop flag, and had to wait a lot longer than 7 days to get my others, so people should be able to wait the hour or two it takes one of us to get there. If there is a qualified candidate who wants to run, they should, and "we don't need any" shouldn't be a valid reason for opposition, but there certainly isn't a "need" for more, we're doing just fine. Essjay (Talk) 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And more isn't really the answer. Most of those that are inactive are so because it just doesn't take many people to do it. More wouldn't necessarily help in holiday off times either. As it is now with you being more active Essjay, you do fine with it so I've not been worried about stepping back. Besides, that way we don't elbow each other out of the way to get to closing them. If people really want to help and have the time, m:OTRS is probably a more valuable service at this point for highly trusted users. - Taxman ^Talk 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But again, as Essjay said, if anyone out there feel that they are qualified and willing, they should run. Despite the list of +20 Bureaucrats, the number of active ones is really around 6. And that says something about the job: even though it doesn't really take too many people to handle the demand, it's not a glamourous function and it's very easy to burn out doing it. One needs to be very secure about the reasons why they might want to be a Bureaucrat. As Cecropia used to say: this is a job that, if done well will cause you to go almost unnoticed; but if you make a mistake, you will be grilled about it. Being a Bureaucrat means to be prepared to explain yourself at any time in a polite, cool and clear fashion. And you can be certain that you will eventually be questioned on some level. Redux 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It means doing a lot of work that goes totally unnoticed (like CHU and bot flagging). It means being held to a higher standard, even if you aren't doing a bureaucrat task; everything you do will be filtered through your status as a bureaucrat, and you will be called on things others would not be. It's not a glorious position and it doesn't come with any real power; if admins are janitors, bureacrats are the sanitation workers. Essjay (Talk) 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about the lack of a backlog; I shouldn't act so impatient. That said, no one seems to be serious about glorifying 'cratship, and I think we can agree the turnover and burnout will eventually necessitate more.--Kchase T 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only question I currently have is whether Redux's status as a steward will affect his ability to do bureaucratic tasks here. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No reason it should. Essjay (Talk) 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy-wise, I know there's no problem, but there's time issues as well, and those are the ones I was most interested in... Tito xd^(?!?) 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was really intending to address both aspects, but I'll leave it to Redux to respond. Essjay (Talk) 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mght run in about a month if there is a general consensus that it might be helpful to have another 'crat. Grand master ka 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't antecipate any problems with my Bureaucrat duties on account of my recent election to Stewardship. The main reason being that I'm not alone in doing either. Far from it. Here, on enwiki, we have people like Essjay and Taxman, who share the workload very nicely, so that nobody has to be overworked. On the Meta-Wiki, I'm in the company not only of the +15 Stewards that were already there before the election, but also the other 11 Stewards who were elected alongside me — and, as it is quite common, have been very active since their election. So I'm quite comfortable, and experienced, I might say, to be able to divide my attention and, (only) if necessary, focus a little more on where I might be needed the most. For instance, if Essjay and Taxman were to both go on a wikibreak at the same time (God forbid!), I'd have no doubts in focusing on my enwiki Bureaucrat work, since I'm confident that the other Stewards will be doing an excellent job. We have a very comfortable situation both in the Bureaucratship of this Wikipedia and in the Stewardship where we all know that we are not in competition with each other, and if one of us has to, or wants to, slow down some for a while, the others are prepared, and ready, to handle the demand without any major issue. Redux 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. Just as long as we don't have a situation where we need more stewards and more bureaucrats simulteaneously, we'll be all right. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out as well that in times when the bureaucrat load has been more demanding, both Angela and Warofdreams have been quick to jump in and help out. (And since he's not been mentioned, Nichalp is fairly active on CHU on a regular basis.) I don't think we have a problem at all with not having enough bureaucrats, especially what might be called "reserve bureaucrats," though that title may be somewhat misleading; if anything, I think what we have are three of us (myslef, Redux, and Taxman) who tend to get here before the others and "hog" all the work. Essjay (Talk) 23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats (Archive 77)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfB states:

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the archives, before seeking this position.

Read the archives? All seventy-five of them? Has anyone ever actually done that, or is this a cunning way of reducing the number of RfBs? – Gurch 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it was intended to be cunning, it's certainly a good way of reducing the number of RfB's (in practice; if any b'cat ever read all of the archives, they should be nominated for Jimbo Wales' position :). Yuser31415 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the other day. I guess the idea is that if you're ready to be a bcrat then you don't need guidance, you should already know where to look. Perhaps we should amend the main RfA page as such. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How about this for a rewording?:

In order to demonstrate their understanding of Wikipedia, candidates should read every discussion ever, including the archives (Special:Prefixindex/Talk: and Category:Talk archives are good starting points), obtain a shrubbery, and chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring before seeking this position.

– Gurch 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, as Bcrats candidates should be willing to do so. — Arjun 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the bit about travelling round the world in a frying pan? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And making a llama moo. :) –Llama man^{sign here} 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, all that's easier than passing an RfB. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the archives are quite interesting. I've read up to number 24 and it only took a couple afternoons, so reading all 75 can't take that long. --tjstrf talk 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, never mind. I just realized that there's also an implied requirement of reading all pre-June 2003 mailing list posts. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Project page archives, interesting? You're either insane or should be nominated for bureaucrat immediately, I'm not sure which – Gurch 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you don't find project page archives interesting? Looking at how processes have developed is actually one of the things I like doing on Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting right now at #1. I'll probably get bored and put up my RfB before I'm finished, but I've participated in RfA talk for a while now, that should be enough of a requirement. :-) Grand master ka 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if I get there first. You can skip #6 through #13, they're boring :D – Gurch 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Skipping the boring ones!? I can hear the !votes now... Oppose, demonstrates insufficient knowledge of WT:RfA/Archive8. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'll know to oppose any RfB candidate because either (a) they haven't read all the archives and therefore aren't capable of following rules, or (b) they have read all the archives and mailing lists and are now completely insane, which would result in them immediately nominating Willy on Wheels to a b'cat in disgust. Yuser31415 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More serious response: It should either be changed to "recent archives", or preferably, we should advise crat candiates to participate in WT:RFA discussions for a few months prior to applying. Reading ancient history can be interesting, but only really on an academic level, it's not very useful. RfA has changed a lot in the last couple of years. What crats need to know is how things work now and, more importantly, understand why they work that way (so they know when to bend the rules, which is the whole point of having crats, not bots), and the best way to gain that understanding is by participating in discussion. --Tango 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to run for b'crat should probably just review the post-2005 RfB's to get an idea of the standards. As for a serious change of the wording, I think Tango's on the right track... if you post like 2-3 comments to this page or the bot pages per year I doubt you're going to have much luck at RFB. --W.marsh 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I wouldn't necessarily want to go so far as to suggest that a participation on this page is (a) a requirement and (b) the most important one; that's too much like edit counting, and don't forget bureaucrats have other responsibilities too. However, Tango is right; discussion is good, as it demonstrates involvement and a desire to be part of the decision-making process. I suggest the RfB header should recommend familiarity not only with RfA and its accompanying discussion, but also the bot policy and the username change policy, as these are equally essential. I quite like Deskana's point, too: I guess the idea is that if you're ready to be a bcrat then you don't need guidance, you should already know where to look.; perhaps that could be worked in somehow – Gurch 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, we shouldn't specifiy any requirements. My suggestion was to advise participation, not require it. The other duties of crats should be included as well, I agree. --Tango 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get legalistic. The current wording (or at least the wording at the top of this section) makes no indication that you have to read all of the archives. "Recent" is too subjective and easy to game, and "all" is legalistic and overkill in most cases. Familiarity with WT:RFA and its archives should suffice. -- nae'blis 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the bot policy and username change policy are irrelevant? – Gurch 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, I was just responding to the quoted section above about archives of WT:RFA. Other requirements are not being addressed here, as far as I can tell. -- nae'blis 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, originally they weren't, though we now seem to be wondering whether the quoted section should be replaced by something else; I think it should, and I think all of a bureaucrat's tasks should be mentioned, but I'm not quite bold enough to erase and rewrite a section of WP:RFA without discussion – Gurch 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you game a piece of advice? If the people !voting disagree with the candidates defintion of recent, then they oppose. We don't need to specify an exact amount of time. --Tango 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)