Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

I appreciate WjB taking the time to think this through, and I am happy to abide by any decision bureaucrats feel is fit. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ... unless it's the wrong one. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the 'crats are aware: [1][2] - A late vote, later reverted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has any RfB ever received this many total votes? Cla68 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the highest participation level so far - the previous record was held by Makensen's RfB as far as I can tell - exactly 200 participants. WjBscribe 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a message in the numbers, but, not one that necessarily helps you make a decision. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I would have supported, mostly because the Kelly Martin issue isn't that big of a deal IMHO. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A point

Just a point I feel should be mentionned (disclaimer: I supported); while it is quite true that the oppositions are substantive and not frivolous, I don't think they raised issues relevant to being a 'crat as opposed to being "just" an admin. As a matter of fact, being a 'crat is an admin with the duty to evaluate consensus in RFA discussions, flag bots following the recommendations of the BAG, and rename accounts. None of the concerns (however valid) that were raised as objections seem to indicate Riana's inability to perform those duties.

I'm not saying that they should be discounted, but that given the magnitude of support this RFB has gotten it may be appropriate to qualify their evaluation. — Coren ^(talk) 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair (and I say this as a strong supporter of Riana in pretty much all things, including this RfB), the opposition in relation to Kelly Martin boils down to a lack of confidence in Riana's ability to make a rational decision. As strongly as I disagree with the conclusion drawn from the situation, I do think that it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose a candidate, given that the bulk of a 'crats job is to, effectively, make rational decisions. I hate to say it, but I do think they're relevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's out of our hands one way or another now. Let's just hope the CratCabal™ don't take too long :) - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would ask the bureaucrats to weigh the opposes individually, as opposed to counting them all as a "whole" or united body. —Dark ^(talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda pointless when, as in this case, the majority of the opposes are stating the same, or similar, issues. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the majority. Many opposes have "per x, y and z", but some others have different and unique explanations, or no explanation at all. It is these edits that I urge to be weighed individually. —Dark ^(talk) 08:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, in all cases I hope a 'crat would judge a unique reason as just that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what some may consider a Utopia, the crat would actually give serious consideration to every single vote. That's not going to happen. Trends are more likely to be considered, rather than the comments of single people who are just saying reworded variants of others. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my humble opinion of course, but considering how close it is, I think it'd be worth considering the substantial support for lowering the pass % very recently and currently being shown at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship#RfB_passing_.25. Different evidence of community opinion, but I think if considered puts slightly more weight behind a successful outcome for Riana. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd cuncur. If this was outside the current discretionary range, I can understand not wanting to change criteria in mid-stream. But if it's quite close, I think that's a valid thing to add to the considerations when trying to decide which side of the fence to fall on. --barneca (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split 'crat decision means what?

A question about a split decision between 'crats on the page, which seems to be where the discussion is headed (at least this early). If there is no consensus among the 'crats, is that the same as no consensus to promote among the crats, or does a single crat (presumably WjB as he placed it on hold) still get to make the call while taking on board the opinions of the others? Avruch^T 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was opened, the views of all the 'crats who comments will be looked at. If they can't come to an agreement, or are unable to support a promotion, then it closes as No Consensus to promote. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes down to it, only one 'crat makes the ultimate call (the technical pushing of the button, so to speak) - I imagine the onus would be upon him/her to explain their rationale for passing/failing. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when Danny's RfA closed, they closed it as successful after Taxman stated, "After Warofdreams' last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets." So when this is opened, it doesn't come down to 1 'crat, but that 'crat speaking on behalf of all the 'crats. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, everyone gets to share in the eventual badgering, then. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the crat who places the discussion on hold is in any special position- the idea is to come to a group decision, not that I am asking for input from the others to make a decision on my own. WjBscribe 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about canvassing

I have received two emails alleging that some of the opposition comments were canvassed. I think it best that I address this allegation publicly rather than have it fester behind the scenes as it appears to be doing. I have received no evidence in support of this allegation beyond an analysis that some participants frequently support the views of other participants in discussions. Although that might well be the result of canvassing, a far more innocent explanation is possible - it is human nature to agree with those who hold similar views. Over time editors are likely to identify others whose judgment they respect and with whom they tend to agree, they are then likely to support positions taken by those people. That is not a conspiracy, just an example of how relationships build up over time. Absent evidence of actual off-wiki canvassing having occured, I do not believe the conclusion I am being invited to draw can be sustained. In particular I suspect that if subject to the same analysis, groups of supporting voters could also be shown to have histories of expressing similar opinions in discussions. In short, I do not believe there have been any irregularities in the course of this discussion and have received no solid evidence that calls that into question. WjBscribe 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the % proposal and current RfBs

There is question as to whether the outcome or pending outcome of the proposal at WT:RFA should have an effect on the current RfBs. In an attempt to synthesize the arguments for and against...:

The current apparent consensus of the proposal should have no effect on current RfBs. The existing custom when the RfBs were placed was roughly 90%. Changing the rule midstream is like changing the criteria of an election while it is in process - its unfair to the voters, who may have voted or not voted based on the percentage of the RfB at a given time, and its unfair to the candidates and the community to have the underlying assumptions of the process changed while its ongoing.

The apparent consensus of the proposal should alter the outcome of the current RfBs. The promote percentage is a community-derived metric based on consensus. Consensus isn't past consensus, its consensus of the community today. If the community today, as demonstrated in the response to the proposal, believes that the current standard is unreasonably high (in contrast to Dan's contention on the page that it is only as low as 90% because 100% is purely impossible) then the accepted standard should apply as soon as it becomes evident, regardless of what is going on at that time.

I prefer option two... I think perhaps if the crats select option 1 we can expect to see Riana come back in a relatively short period of time, receive an identical ratio of supports and opposes, and pass without controversy. Like in many areas around Wikipedia - we sometimes dispense with toeing the technically correct line in favor of doing what is more obviously the intent of the community (that is, today's community).

I don't understand the "no significant opposition" baseline. No offense to the current 'crats, who appear by all accounts to be doing a fine job, but what kind of person gets no significant opposition at all? A person whom everyone likes and who has demonstrated no objectionable judgment, of course, but what else? Is some objection to an individuals judgment evidence that the judgment is poor? Is it evidence that this person will not be accepted by the community, or that future decisions will be regarded as invalid or controversial solely because of who made them? Significant opposition should be disregarded in the face of overwhelming support, which is what we have in this RfB. Without looking, I can guess that Riana has more support votes than any other successful RfB (or close, if Mackensen's RfB was unanimous). Isn't that something that should be weighed in her favor?

Avruch^T 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that making the goalpost wider after the shot has been taken may be, in theory, slightly unfair, but on the other hand if you are judging "consensus" as the expressed opinion of the community, the community today (as you say), there is every reason to consider that opinion in its entirety. There is large support for reducing the passing line, support which was being expressed during Riana's RfB, so I don't think it's unreasonable to take it into consideration given that the decision is borderline and at the discretion of the bureaucrats. That it's borderline would also, you'd think, reduce the risk of creating a significant precedent. Beyond all that, there is the reality that Riana could just come back later, get the same votes, etc. Perhaps the important question is, if the passable % at the beginning was lower, would [likely] the outcome % have been different? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any changing of the goalposts is going to be patently unfair to someone. I don't see why changing them while other RfBs are active is some great evil (though I do understand the attitude, at least). Community consensus can change at any time, and if that change means that a candidate will pass rather than fail, I'd consider holding that against the candidate to be executing bureaucrat process for process' sake. Community trumps process (with a few exceptions, of course). Like Avruch, I prefer option two. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good practice to change the rules in the middle of or after a game or a ballot. It brings suspicion. It avoids going through the right procedures. It can create double standards. It is sloppy. It is unfair.

The best way to proceed is to have the community come up with a new standard, and then run the unsuccessful RfBs again. We have to do this correctly, and methodically, through the right procedures. Kingturtle (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's dreadfully unfair to the candidate to expect her two run the entire, traumatic process all over again on what would then ostensibly be a technicality - Alison ^❤ 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "unfair" to change the width of the goalposts if there's a "winner" and a "loser". If the community clearly believes consensus standards are too high (and my interpretation of the sections above is that we do), it doesn't make sense to wait to apply them, and it especially doens't make sense to suggest re-running an RfB again in the near future if we expect the same comments and the same support/oppose ratios. What EVula says: community trumps process. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

The fact^{[citation needed]} that Riana's decision to nominate Kelly Martin for adminship calls into question her judgment

That is all. —Random832 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extrapolation of what the underlying meaning behind those oppositions means. This isn't mainspace; I doubt we'll find a reliable source for that statement. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]