Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
::Commenting below a vote to disagree with it and to indicate that it is likely to be discounted at closing is perfectly fine. But indenting or striking a vote should only be done in the cases of clearly invalid votes, e.g. when no rationale is provided (just "oppose"), when the vote is obviously frivolous or misleading, when there is a personal attack/vandalism/trolling involved, etc. In all other cases, especially with users in good standing, the appropriate thing to do is to comment below a vote. Striking or removing a vote feels like a slap on the face and a slight for the user who cast that vote; it is to be avoided for that reason. This particular case shows exactly why. RfAs should be about promoting new admins, not losing the existing ones. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
::Commenting below a vote to disagree with it and to indicate that it is likely to be discounted at closing is perfectly fine. But indenting or striking a vote should only be done in the cases of clearly invalid votes, e.g. when no rationale is provided (just "oppose"), when the vote is obviously frivolous or misleading, when there is a personal attack/vandalism/trolling involved, etc. In all other cases, especially with users in good standing, the appropriate thing to do is to comment below a vote. Striking or removing a vote feels like a slap on the face and a slight for the user who cast that vote; it is to be avoided for that reason. This particular case shows exactly why. RfAs should be about promoting new admins, not losing the existing ones. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Note that as yet he has not lost the +sysop flag, as he made the request as an IP -[[m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Richardcavell.40wikipedia]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
Note that as yet he has not lost the +sysop flag, as he made the request as an IP -[[m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Richardcavell.40wikipedia]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Personally, I am VERY tempted to go back and UNDO Nichap's striking of !votes. Yes, he is a 'crat and has the right, no responsibility to weigh the strength of arguments when/if he closes a specific RfA. I would also have no problem with him commenting to the effect, "As is this vote may not carry much weight as it doesn't have a rationale." But to go through and strike people's !votes that you disagree with? I'm sorry, that is not acceptable---it sets a bad precedent. Are we going to start doing the same thing with supports? "Support vote stricken because it didn't provide a 'valid rationale.'"---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:NOTE: I '''feel strongly''' about this, that I went ahead and undid Nichap's actions. While I encourage him to use his discretion when closing an RfA (we affirmed each of you for your ability to do so) I completely disagree with the precident setting action that this makes. Striking !votes has only been done for duplicate !votes, IP's, and people who are known to be disruptive. We have NEVER stricken a vote because we disagree with it or don't think it holds water. People are free to comment to that effect and to show reason why the !vote should be discounted. But to strike an !vote during the RfA in such a public manner is insulting and bad precident. Thus, I undid the striking of the two votes.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Well since he did it in his capacity as a bureaucrat I think you've gone too far in reverting it before discussing that you were going to and getting agreement for that. You're partially covered on the Richardcavell case since a number of people disagreed with that one, but you've gone too far in reverting the other without getting consensus first. But since I don't believe in reverting without discussion I won't do that. I feel strongly isn't a good enough reason. I do happen to agree that striking them was too much, though commenting that they are not the type of rationale that is helpful for RfA is perfectly fine. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Crats are like admins, they hold no more authority than anybody else. They have a few more buttons and are asked to do a few more tasks, but that is the extent of the difference. So the question becomes, if a non-admin were to perform the same action, would I undo it? The answer is yes. Thus, it doesn't matter if a crat or admin did it, it was not the proper thing to do. Plus, my rationale wasn't that I feel strongly about it, which I do, but rather that is is bad precident and insulting to established editors.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Actually Balloonman, I agree with Taxman that you have overstepped yourself here. Whilst it is true that bureaucrats enjoy no greater authority than any other editor in general, that isn't the case where RfA is concerned. It is specifically the job of bureaucrats to assess comments made in the course of an RfA and do have the authority to discount comments. Edit warring with a bureaucrat on an RfA was a bad idea. Whilst I have not been in the practice of striking comments in ongoing RfAs in such circumstances, and would not have struck Richard's vote, I believe you needed to come here and find a consensus for Nichalp's action to be reversed. And personally, it sticks in my throat to see you lecturing Nichalp about the proper thing to do with RfA. I still have firmly in mind your conduct during [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3|this RfA]] and I am afraid it colours my perception of you. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes as WJBscribe mentioned we don't have any authority in anything except RfA and bureaucrat tasks. When we close an RfA it is official, etc. There is no problem discussing it (which was ongoing) and it could be reversed easily enough after discussion. All you had to do was note your opinion that you thought it should be. And I just noticed the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Redmarkviolinist_3&diff=252384191&oldid=252358634 edit summary] you used and I'd like to note that it was particularly poor in light of Wikipedia not being a battle ground and failing to assume good faith. Any time you're tempted to leave an edit summary or wording like that it's a good sign you should take a deep breath and not make the edit. WP:BOLD's intent is to go ahead and make an improvement to the ''encyclopedia'' not to edit war instead of discussing. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I stand by my actions. In this case, Nichalp exceeded his authority. We've had repeated discussion stating that people can oppose for virtually any reason (or no reason whatsoever.) This has been established via repeated discussions (the most obvious being those surrounding KMWEBER's edits.) In this case, he made a mistake, and reverting his decision was IMO the correct action. If we are going to start letting people strike !votes (even 'crats), then that becomes something that needs to be discussed. That would change the very nature of RfA's in a negative manner because it would open people up to being bitten for making a weak or poorly worded oppose. It would make it harder for people to participate in an honest open discussion, because they would always be wondering if their point passed the threshold of acceptability. In this case, Nichalp messed up. It is not the end of the world. I still respect Nichalp, and still trust his judgment and I still want him to close RfA's. I'll still support the decisions he maes in closing an RfA, even if I disagree with the direction it is closed. But that does not change the fact, that he made a mistake that needed to be fixed, and I went ahead and fixed it. I have zero regrets in making that change. Nor do I have a problem stating that I was standing up to a 'crat.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Also, I need to point out, making a single edit is not engaging in an "edit war" or making a "battlefield."---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I expressed early support for bureaucrats stepping into RfA discussions earlier (see previous thread, which was non-specific but definitely supportive), and I continue to do so. Having a bureaucrat express some reasoning behind his or her thinking while the discussion is going on lends a high degree of transparency to the process. Rather than look upon this as an "us vs. them" situation (whether it involves editors vs. admins, editors vs. crats, admins vs. crats, or whatever other permutations you can come up with when you throw in developers, stewards, arbcom, etc.), it is better looked at as the community we are. You commented about how "everyone" knows how the 'crats respond regarding certain comments, but the fact is that "everyone" does '''not''' know, and having the comments right next to the item being commented on, in real time, is a plus for the community and for the process. (If "everyone knew", why was it so common for months to have discussions about power hunger or cooldown blocks?) I, for one, applaud a small step toward a more open process. Not to be argumentative, I think it could well be said that Nichalp was "'''standing up to'''" the community. How many times have we seen pile-on opposes that just didn't do the process justice? This looked to me like a [[WP:BOLD]], [[WP:AGF|good faith]] attempt to slow that down a bit. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::They can still step into the discussion without striking or indenting the comment which can really be seen as a slap in the face. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes, they could step in, but I think that usually implies said 'crat will recuse him/herself from closing that particular RfA, whereas this action was more specifically "look, this is how I'm viewing it from the point of view of my bureaucrat duties." I think it is similarly considered bad form for an admin to close an AfD s/he has participated in, but if an admin wants to monitor the discussion as it is ongoing, I don't think that's frowned upon. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Balloonman, I agree in general with what you have said however I think Nichalp was trying to extend some kindness to this young candidate by striking the votes, lest they become disheartened. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::That crossed my mind too but I was left wondering why Nichalp didn't just close it. There's plenty of precedent. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::''(ecx5)'' Who cares about principles? This wasn't a very good oppose. His reasoning has nothing to do with how good and admin he'll be, he just nommed a pic for featured status once and it wasn't up to standard. That's hardly a reason to withhold adminship. Also, undoing the strike is pointless as the closing cat is going to ignore it anyway, is he not?--[[User:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton</font>]][[User talk:Patton123|<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123</font>]] 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::(ec)I think Roger had the best idea, closing it would have been acceptable. I think the RfA is beyond the scope of an admin/non-admin closing it, but a 'crat could. Nichalp's actions were unilateral without discussion. We've NEVER struck !votes before unless it was an IP, duplicate, or vandal/disruption. To start doing so now, would require discussion---even from a 'crat. Without discussion, it send the message that the !vote was disruptive/vandalistic. This is not the case. Plus, if we start striking !votes, when do we start targetting supports? There is too much precident that this action could set to do so without prior discussion.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::(ec) Wow, this is quite an event to wake up to. I strongly disagree with striking a good faith oppose. If no rationale is given, I still wouldn't support striking it, but America69 even came back and clarified his/her position. Bureaucrats can go ahead and weigh supports and opposes when closing RFAs, but striking comments is going to far. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm curious if Nichalp is doing this as a sort of bureaucrat BRD - taking an aggressive action to see what the reaction of the community will be, so that he (and others) may know how much intervention by crats at RfAs will be tolerated. It is true that many, in various fora, have called for 'crats to take a more active role. I'm not sure this was done in the best possible manner, and perhaps discussion first for this sort of thing is called for, but I think we can all see that consensus for anything, even clearly beneficial changes, is difficult these days - especially at RfA. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:And, no offence intended to the candidate, but if this sort of test needed to be performed then it helps that it was taken on an RfA with a seemingly clear outcome. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I want the crats to start weighing the !votes more, and providing reasoning for their closes. But I do not support this unilateral action without prior discussion. !votes cast in good faith, should not be stricken. They can be discounted/countered, but not stricken.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) NOTE: I'll even point to KMWEBER's opposes and the numerous discussions surrounding his !votes as establishing precident that lame and unpopular !votes are not stricken, eventhough everybody knows they are discounted!---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
This practice is not new - Nichalp in particular has been striking comments he feels add nothing to the discussion with some time and it is a practice that has generally been approved of. I am not generally a fan of this approach, and personally think clarification should be requested first where something is unclear. Personally I find Richard Cavell's reasons for opposing to be valid - he is saying that someone who needs someone to clean up after him as an editor may be a liability as an administrator. Given the additional issues that can be caused by using administrative tools and the fact that such actions are often not reviewed effectively, this seems a reasonable concern. I would have considered that to be valid sentiment, to be weighed in the context of the discussion based on whether this was a feeling shared by other opposers and how it was responded to by others. Whilst not the strongest oppose rationale ever, it makes sense to me and I would not have struck the comment. I am particularly mindful that striking can be embarrassing for the person whose comments are being discounted and that it would be more diplomatic to discuss it with them before taking this step. Whilst Nichalp was acting within his remit, I think it is unfortunate that his later ill health [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nichalp&diff=prev&oldid=252208888] meant he was not around to discuss the matter with Richard. I believe that had he been, the issue might have been resolved more positively. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::(edit conflict) From what I know about Nichalp, I know the striking was done with a positive outcome in mind. His decision probably stemmed out of "some kindness to this young candidate by striking the votes, lest they become disheartened". (in User:Ameliorate!'s words-- come on we all know how disheartening RfAs can be) I totally agree with WJBscribe, let Nichalp return and he shall sort this out. Also words once stricken van be un-stricken too! Probably Nichalp would have un-stricken the commment himself...once he felt the opposer replied back with a stronger rationale. --'''[[User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2|KnowledgeHegemony]]'''[[User talk:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2|Part2]] 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I suppose the context for Richard Cavell's comment is RMV's judgment. I see he has nominated a dozen or so featured picture candidates, including a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=209227852 scanned-in copyvio] – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=218532252], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=210493764], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=210193836], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=209631482], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=209621817], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=209029321], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=208920035], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=206962619], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=206818695], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=195652770] – and, as far as I can tell, not one has attracted any support !votes at all. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I disagree with Nichalp's striking of the comments. He should, however, be encouraged (as should all crats) to take a stance against poor vote reasoning on RFAs, that add little to the discussion but hurtful and misinformed comments (not saying this is the case with Richard's vote). This can be done by a) Making such a comment in the discussion section, or underneath the questionable vote in question, or b) Ignoring such reasoning when making a close, since it has little to do with adminship, and is often nitpicking, looking for a way to oppose somebody. In this particular case, it was obvious the candidate would fail. If I were a bureaucrat, I would have probably just closed the thing. In close cases, such as the one Balloonman mentioned above, is a perfect time to use the "judgement" bureaucrats were apparently voted in for, since they have it. I tend to agree bcrats have the right to decide what makes a valid vote (e.g. SPAs, blocked vandals, sockpuppets etc), but striking a vote from an established user (an admin at that) seems a little much for my liking. Don't take it into account when closing, but striking, as others have said, is pretty offensive and to some downright rude. – [[User:How do you turn this on|How do you turn this on]] ([[User talk:How do you turn this on#top|talk]]) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Personally, the !vote doesn't even have to be that close. If somebody presents a solid reason to oppose a candidate, then it shouldn't matter if there are already 100 supports. Similarly, if 100 people oppose saying, "I don't like the candidates handle", then I would have no problem with a crat passing the RfA. We've asked 'crats to weigh the evidence, we've indicated our trust in their ability to parse it---to weigh the good and the bad arguments. I personally would like to see them make more tough calls. I would support them in doing so. (Regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree. For example, Aervanath's RfA could have gone either way. Before it was closed, I knew that I would support whichever decision the closing crat made. That I agreed with it, is a plus, but it was one that would garner criticism regardless of how it was closed. I've seen WJBScribe make controversial closes before---and have gone out of my way to support his decision.)---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Firstly, I'd like to point out that were I closing that particular RFA, there's absolutely no way I'd pay attention to the vote that Nichalp struck. I would totally discount it. I hold a fair few more positions than administrator, and most of what was said in the oppose also applies to me. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't have the faintest idea how the featured pictures process works. I don't think that makes me a bad admin. |
|||
In Nichalp's position, would I have struck the vote? No, I don't think I would. I probably would just have left a comment to the voter in question, telling them that I had no intention of paying any attention to what they said in their vote, until it's even remotely relevant to adminship. I'll let you lot decide whether that's better or not. |
|||
I also think it was very petty of Richard Cavell to resign his adminship. An admin's vote being struck from an RFA is no bearing on said admin's suitability to be an admin. I'm sure Richard was a good admin, though I don't recall ever interacting with him. I'm truly sorry if he was offended by Nichalp's actions, as I'm sure Nichalp meant no offense. I'm not sorry for what Nichalp actually did though. Note the distinction. |
|||
So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that, but as it's just a piece of friendly advice from one bureaucrat to another, he's well within his rights to ignore me and tell me where to go, what cliff to jump off, or somesuch. The absolute difference between striking a vote (what Nichalp did) and telling a user that you have no intention to pay any attention to the vote (what I'd do) to the RFA is minimal- either way the vote does not get counted. But perhaps we'd have avoided this mess, as discussions like this usually accomplish very little. But note that although I've been a bureaucrat for well over a year now, Nichalp has been at it far longer than me, given he was the bureaucrat that promoted me to administrator those few years ago. |
|||
My, that was long. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have to say I agree with some of the protestations made here to Nichalp's approach. Bureaucrat discretion must be exercised carefully and slowly: striking votes (except when obscene, placed by sockpupptes, etc.) is altogether too heavy-handed. Also I find the language of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' highly objectionable: there is of course ''no such thing'' as an objective vote. |
|||
:On the other hand, Deskana's remarks about pettiness and overreaction are well taken. A general impression that someone is not ready for adminship would certainly be made more convincing by giving evidence from diffs and so forth, and the specific support Mr Cavell provided for his opposition was in fact unusually weak. |
|||
:Still, none of this means that it is possible to overcome one's general impressions and 'subjective' biases when voting, and none of it justifies heavy-handed intervention in a process that we've always wanted to work like a discussion. The best way to deal with a poorly-reasoned vote is to engage the voter in conversation, to invite him to defend or revise his position, rather than to declare his opinion irrelevant. This can of course be done by a regular user or administrator just as well as it can by a bureaucrat. |
|||
:The bureaucrat can only begin his task of assigning relative weights to votes when deciding what to do with a close call -- notice that this is a highly 'subjective' process! -- ''after'' all of the comments have been gathered. Only in rare cases of disruption or extreme incivility should a bureaucrat consider interfering in the ongoing process of discussion and voting. This approach by no means guarantees an 'objectively' correct decision (that would not be possible), but it does guarantee a fair and open discourse and it certainly minimizes hard feelings. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The fact that we've had comments by four bureaucrats, and none have had an identical response to the appropriateness of Nichalp's actions, points up another problem. A more aggressive pattern of intervention by 'crats in the RfA process will have a very significant impact on the course of many requests, but if the nature and threshold for intervention varies as significantly as the opinions we've already seen do then the ultimate impact of such a change will be very unevenly felt. To be more succinct: The 'crats are different, and an expanded role will make those differences more obvious. It would be a serious problem to have the "crat draw" mean the difference between some candidates failing and others succeeding. So either this type of intervention should be discouraged, or it should be clear to all bureaucrats what is expected of them and when. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:While I think Richard might have over reacted in resigning, I can understand it. Striking !votes has generally be reserved for duplicate !votes, IP's, and vandals/trouble makers. By unilaterally striking the !vote, in such a public manner, it can send the message that you are categorized as the later category. That your opinion/stance doesn't even deserve to be discussed, but can be unilaterally thrown away. When this is done in a public manner, it has a different impact than than one made on a user's talk page or via email. Yes, the ultimate impact on the RfA may be the same, but being called out changes the parameters. Doing this to a respected member of the community is wrong, and needed to be fixed. (For BOTH people who were striked out, not just the one who protested.)---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I still think we are looking too far into the striking of two votes on the RFA of a young candidate, when the outcome of the RFA was already decided. The two stricken votes would have been a glimmer of hope to the candidate (even if false, a glimmer nonetheless) rather than having their third RFA closed early. Although, I would still like to hear if this was Nichalp's reason for doing this. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Having spent effort giving "moral supports" (which have often been crticised as a concept I might add) and indeed largely creating [[WP:NOTNOW]] to replace [[WP:SNOW]] as a more "gentle" reason to close an RFA early, I'd be deeply worried if 'crats started striking comments to give a candidate a "glimmer of hope" or whatever. Yes, RFA sucks, and I've long been of the opinion that we need to be more gentle to candidates. However if 'crats are actively going to start striking comments (as opposed to discounting them) to "save a candidates feelings" we've moved from a process of objective assessment based on discussion to a rather disturbing backdrop. I'm not at all sure Nichalp did strike the comments based largely on the idea of not discouraging candidates - ''if'' he did (and that is far from certain) I commend his sense of human decency but still feel it is a dangerous concept and one best avoided.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:50, 17 November 2008
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DreamRimmer | 32 | 22 | 4 | 59 | Open | 10:02, 4 June 2024 | 4 days, 15 hours | no | report |
It is 18:15:10 on May 30, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Crat comments invited
Wikipedia:Changing_username#InFeRnODeMoN_.E2.86.92_TeufelHunden787. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Aervanath's RfA
Aervanath's RfA appears to one of those that is going to go down to the wire... when it is closed, either as successful or failure, I'd be interested in seeing the rationale. Particularly, if it ends in 68-75% range.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's been fluctuating between 70-72% in the past few days. Xclamation point 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Looks like the crats are going to earn their paychecks for that one... J.delanoygabsadds 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, unless something changes, it might be one of the more borderline RfA's in a while... I generally have an idea as to whether or not an rfa is going to pass or fail by this point... usually, there is a clear trend developing by this point... but this one is just hovering at the fringe.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- RFAs like these are why the numbers are less important than the words behind the numbers, but this is what we, um, pay the 'crats for. Useight (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. This RFA may pass, it may fail, but the result of this RFA could have a significant impact on future RFAs. If the support is about 71-72%, and the closing 'crat decides to close it as successful, it could change the way we look at RFAs. AdjustShift (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- er... it could just as easily be written: if the closing 'crat decides to close it as failed, it could change the way we look at RFAs. This isn't the place to politic. We've got at conversations on at least 3 pages (that I know of) concerning the validity of the "not enough article building" debate. Let's not start a fourth one here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to start another debate. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- er... it could just as easily be written: if the closing 'crat decides to close it as failed, it could change the way we look at RFAs. This isn't the place to politic. We've got at conversations on at least 3 pages (that I know of) concerning the validity of the "not enough article building" debate. Let's not start a fourth one here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. This RFA may pass, it may fail, but the result of this RFA could have a significant impact on future RFAs. If the support is about 71-72%, and the closing 'crat decides to close it as successful, it could change the way we look at RFAs. AdjustShift (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- RFAs like these are why the numbers are less important than the words behind the numbers, but this is what we, um, pay the 'crats for. Useight (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, unless something changes, it might be one of the more borderline RfA's in a while... I generally have an idea as to whether or not an rfa is going to pass or fail by this point... usually, there is a clear trend developing by this point... but this one is just hovering at the fringe.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Looks like the crats are going to earn their paychecks for that one... J.delanoygabsadds 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this is going to be one of those example RFA closes ending up on some poor sap's RFB. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- ????---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he means it'll end up being one of the questions in an RfB's, as in, "How would you close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath?" –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOL... now I see it! Yes, I definitely can see this one being that kind of RfA... this is one where there isn't a right or wrong answer... but a difference in philosophy.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he means it'll end up being one of the questions in an RfB's, as in, "How would you close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath?" –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are reading too much into this. Every RfA doesn't have to be read the same way and this one isn't that controversial, it's just numerically close -- not actually very borderline. RfAs have passed with a lot less support and with a lot more, but RfA doesn't work on numeric precedent. Andre (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Previous RfAs
Try as I might, I cannot find a template that adds this infobox to an RfA. Since there is one that is upcoming, I think it should be included for fairness to all. Any ideas? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Er...link? bibliomaniac15 01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble working out what you're asking but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume that you're planning on nominating someone and want to know how to include the box that lists the past RfAs a user has had. If that's the case, you should find that the box is used as part of {{RfA}} if you create an RfA following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#To nominate someone else. Hope that helps. If you're asking about something else, could clarify which infobox you are referring to and what it is that is upcoming. WJBscribe (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Apols for the confusion, (another late night). Nominator has fixed it here. --Rodhullandemu 13:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What the heck happened to the SUL checker link? bibliomaniac15 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the template {{Renameuser2}}? Xclamation point 02:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which shows SUL as a redlink, it seems the SUL: interwiki-shortcut has been disabled. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, bugger. Guess I'll have to find the URL somewhere. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- The SUL shortcut was removed because sul is a valid ISO language code. It was replaced with sulutil:, and I have fixed that in the template. Xclamation point 03:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, bugger. Guess I'll have to find the URL somewhere. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which shows SUL as a redlink, it seems the SUL: interwiki-shortcut has been disabled. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Bureaucrat Notes
I've seen a couple of 'crat notes on RfAs recently, and I want to express my support for the involvement being displayed. I am very much in favor of having a bit of refereeing along the way for all participants - new and experienced alike - whether I agree with the comments or not. Thanks! Frank | talk 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tks. I always make then when I think there'll be some questions, in the "close call" cases, etc. I know some of the other crats do too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Nichalp actions in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3
- Note - Nichalp's user page has a userbox, dated yesterday, noting that he is away from Wikipedia for awhile because he is ill. Something to keep in mind for this discussion and his response or lack thereof. Avruch T 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Excellent point Avruch, I'm moving this to the top of the discussion, because I think it is something that people should readily see, BEFORE reading too much... where it was, it might get lost.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I request that other crats quickly review the actions of the bureaucrat Nichalp in the above mentioned RfA. Nichalp struck out the vote of an admin Richard Cavell. As a result Richard Cavell resigned his adminship[1]. I find Nichalp's actions in striking out the vote completely unacceptable. While I personally disagree with the logic given in that vote, the vote was not frivolous and gave a reasoned rationale. The closing crat can discount or disregard votes that they find particularly unpersuasive but actually striking out an RfA vote by a Wikipedian in good standing, and an admin no less, is quite another matter. It is offensive, completely unnecessary and sets a really bad precedent. No wonder Richard Cavell felt slighted and resigned his adminship. Nichalp needs to apologize to Richard Cavell and the other crats need to try to rectify the situation with Richard Cavell's adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I support User:Nichalp's actions at RfA; in fact, I pre-supported it and others (see above). If the 'crats can see - while an RfA is ongoing - that an opinion is going to be discounted, it makes sense to let the community know as early as possible. This is especially true lately; it seems a single oppose can really turn the tide against a candidate pretty quickly with pile-ons. Nic's comment was about the content, not the contributor, as it should be. Richard's choice of how to respond is his own, but I think Nic was plenty open about his reasoning and furthermore, open to the possibility of Richard providing more info on the matter. Frank | talk 14:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a 'crat strike a !vote before (let alone two in the same RfA). Some editors might be intimidated by it for fear of public criticism. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Commenting below a vote to point out its faulty logic or inappropriate nature is quite all right and it is similarly all right to discount such votes when an RfA is closed. But actually striking down a vote of a Wikipedian in good standing, an admin, who has provided a reasoned rationale for his vote, is quite a different story. It is offensive and unnecessary. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- If striking was "offensive and unnecessary" where exactly does that leave an oppose !vote about formatting and a blurry photo in the grand scheme of things? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly what difference does it make that Richard Cavell is an admin? Why keep throwing that around like it means something. HiDrNick! 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with somebody saying, "Your reasoning makes no sense." In fact, if that is the case, then somebody will make such an argument. The 'crats are able to make that comment just as easily. To strike a !vote because you disagree with it? No. If others join in and pile on because of it, then perhaps there was more to it than the crat gave the !vote credit for. Take Aervanath's RfA. It passed. But many people were critical of it due to the lack of article writing. While I think this particular candidate made up for that deficeit in other areas, others did not. Now suppose that a crat saw Scott's initial !vote and decided "This isn't a valid reason, I'm going to strike it." Then that might discount everybody else who would have opposed for the same reason. It's why we discuss the issues, and why (in theory) this isn't a vote. I applaud Nichalp in stating that he weigh's !votes differently, but I oppose striking a good faith !vote of a person in such a manner.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem it would have been better to have indented or commented on Richard's views rather than striking it. Striking comments anywhere, even on a talk page can be offensive. I've generally felt that we as bureaucrats shouldn't actually strike comments unless they are confirmed sockpuppets or the like. On the other side Richard did seem to think his views should have authority which is not the case. I agree Richard's views in the RFA should have at the minimum been commented on as they had a very tenuous connection to whether someone was a suitable admin. I also agree that if a vote is going to be discounted, there is some benefit to the community to knowing that early as Frank mentioned. - Taxman Talk 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Commenting below a vote to disagree with it and to indicate that it is likely to be discounted at closing is perfectly fine. But indenting or striking a vote should only be done in the cases of clearly invalid votes, e.g. when no rationale is provided (just "oppose"), when the vote is obviously frivolous or misleading, when there is a personal attack/vandalism/trolling involved, etc. In all other cases, especially with users in good standing, the appropriate thing to do is to comment below a vote. Striking or removing a vote feels like a slap on the face and a slight for the user who cast that vote; it is to be avoided for that reason. This particular case shows exactly why. RfAs should be about promoting new admins, not losing the existing ones. Nsk92 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that as yet he has not lost the +sysop flag, as he made the request as an IP -m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Richardcavell.40wikipedia Pedro : Chat 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)