I think most things become political once they reach a certain scale. It's not a good thing, but I don't have a solution... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I post this to the working list, because I want to opine, and I want to draw some attention to what I believe is a bad trend. I've read some RFA's and the recent RFB. I asked Riana if I could use her RFB as an example. I'm not asking anyone to go support or oppose it, you all can do that on your on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy. I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not. Any project can use good custodians, but damn, the bar is high. ./scream

I guess you get what you pay for - a number of opposes don't seem to be that weighty (KM's nom on Riana's RfB, the 'not enough participation in RfA' on Avraham's, when he's participated in 80...) and the result will be no new crats. The next time a difficult decision is made because a crat couldn't find someone to discuss an issue with inside the window, we will have only RfB voters to blame. Nathan

Well, we should trust our current crats to be able to see how strong consensus is and review opposes accordingly. That is why they were chosen right? Just one question though, when did the percentage for RfB become 90% or has it always been that way? It seems that if we lowered the bar a little, we would get more and sooner or later a lot more f these opposes would pop up along with essays about who being a crat is "no big deal".

The 90% is silly... how can consensus be two different percentages? It can't be both a vote and consensus at the same time. People either need to admit it's basically a vote, with different requirements for RfAs and RfBs, or change it so it's the same for both. You can't have both a voting % AND consensus.

An interesting factoid: I work on three other wikis as well as English Wikipedia, and they all keep the same % for bureaucrats. I don't know why English Wikipedia is different. As I said, it's very silly, when all they do is the job of a calculator (and when they don't... guess what, it causes controversy!)

It's "rough consensus", which basically means supermajority with a slight weighting of votes based on reasons given. It's not a pure vote (at least, it's not meant to be), but it's certainly not consensus. We rarely get a true consensus on any Rf(A|B) - it would essentially require 100% support (there is a difference between consensus and unanimity but with a format like RfA [which discourages discussion], that difference is minimal).

(since crats need to be admins too). That can be done either by people being harsher in their votes, by the required percentage being higher, or a combination of the two. Since people are a lot harsher in their votes, the percentage doesn't need to be much (if at all) higher - 90% is probably a little excessive.

90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates. Perhaps, if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not convinced about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only. Nathan

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only. Nathan

The 'crats get the job of sorting out the tough RfAs, when the community (the majority of whom are non-admins) is not voting uniformly.

That would gives admins (indirect) control over who can and can't become an admin. If we do that, then adminship really would be a cabal. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Oh I agree, but I think when we're talking about having a higher bar for RfBs (which I also don't agree with) then restricting who can vote makes more sense than changing the passing %. A % sufficient to show consensus is a % sufficient to show consensus, in other words, but if you want you can have a "consensus of trusted editors."

Well, technically since all bureaucrats are admins... you could make that claim already.

I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that it's not an idea I would dismiss out of hand. I agree that it's unlikely a good definition of "trusted editor" can be found.

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: of "trusted editor" can be found. Any editor who spends time in manner that is benefiting the project as whole.

I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.

Screamer wrote: Poor Kelly! People have just not learned to appreciate her refreshing bitchiness. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Trusted Editor, n. A Wikipedia editor with the characteristic of always being correct, or in other words, always agreeing with me.

On 3/1/08, Screamer <scream(a)datascreamer.com> wrote: There is nothing to be confused about. Anyone who regularly votes on anything will, sooner or later, attempt to convert their vote into power. Animate's initial response: "I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from Riana has been positive. However, the Kelly Martin adminship nomination really gives me pause." Translates basically as "Hmm, I've got some dirt on you. Convince me." Just like in the RfAs, where people routinely come up with all sorts of novel hoops for candidates to jump through - voters want to exercise their power. My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Riana <wiki.riana(a)gmail.com> wrote: Didn't ya know that Kelly is Teh Antichrist whose touch is death?

Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy. I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not. ./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 06/03/2008, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote: Avruch isn't even an admin, let alone running for bcrat ;-) I think you meant Avraham? -- Alex (Majorly) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l