Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Nominees not accepting or rejecting

We currently have four nominations, one overdue, who have neither accepted nor rejected their nominations. The RfA page states:

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

and the instructions for promotion say:

If [the nomination] is not a self-request, check the user has accepted the nomination

I believe seven days is sufficient time for a nominee to be aware of, and express an opinion on, his or her own nomination. I extended Jeronimo's nomination for a day to give the user time to respond. Beyond this please be aware nominees will not be promoted. This is a matter of the simple rules, but also a simple courtesy to the community for someone who will be entrusted with some extra responsibilities and the trust of the community.

Please, if you nominate someone, make sure they are aware they must accept or reject their nominations on the RfA page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. The purpose of requiring nominees to accept nominations is to be sure that the nominee wants to be nominated. There is no purpose in insisting that nominees accept in a particular manner or timeframe. I don't believe that it is necessary to both get permission from a nominee first and the also have them accept here.

While nominees who are actively seeking adminship usually follow this page for a time and become familiar with its workings, many qualified editors who would serve the project well as administrators do not. The nominees to whom Cecropia refers are all in this later category. If this conflicts with written instructions, let's change the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe a candidate for adminship, who is expected to be reasonably active on Wikipedia, is facing an undue burden by being asked to simply accept the nomination within the seven day period that other Wikipedians are voting on his/her nomination. Some would say noone should even vote until the person has accepted the nomination. IMO, UC is reinterpreting the simple rules that have governed this page at least for the year I've been here. If he wants to be inclusive, I have no argument with that, but in his zeal he appears to wish to rewrite the rules, which is the province of the community. Should we endorse UC's view that, if the nominator believes the candidate has pre-accepted the nomination, that is good enough for the community? And shouldn't the nominator make it clear that to the nominee the simple fact that they should accept the nomination on the RfA page and be prepared to answer questions from voters? As of yesterday, three or four of UC's recent nominations had not accepted or visited the RfA page. After I left them messages, all but one have accepted. Is this so difficult? Is adminship simply an honorific? What kind of admins can they be if they're not even available to the community during the voting?

Also see UC's and Cecropia's comments at Cecropia's talk page and UnivitedCompany's talk page

Endorse UnivitedCompany's View

I still feel that adminship isn't a big deal, despite Cecropia's and others' movement to the contrary. Now, I generally don't support users that I don't know if they haven't answered the admin questions and such. However, I don't feel that a formal acceptance is necessary - in the case of users that I am already familiar with, I already know whether to support or oppose. Andre (talk) 19:47, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I agree w UC, if you need an acceptance, just wait until they accept or decline, or de-admin them when they complain of not wanting to be an admin. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Cecropia that they should be able to take time out to accept a nomination, but there is something that does not sit well with me about giveing time frame limits. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
Ingoolemo, please see my comment below.
In response to the comment by Cecropia: yes I support an open-ended extension until the user accepts the nomination. Sorry for the confusion.
But I do think that common sense should rule over timeout (you can't come along and accept nomination three months later and still get it). →Iñgólemo← (talk) 17:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
I don't believe someone should be suddenly made sysop without asking. After the seven days are up, if consensus is reached, a bureaucrat should leave comment on their talk page informing them they've been pre-approved for adminship whenever they feel like it. Cool Hand Luke 12:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me as if the disputing parties are doing a hen of a feather-issue. If there are obvious signs of a user accepting nomination, I fail to see why the way this is expressed should be of any concern. There are other issues of the nomination process that in my humble opinion would deserve much more interest. /Tuomas 14:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with the above. --Lst27 (talk) 02:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the above as well. ugen64 17:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cribcage 04:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorse Cecropia's View

Geogre 19:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) I go even further, myself. I think there should be a quorum on votes. It seems to me insane that someone is active enough to be performing admin duties and yet not have noticed the nomination. I would even say that a failure to answer the questionnaire is a very, very bad sign. If we have no quorum, then we have the nominator's "yea" vote and perhaps 2-3 people who vote "pro" everyone who hasn't given an explicit offense, and then that person is an admin. That seems wrong, if our goal is to get people who will work to help the project.
While admins should not be expected to be everywhere at once, I am honestly surprised that there is even a debate over whether admin candidates should be expected to accept their nominations in order to be promoted. I see this as a necessary courtesy to the community, and as a promise that one will not abuse administrative abilities. --Slowking Man 00:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
You're supposed to ask before nominating them anyway, so I can't see how there can be a problem in coming over here to accept the nomination. I agree with the idea that the request runs for voting for seven days, if not accepted by the end of the request, it should be considered to have not been accepted and put to bed. Shane King 07:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Shane King. 7 days is more than enough time to respond- especially when they're usually asked first. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Asking people to accept nominations isn't too much. In fact, I'd be in favor of making people accept before it's even put on the main page. No need to waste the time of others by letting a nomination go for a few days and then turning it down (be it because of not wanting admin status in the first place or choosing not to after getting negative feedback). CryptoDerk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If a user isn't interested in Wikipedia Housekeeping to be bothered to go to the RFA page and type I accept. ~~~~, I don't think they're interested enough to bother voting, let alone make them an admin. The alternative being developed below seems promising, as long as it's well enough documented that people see and follow it. Niteowlneils 02:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You go to someone's talk page and ask them if they would like to be an admin. They say 'yes' or 'no'. If they say 'yes', you can place them on the adminship page. The nominee should also state on the RfA page they they have accepted. They should answer the boiler plate questions, (btw, either everyone nominee should answer the boiler plate questions, or no nominee should answer them, there should be a uniform system). The nominee should check on the RfA page to answer any questions that come up. Since all of us have lives outside of WP, the nominee can state that they may have pressing "offline" affairs to attend to that will make them somewhat unavailable during the week, which is OK, but please understand: the situation with Jeronimo was just a bit weird. Geogre had asked a question, and the nominee hadn't responded in any way. I don't understand way there is so much resistence to a little bit of propriety. I don't think it is too much to ask an admin nominee to take an interest in their own nomination. Being aware of how things work around here is kind of one of the things that an admin should know. func (talk) 04:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What Func said. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 19:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Other Perspectives and Comments

I'm going to hold off on voting for the moment, but I am one of the users who frequents this page who believes that adminship is a bigger deal than it was in the beginning and than many people still believe it is. I respect both beaurocrats greatly, but personally I will not even consider the user if they do not have the courtesy to accept the nomination. It shows that they are possibly lacking in the community-minded element that I believe all admins should have. I know there is a lot of resistance to policy changes around here (probably because they are proposed so often), but if a policy is to change, I would lean strongly toward Cecropia's view. Skyler 1534 17:58, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Since I became an admin, I can't think of a single person who did not accept their nomination explicitly on RfA. If someone can find some, I'd be curious. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Skyler in the sense that I think treating this as some kind of poll is premature, why not have some discussion to figure things out. I do think that some kind of positive acceptance of the nomination is needed, preferably on the RfA page (though I believe in the past some people have been made admins even though their statement of acceptance was made elsewhere, such as on their nominator's talk page). I'm not sure that granting permission to nominate qualifies as the same thing, because some people have preferred to watch their nominations for a little while to gauge the reaction before declaring whether they accept it. I would suggest that we err a little bit on the side of interpreting statements to be acceptance, because I've seen some rather cryptic "acceptances", and when in doubt, it's fine to ask the nominee for clarification. Once clarification is requested, give the nominee a reasonable amount of time, depending on what their activity level is, to respond, regardless of whether voting has theoretically closed already. --Michael Snow 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue I raised was chiefly regarding the propriety of his imposition of a 24-hour deadline on Jeronimo's nomination in particular. Please note that I did not nominate Jeronimo; Taxman did. My comments had arisen from that situation in particular and should be taken in that context. The requirement that prospective admins be asked for permission before being nominated has been widely ignored, and now that there has been greater observance of it there is understandably more confusion among nominees who now have to accept twice.

Also, I'm dismayed to see this issue come to a vote given that there has been so little discussion, and I feel that the banner on WP:RFA advertising the vote is of questionable appropriateness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate to let the community know that there is a conflict of opinion between two bureaucrats, empowered to promote? This vote hasn't a specific deadline--there is the opportunity for plenty of discussion right here. UC's complaint on my "imposition" of a 24-hour deadline is a misunderstanding. Jeronimo's nomination has seven days without a response. If I were hard-nosed about it, I could simply have followed the guideline on the Bureaucrat page and removed the nomination for a failure to accept, but extended the deadline as a "heads-up" and informed Jeronimo of his need to accept, which he did, and he has been promoted. End of that story.

I am concerned that UC has such an activist philosophy of nominations, and thinks that if the existing policy disagrees with him, it should be ignored or changed. I engaged with him on issues of being an activist in proposing candidates and being a bureaucrat, because I think bureaucrats need to be viewed as being as impartial as possible, lest there be a perception of conflict of interest. I was satisfied with UC's response, but now I'm becoming concerned about an actual conflict of interest. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I'm a little concerned that you think UC's attitude is a problem. This project is only three years old. Policy is whatever we want it to be and anyone, especially our most trusted users, can suggest changes. Policy pages, just like the rest of the wiki, are editable for a reason. As to the subject, adminship isn't an "honorific", but it's not a job either. Some people make it sound like we have a limited number of admin positions available. If that were true, then we'd have to make sure that every candidate is going to make the best possible use of the sysop flag on their account. However, there's essentially zero cost in toggling the admin switch for someone. There's no reason to deny someone adminship unless there's a real possibility that it will be misused. Isomorphic 19:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic, some people feel one way, some other. I have not made a case that adminships should be limited, but as someone who does "push the button" I need to see what the standards are that enables the button to be pished or not. Up until now, it seems everyone has managed to accept their nominations on the RfA page, now we have a bunch that go for days without acknowledging the promotion or standing ready to answer voter questions, and UC complains that I'm even asking people to express their opinions on the subject. If there are no standards, then we don't don't even need a button pusher. The software can easily be written to admin people automatically. Absolutely, anyone can suggest changes, but UC is trying to impose them, and, IMO, effectively telling another "most trusted user" to bug off. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apologies. I should read pages more carefully before posting. I was supporting UC's 14:53 comment, not the later one. I don't think that it was inappropriate for you to ask for comments on it. Really though, I don't think any of this is a big deal. Isomorphic 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we go to the bother of stating a rule on the RfA page, aren't we obligated to follow it until such a time as that rule has been changed? That is the expectation of voters, certainly. Knowing that the wiki nature of policies means that they have been changed out from under the voters is a bit severe. It would be like signing the Declaration of Independence and then having Townshend rewrite the paper to be a dissolution of the Continental Congress above the signatures. Geogre 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a practical upshot of that to illustrate the point: I hate to vote "oppose" on RfA. I'm a nice guy, generally. If I see that the candidate hasn't accepted the nomination, I feel relieved that I don't have to vote "oppose." However, if people are going to be promoted without accepting, I really need to know that so that I can enter an "Oppose until the nomination is accepted" on every single new nom. Geogre 20:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we make anyone an admin without their express consent. I just don't see a reason to make rules about how soon someone has to respond. A good candidate is a good candidate, even if they aren't paying attention to RFA or haven't been on in a few days. Isomorphic 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But this was about Jeronimo's nomination, where it went the full seven days without the user ever looking at it, standing ready to answer questions or otherwise engage the community. UC complained that I only gave J one extra day. actually, if he hadn't edited in the day, I would have give him another--but I don't believe in open-ended nominations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, there is a reason to avoid the infinite admin world. This is purely practical and not at all philosophical. Right now, edit wars and personal disagreements between users are bad, and those between admins and users are bad, but such between admins are disasterous. There is no recourse in the last case except immediate ArbCom. If our ArbCom were moving with the speed of Robespierre and the finality of the Star Chamber and the wisdom of Solomon, then that would be ok, but the more we pile on the speedy delete, undelete, and blocking priviledges to untested folks, the more we run into an inevitable pile up and fracturing of the arbitration system. Geogre 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In short course, UC has begun making multiple nominations, followed by posting what amounts to "A-Lists" of people he has decided should be admins, but asking others to nominate them, and initially posted same right on the RfA page (but complains about the propriety of my simply posting a notice 'asking editors to express their opinions here. Then he begins soliciting admins whether they're interested or not, and now asserts that I'm wrong in expecting them to at least publicly accept these solicited nominations on the RfA page. Following his logic, and considering how good he tells me all his nominations are (and by and large, I acknowledge they are) will he next decide that as a bureaucrat (which he is) he would be justified in simply promoting those he considers suitable? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Ingoolemo, we alrady have a time frame for nomination: seven days. In difficult nominations I have advocated, and have indeed extended nominations to help insure consensus, so I (or another b'crat) do not have to evaluate the nom unless it is necessary. Not everyone agrees with this. This is not a case of limiting nominations. Everyone has the full seven days to accept, though I think this is a disrespect to voters who might want to know more about the candidate. What this is about is giving an open-ended extension after the full seven days just because the candidate hasn't bothered to look at the page and accept or reject the nomination. Is that what you favor when you say you are bothered by time limits? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

an alternative

I have thought about this over the weekend and would like to observe that the present state of affairs is neither fish nor fowl. Usually, in a situation in the real world where nominations must be accepted, voting does not begin until the acceptance is made. Perhaps we would be best served by starting the 7-day voting period only when an acceptance is received. This would eliminate many of the corner cases that some perceive to be problematic, and would eliminate any need to ask permission before nominating, since no action on the nomination would take place before it is accepted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As stated in my vote from earlier today, I'm all for this. CryptoDerk 23:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh. I guess this is ok. Andre (talk) 23:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with that, with the understanding that voting does not begin until acceptance is received, but that makes it incumbent on the nominator that they inform the nominee. Personally, I don't think that it is mandatory that the nominee be asked first (though it seems like a reasonable idea) but acceptance and availability to the community is. If we can agree, we could vote this as a change. How about if we place a category Pending Nominations before the Current Nominations. If accepted the nomination is moved to "Current" and the clock begins. If not accepted or rejected in xx days (would you leave it up forever?), it simply is removed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of it, from my perspective. In my endorsement of your view above I mentioned that I'd be in favor of this because it wouldn't waste the time of the community. I'd be in favor of a pending nominations category only if people weren't allowed to comment or vote on pending nominations. CryptoDerk 00:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ermm... I though that's what I said, but I guess not. I agree with you, no comments or votes until the person accepts. If anyone does vote or comment, it would be removed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The combined suggestion of UninvitedCompany and Cecropia sounds like a reasonable way to do things. However, there would need to be some education of people that you don't vote on unaccepted nominations, and a way to discourage this effectively. Otherwise we may frequently see "votes" and comments being made early anyway. Might I suggest that after a reasonable transition period, we declare that premature votes mean that person's vote will be disregarded, even if they come back and vote properly afterwards? --Michael Snow 07:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Even if they come back and vote properly afterwards"? Sounds awful. But come on, you make it seem as if it will be very difficult to actually get people to accept that........ that they cannot vote yet on something that is marked "Don't vote yet"???? I don't think it'd be difficult at all. This is a terribly reasonable idea. Make it policy fast. (I like the particular implementation Cecropia discusses best) D. G. 10:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know it doesn't sound great, but unless the prohibition is very clearly marked (and it didn't sound like it), then I do very much expect that people wishing to disrupt particular nominations and/or the general process will "vote" prematurely. Maybe you prefer to cross that bridge when we come to it, but it's naive to think that those people don't exist. --Michael Snow 17:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So how about if the "Pending" looks like this?:

Pending Nominations

The following nominations are awaiting acceptance by the candidates. Do not vote or comment on these. Voting will begin when and if the candidate accepts.

User:UltimateTroll

UltimateTroll has worked hard to destroy Wikipedia and ruin the work of other users. Becoming an admin would help him immeasurably in his work. If he is elected he promises his first act will be to put an indefinite ban on Jimbo Wales. I know this nomination probably won't pass, but I just like nominating people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Awaiting acceptance. Do not vote or comment

As John Hancock said, that should be big enough that old King George should be able to read it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, with clearly marked instructions like that it probably would be enough to satisfy my concerns. Though I must admit, I was considerably tempted to have a little fun by jumping the gun and "voting" on this example. --Michael Snow 07:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many decide whether to accept a nomination based on other users' reactions to it. I think notification before nomination is appropriate, but not acceptance. Very Verily 11:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WOW. Surely pigs shall fly soon, for I agree with VeryVerily! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can always retract your acceptance. It happens all the time. Shane King 01:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can, but many modest or insecure users may be inclined to decline until they see how much enthusiasm their nomination inspires. Very Verily 12:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have a slight quibble with it. Sorry. I do agree with it in general, but I think it has been illustrative to see the lack of response in some of them. That's not to indict uc's nominations at all, but one qualification of an admin is being obsessed enough to be hitting Wikipedia often. Grantes, people take vacations and go out of town on business meetings, but I do think knowing that it has taken someone 8 days or thereabouts to answer the call is information that voters can use or not. Having a nomination fade away if not accepted may be too harsh, but it does have a purpose. Geogre 15:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would happily vote against any user who can't respond to a nomination by accepting it or rejecting it. I think the very minimum I need from an admin is responsiveness to wikipedia process, particularly when notified. Pedant 00:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

New user levels at test, may be in MediaWiki 1.4

Moved to Wikipedia talk:User access levels

Too many bureaucrats?

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)