Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Jon-146
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



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
>  Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and
>  abuse potential?

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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Jon-146
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>  Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and
>>  abuse potential?
>>    
>
> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  
I know there is not a solution, however, sometimes the best way, is
exposure.


./scream
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Nathan Awrich
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

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Screamer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >>  Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and
> >>  abuse potential?
> >>
> >
> > 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
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> I know there is not a solution, however, sometimes the best way, is
> exposure.
>
>
> ./scream
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Alex Sawczynec
In reply to this post by Jon-146
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Screamer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 completely agree with you. I'm disappointed in how several of these RfBs
have turned out, but most especially Riana's and Neil's (pre-civility
incident). Riana nominating Kelly Martin has absolutely nothing to do with
how she would perform as a bureaucrat. It's not as if she would go
completely rouge and promote a candidate with KM's percentage level. There's
a similar issue with Neil's; people are opposing him because of his stance
on re-confirmation RfAs; but do we not trust him to either vote oppose and
recuse himself from closing, or close according to consensus regardless of
his personal feelings?

- GC
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Majorly
On 29/02/2008, Alex Sawczynec <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Screamer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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 completely agree with you. I'm disappointed in how several of these RfBs
> have turned out, but most especially Riana's and Neil's (pre-civility
> incident). Riana nominating Kelly Martin has absolutely nothing to do with
> how she would perform as a bureaucrat. It's not as if she would go
> completely rouge and promote a candidate with KM's percentage level.
> There's
> a similar issue with Neil's; people are opposing him because of his stance
> on re-confirmation RfAs; but do we not trust him to either vote oppose and
> recuse himself from closing, or close according to consensus regardless of
> his personal feelings?
>
> - GC
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

In my humble opinion, while it was pretty poor judgement to nominate someone
like Kelly Martin, it doesn't show that she'd go "Oh what the heck" and
promote anyway. On Meta-wiki, where I am a bureaucrat, I nominated Adambro
for adminship, and it didn't go well. Now, if someone like me is going to
refrain from promoting people the community think are unsuitable, I think
that assuming someone like Riana would is just poor judgement on the voters'
part, and would be a great shame if she wasn't successful. Maybe we need a
lower promotion rate for bcrats - after all, they have an easier job than
admins.

And by the way, Riana is the best candidate there (possibly along with The
Rambling Man, but I don't know him so well, but he seems to be popular). It
will be Wikipedia's loss if no one was promoted this time.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Alex Sawczynec
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>

It does seem that people are making entirely too large a deal out of these
RfBs -- and as Nathan said, the result will be no new crats. We're getting
the blanket "don't need more crats" opposes, which frustrate me the most.
What is wrong with having more crats? Doubtless in the future there will be
a situation arises that requires us to have more, so why should we be
shorthanded?

- GC
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Nicolas Montes
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".
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
On 29/02/2008, Nicolas Montes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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".

I think it's been 90% for as long as RFB has existed in its current
form (I don't think there was a set %age at first, of course).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Majorly
In reply to this post by Nicolas Montes
On 29/02/2008, Nicolas Montes <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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".
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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!)

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
> 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.

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).

>  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!)

The requirements for crats should certainly be higher than for admins
(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.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Nathan Awrich
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Majorly
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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).


Yeah, consensus is supposed to be a general agreement of everyone. With
people passing despite serious concerns, it's hardly communal agreement.

The requirements for crats should certainly be higher than for admins
> (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.
>

I'm not entirely sure here, but only the RfBs that have passed have garnered
over 75% of the vote (there may be an exception or two). The point is,
people will be tougher on RfBs, especially knowing the % will be the same.
Making it 90% (where did that number come from?) is rather unnecessarily
high. I don't agree requirements should be higher for 'crats - as I've
stated, their job is easier than being an admin, despite what most people
would have you believe.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Majorly
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 29/02/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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
>

The bar doesn't need to be higher though. What's the reason exactly? If
people fear the idea of more bcrats, they can oppose them. Otherwise they'll
have to live with the fact people want to help out and will request. And,
admin only? Absolutely not.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Risker
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 29/02/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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


Oh please. 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.
They also manage CHU, which affects non-admins at least equally as admins.

Remember when adminship was no big deal?  Well, we are seeing a continual
creep in the "big-dealness" of adminship.  Selection of those whose actions
affect the community as a whole should be made by the community as a whole.


Risker


_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Majorly
> I'm not entirely sure here, but only the RfBs that have passed have garnered
>  over 75% of the vote (there may be an exception or two). The point is,
>  people will be tougher on RfBs, especially knowing the % will be the same.
>  Making it 90% (where did that number come from?) is rather unnecessarily
>  high. I don't agree requirements should be higher for 'crats - as I've
>  stated, their job is easier than being an admin, despite what most people
>  would have you believe.

A crat is also an admin. If they have less community support than
would get them through RfA then they should probably be desysoped, not
promoted to crat. The percentage support may not need to be higher,
but the actual level of community support certainly needs to be.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Riana-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 01/03/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins
> only.
>
>
> Nathan
>

Eek!

--
Riana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Risker
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."

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 29/02/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
>
> Oh please. 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.
> They also manage CHU, which affects non-admins at least equally as admins.
>
> Remember when adminship was no big deal?  Well, we are seeing a continual
> creep in the "big-dealness" of adminship.  Selection of those whose
> actions
> affect the community as a whole should be made by the community as a
> whole.
>
>
> Risker
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Risker
> 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.

Is that actually true? What is the percentage of non-admins among RfA
contributors? It's certainly much lower than the percentage among the
community at large.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
> Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins
>  only.

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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123