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

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

Is that appropriate? Should it not have just been noted that it was a late vote, as is done in RFA? Lara❤Love 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Its interesting that Dan believes nothing much will come of the process ongoing at WT:RFA concerning RfB passing percentages. What would the community need to do in order to change this percentage, if not what we have been doing? Do we have no say in this at all? Avruch ^T 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to Kingturtle, I think there is a difference between a situation where we promoted someone completely outside of the expected range - say if support had been only about 80% - and one where we do have a discretion and decide to exercise it through factoring in current information about community attitudes to the process. In my view we have such a discretion in this case and can legitimately promote at the lower end of our discretion based on the fact that the community would like the threshold to be lowered anyway. WjBscribe 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It brings suspicion Kingturtle, I do take your point here. I couldn't personally say if this would increase that, but there is (esp. at the moment) widespread suspicion about upper level decision making. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I can see the point about "suspicion" too, and that would actually be a good reason to not promote a current RFB that was in the 80% to 85% range. But as WJBscribe says, that really isn't the situation here. --barneca (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "it invites suspicion" argument is flawed in its basis in paranoia; no one can say there there's absolutely no grounds for the claims that people think the current threshold is too high. Besides, bureaucrats shouldn't base their decisions on what others will think of them; judge consensus, not worry about repercussions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason this page exists is because consensus is an open question here, so no decision about that is going to be accepted by everyone. Bureaucrats do need to consider how any significant portion of the community would perceive any action, that's their job. Don't get me wrong, I see the strength of taking into consideration the threshold vote [I'm the one who brought it up above], but Kingturtle's concerns are valid. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being mindful of the effects of the promotion is perfectly acceptable. My objection was that, as phrased, it sounded like a disproportionate amount of consideration was being given to those effects. If Riana's promoted, some people will be pissed off; if she's not, some people will be pissed off. Whether or not people will get upset should never be the primary factor in a bureaucrat's decision(s). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is conflating this process with an election as we commonly see it - elections are competitive, and anything that can be seen as an advantage or disadvantage to a candidate is often unfair to other candidates in the same election. The principle behind not changing election rules during the process is to avoid unfairly impacting some candidates vs others. But RfBs aren't competitive - Riana having a successful RfB does not disadvantage others. What negative effects will follow from applying the new consensus to Riana's RfB? I can't see any, myself. Avruch ^T 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would only be an issue of the "new guidelines" were applied to Riana, and the "old guidelines" were applied to everyone else with an RfB right now. I can't imagine the 'crats doing that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer "What negative effects will follow from applying the new consensus to Riana's RfB?" The 39 people in opposition to this nomination and other editors may see it as authority overstepping its boundaries and as thoroughly unfair. Also, this sets a bad precedent - whenever we get a result we don't like, let's just change the rules and proceed without going through a formal procedure. It may be used as an example in the future in other situations completely separate from this in which people want to change things without having to go through the right procedures. Kingturtle (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Other negative effects: It is unfair to Ryan Postlethwaite who withdrew at (45/7/0) (86.5%), Quadell who was unsuccessful at (58/10/8) (85.3%), and Ram-Man who was unsuccessful at (65/12/2) (84.4%) - and it is unfair to their supporters. Kingturtle (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, 85-90% is not unprecedented, so this is not a matter of making a definitive change in promotion practice, rather using the current community discussion as further justification for promoting on the lower end of the already historical standard. Lara❤Love 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.7%-90% is not unprecedented. Riana sits at 85.7%, so this is a matter of making a definitive change in promotion practice. Kingturtle (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I would describe a 1% change as "definitive." I also don't think the argument of precedent setting is very strong, in that even if it were made it would require a duplication of the circumstances here. In that case, it would be fine again in my opinion to recognize a change in community consensus on a particular issue. The fact is that there was only consensus through the absence of continuing objection to using the 90% threshold. There is now clear support for lowering the percentage. Why should we employ a formalistic approach to this issue when it the intent of the community is clear? What are the "right procedures" that we skipped here? The proposal and its weight of support strikes me as a fairly comprehensive demonstration, whether you can describe it as formal or not. The ultimate outcome was clear to all who participated - i.e. the expression of support or opposition would lead to RfBs being judged accordingly. As for overstepping authority - I think the 'crats have clear authority in this case to judge within their discretion. There is no obvious community decision that says bureaucrats are prohibited from promoting at 85.7 when 86.7 is apparently A-OK. Avruch ^T 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, the difference between 85.7% and 86.7% here is 18 supporters. Riana is 18 supporters shy of the 86.7% bar.

The right procedures are to find out the percentage the community agrees on, and make that the policy, and then continue from there. 25% of editors don't want the 90% changed at all. Then there is all sorts of support for 75%, 80% and 85%. So the community needs to figure out what the new bar is going to be. Kingturtle (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of specific agreement on a % but general agreement that 90% is too high would argue that you should have discretion to deviate. I would posit that 80-85% is the new discretionary range, but you seem to be asking for the community to limit your discretion as much as possible. Avruch ^T 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, conversely - if there were 2 less opposes, she'd have it, eh? Avruch ^T 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surmising what can be taken away. We can't take any two random oppositions. I am surmising what could be added. Kingturtle (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it but at least one opposition was "taken away" (see User_talk:Pedro#Riana.27s_RfB ... I won't claim full credit for it, but that opposition was turned to a support) so I don't really see what you're driving at, at all. It is just as valid to hypotheticate about converting oppositions as it is to hypotheticate about finding additional supports) ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this sets a bad precedent - whenever we get a result we don't like, let's just change the rules and proceed without going through a formal procedure". I disagree with this statement. Quite frankly, the community should change the rules whenever they see fit; nothing on Wikipedia, short of our "legal-related" policies (like BLP and, to a lesser degree, OFFICE) is set in stone. Things can (and should) change whenever the community deems it necessary; in regards to the promotion of new bureaucrats, that time appears to be now. I don't see a "formal procedure" being required here, as then we get too hung up on raw numbers (as has been pointed out, X number of !votes in this direction or that can make the slightest bit of difference).
I understand the desire to have a clearly marked roadmap upon which to travel, but from what I know, the original 90% had no such roadmap; given Wikipedia's fluid nature, I think we'll do just fine without something so concrete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers seem to miss the point here. Especially comments like "86.7%-90% is not unprecedented. Riana sits at 85.7%, so this is a matter of making a definitive change in promotion practice." ... So if Riana, with well over 200 supports, had a one percent difference, it would flip Kingturtle's view from solidly against promotion to solidly in favour? That's not what I support 'crats to do. I want them to look at the supports and oppositions and judge what the community consensus is. I find it quite ludicrous to think that a 1% difference is anything other than just that, a 1% difference. (it's certainly not a "definitive change" in anything) 237 supports to me means a very large number of people who trust her. 39 opposes to me means a relatively small number of people who have concerns. I acknowledge this might be a somewhat difficult decision but the bar is not 86.7%, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand, one less oppose (see below) means that Riana is only 1 single solitary oppose away from being inside the territory where others have been promoted. Avruch ^T 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others have been promoted with less than 85%. Lara❤Love 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the only one promoted below 85% was Cimon avaro, and that one appears to be an aberration. It's also worth noting that one of the opposers was Wik, who was the subject of an arbitration case at the time the RfB was closed. If the bureaucrat discounted Wik's vote, that RfB is at a much less unusual 84.6%. I'm not saying that was what happened, and certainly can't speak for the bureaucrat who did close it, but I do think that's a possibility. Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think there's a difference between saying the opposers claim it is a fact, and you yourself repeating it as fact. —Random832 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's my assessment of the situation, and that's also what has been mentioned numerous times in the 'crat chat. Obviously, the opposers weren't literally saying those words, which is why I prefaced it with "boils down to" in my initial statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry I didnt contribute to the RfB (I'd have supported)
2. I like the open and thoughtful way the 'Crats are discussing this. I have faith in you. --Dweller (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Let's start an RFC to figure out if there's consensus in the RFB! This way, if we determine there is consensus in the RFC we... oh, wait... — Coren ^(talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deficit of 114 has been cited as demonstrating that the Riana RfB is far short of the standard normally used for promotion. If there were 250,000 more votes with the same ratio of supports/opposes, how many more would she need? 25,000? If it were 25, then what? A couple? So, the scale here distorts the size of the deficit - and it also tells you that in any heavily voted RfB, achieving the 90% threshold becomes practically impossible. Kingturtle's RfB had what, 15 votes? Avruch ^T 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are basing it on 90% and there were 25,000 in opposition, then yes, the editor would need 225,000 in support. I am not making up rules here. Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better statistic would be that in order to reach 90%, 30% of her opposers (11 of 37) would need to change their "votes" to "support". That's more neutral on a "per person" basis. And that does, of course, assume that 90% is the threshold. Ral315 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between July 2004 and July 2007 (an eternity in wiki-time), there were only two RFB that closed between 85% and 90%, a 89.94% Support that passed and a 85.3% Support that failed. In July 2007, Andrevan passed with 86.7%, ending the dry spell and passed following a discussion where several Crats endorsed a 85-90% discretionary range.

I believe the perception among some that there is (or should be) a strict 90% threshold is mostly an artifact of holding an opinion that is almost never challenged. Bureaucrat noms are rare, and noms that close in the 85-90% (whether successful or not) only occur about once a year, so it rarely ever enters the community consciousness. Even so, there is clear precedent for Bureaucrat flexibility below 90%, both recent ones like Andrevan and ancient ones (e.g. Ed Poor passed at 87.5 in Feb 04 as the very first nom).

How one chooses to apply that discretionary range is of course a matter of some opinion, but I think the historical precedent for the existence of flexibility is clear. Dragons flight (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why percentages are only a tool in the decision-making process. It is not the deciding factor. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting then that Ed Poor (passed at 87.5%) is one bureaucrat who then resigned. Is there a correlation between the other pass rates and subsequent issues? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other one to consider is Essjay's nomination which passed at 143/16/4. Problem is the sample size is too small really to draw any conclusions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but both resigned under circumstances not related to Bureaucrat actions. And what about Andrevan, Warofdreams and Cimon Avaro? Cimon was closed at an unheard of 79%, but he has yet to "crash and burn". The pass rates of users usually do not have a direct correlation to their subsequent undoing, especially when you read the oppose arguments (most are variations of "no more crats!"), except for Ed Poor's nomination, which showed judgment concerns. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, though I guess it depends whether you look at it from a legal or psychological viewpoint. Another way is thinking as an extension of admin status, namely "do they have the community's trust" or in a 'crat's case, "do they have the community's trust more" (i.e. not related to tools as such but more standing in the community). Essjay's opposes seemed to have some background concerns, though this was before I edited Wikipedia and I know little of the events leading up to that.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting dizzy with all those little symbols across these pages. This rights-request process is still based on discussion, right? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable replacement? ~ Riana ⁂ 23:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, darling Riana! *swoon* Mike H. Fierce! 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more serious note (eek!) I'm really not sure why the percentage matters so much. Yeah, it's easier to take a look at the numbers... but I think I wrote somewhere that I'm more likely to be persuaded by one well-considered comment than 10 simple votes. :x We'll see. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that RfX's are based more heavily on the percentage than the discussion, it's just that half of everyone doesn't want to say it out loud, and the other half are in denial. Sorry. Had to say that. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To refactor - what individuals say is important, yes, but the numbers matter a lot more than people pretend they do; do you think a crat really reads the comments of the opposers with much depth at 97% support? Or even 87%? If you do, you are a strong purporter of the latter ideology I described above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy in real life and have not noticed the outcome of this nomination until now. I just wondered if the bureaucrats could strike out my vote? I have thought this over somewhat and have noticed on and off-wiki uncivil behavior due to my !vote. To tell you the truth, we all have bad days in life (especially females - a little off topic, sorry :-D). But, if 200 or so users of the community trust Riana to make good decisions concerning consensus, bot tags, etc., then I guess she should be entrusted with the bureaucratic mop. However, I would also like to note, that due to a person be granted more rights doesn't mean that he/she should be uncivil to users or degrade them because of the "us v. them" mentality. Wikipedia is a community of users who want to improve the world wide web through the availability of knowledge. Petty factions drive constructive users away. Yet, Riana has admitted that she was rude concerning the e-mail outing, and I guess I should take that as an apology. Regards. miranda 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was a little ironic you calling Riana rude. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I wasn't exactly angelic in this exchange either. We could have both dealt with this better, yes, but hey, I'm on the one on RfB, not Miranda. We have been friends in the past until some things brought us apart, but I'm hoping we can maintain at least a civil relationship henceforth :) But for the crats - as there is some talk of discounting votes above, perhaps this could be given the consideration it deserves? ~ Riana ⁂ 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda, you made your vote on 28 February. Since that date, you've made more than 100 edits according to [3]. How could you not have noticed this RfB until a day after it closed? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't notice the outcome, not the RfB. I didn't revisit them often either and hadn't read all the posts of the three RFBs I commented in until after these were closed. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed commenting on TRM's, it happens, regardless of how many other edits you might make. Not at all unsurprising. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Lar)Well of course she didn't notice the outcome, nobody "noticed" it until 24 hours ago because it didn't exist until WJB put it on hold.

Still, as far as I know, Miranda watchlists RfXs that she opposes; certainly the vast majority of editors do so (or else check back in some manner), so her checking her watchlist and making other edits based on it (per the link provided above, and there are some 20 edits after the RfBs that aren't shown there, but are on the "next 100") means it's highly unlikely she wasn't aware the RfB was taking place and comments had been made in response to her. I just find her story all too fishy.

In response to Lar, there's a differnce between not commenting (not seeing it) and not returning to respond after you've already commented. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened and why, its sort of irrelevant at this point. Avruch ^T 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Giggy: I have 3500 items on my watchlist, I miss stuff all the time. Again, I asked TRM a question, liked his answer, and MEANT to go support him later after checking on something, but forgot. It happens, trust me. No one is perfect and watchlists are not infallible. I am not sure I'd go down the "something fishy" route. @Avruch: There is precedent either way on that, I believe, but it illustrates that this outcome is not a clearcut fail in any way, shape, or form. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's just possible that Miranda took some time off to think about it and changed her mind. It happens more than you think Giggy. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 03:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what decision the 'crats reach, I'm going to work on something here. Feel free to input on the talkpage. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the newest section on the page, to comment on Kingturtle's post about unfairness. Quadell's RfB was in 2005, Ram-Ram in Sept of 2006. How is it unfair to them to change the rules years later? Does it mean that we can never, ever change the rules because we once used them? That seems to be wholly un-Wikipedia like. Ryan withdrew practically immediately, I don't see the relevance there. Things progress, folks - the Wikipedia of 2005 and 2006 is not at all the Wikipedia of 2008. Some of our current 'crats were elected with 10 votes - Riana had 200 in her favor, and still may fail. No further demonstration of the change in circumstances is required. Avruch ^T 14:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a way to allay the fears of life-appointment for 'crats is to institute a process for 'crat recall, and make it mandatory (and a high bar, of course). Its true that checkuser has its ombudsman, and admins have CAT:AOR (though it isn't mandatory, most new admins join it). Perhaps confidence in new 'crat candidates will improve if people know it isn't practically impossible to remove them short of gross misconduct and ArbCom. Avruch ^T 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support mandatory recall, but given that there has never been support for mandatory admin recall, I would be very surprised if a consensus emerged for this. However, CAT:AOR is also open to 'crats, and were admin status to be removed, 'crat status would presumably also be taken away. Warofdreams talk 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big supporter of the notion of voluntary recall, as some of you may know :) ... but would not support mandatory recall either. That said, I don't think there ever has been an RfC or ArbCom case that resulted in removal of a crat bit has there? I did a technical experiment and one can technically have the 'crat bit without the sysop bit, but it's rather meaningless I think most would agree. Changing to a yearly reconfirmation though... that I would support. Many other wikis do it and it seems to work fairly well for the most part (with exceptions... the one I am thinking of was due to not having tight enough criteria around the process) ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor is the closest to that - resigning bureaucratship as a compromise that lead to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor being closed. The only other bureaucrat to involuntarily lose the access was Essjay, who was asked by Jimbo to resign his positions of responsibility following the controversy over his claimed academic credentials. WjBscribe 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually asked Riana if she feels there is consensus to promote her? 200+ editors have supported her request on the basis that we trust her judgement of what consensus is. Perhaps her opinion as to the final outcome on this RfB would be useful. Pedro :  Chat  14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting bootstrapping issue! Less paradoxically, I note that User:The Rambling Man is a 'crat now. I say it's time he earned that big pay raise and chime in too. --barneca (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that The Rambling Man is on a wikibreak until Monday. He also supported Riana's RfB so his input could well be problematic on that basis... WjBscribe 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak??! I thought 'crats had to be available 24/7/365 ?? Also, while TRM shouldn't close, if he had been here, he could have participated in the 'crat discussion, just like Andre did. --barneca (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(TO WJB) Indeed. Noting your last comment on the main discussion page WJ it seems enough input from active crats has been forthcoming now anyway. My final thought would be that if consensus is found by the community to "lower the bar" for RfB's and if Riana wishes to, then a second request in the near future will not be prejudiced by "too soon after the last attempt". Pedro :  Chat  15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c Pedro) I agree with Barneca. We should let our newest 'crat chime into this discussion. I understand the desire of some of the 'crats to get a timely result, but I think the community will understand that this is an unprecedented situation and thus requires extensive debate. Perhaps it would be wisest to put this on ice until Monday when TRM returns? Also, in the meantime, the discussion at WT:RFA may have gained more headway and will be more open to interpretation regarding consensus. GlassCobra 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate for things to drag on and on, I do think that waiting is a good idea. The need for more 'crats is real, but not so immediate that we absolutely must have this resolved right this very second. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in waiting for a few more days to get the broadest possible input. But then again, I also see no harm in putting Riana's RFB on ice until such time as the discussion on the appropriate bar reaches closure, and then applying whatever the community consensus bar is. There's no hurry. If people feel a need for further discussion, perhaps one could then reopen the RFB for a day or two in case someone wants to chime in? I'm just trying to avoid the needless bureaucracy of closing this now as unsuccessful (if that's what the choice is, predicated mainly on the argument of "should not change the bar midstream"), seeing in a week or so that there is indeed a consensus to reduce the bar, having Riana run again, and having 200+ people have to !vote again when the likelihood of those people changing their mind seems low. Martinp (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed here. It seems needless to fail Riana now and make her redo this stressful experience when this discussion is concurrent right now. GlassCobra 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Surely there's no harm in waiting a couple of days so the rest of the bureaucrats can have their say on whether consensus exists? We are in no hurry. —Dark ^(talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur. The broadest possible input is always for the best, and a few days is very little time in the scheme of things. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Pedro, I believe it unfair to call upon me personally to judge consensus here, given that I have my reputation, any future attempts at seeking a trusted position, and, well, frankly, my feelings at stake here. (I know it is not Pedro's intention to buttonhole me here, but that's how I feel about it).

Also, if this fails, I will not run again. (a) I don't like begging, and (b) I don't believe anymore that enmities and grudges on Wikipedia can be solved by time. Riana (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome (you not running again) and response (you feeling it unfair) was not the thrust of this thread Riana, and I hope you know it was not intended to make you feel awkward and uncomfortable. As it clearly did I of course apologise. Pedro :  Chat  23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Pedro... I'm just a little heartworn by all this, I guess. No need to apologise, really, I'm not accusing anyone here of anything untoward. :) I stand by what I said, and I tried to make it sound less petulant, but it came out that way! *sigh* 58.169.223.128 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation (which it probably isn't) the one thing I see in your whole RfB (and subsequent numerous discussions) is people trying to do the right thing for the project we all care about. That, at least, gives me hope - and makes me very proud to be an editor of Wikipedia. I hope it will also make you feel this way. Best, as ever. Pedro :  Chat  00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way the discussion is heading. I have two suggestions with regard to the thoughtful concern about unfairness to Ryan. 1) Communication with Ryan 2) The possibility that he can run again if the Crats decide to lower the bar to 85%. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He withdrew; I don't see how it's unfair. Ryan's great and all (had I been more active when the bulk of the RfBs were going, I would have supported), but I don't see how Ryan is in any way, shape, or form relevant to Riana's RfB. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be seen as unfair because if the bar was 85% maybe Ryan would have responded differently. Kingturtle (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of things could have happened.... He could have received overwhelming support, or, could have completely tanked. It's hard for me to see it as being fair/unfair, when he withdrew so early on. SQL^{Query me!} 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely and utterly irrelevant. Discussions about what might have been, while useful in some situations, have no bearing on either Riana's promotion or the matter of changing the standards for 'cratship (nothing against Ryan, mind you, but if the community wants something, it should have it, regardless of who it may be unfair to). There's nothing preventing Ryan from running again, if he so chooses (and feels that his withdrawal was premature). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea for me to clarify exactly why I withdrew my RfB when I did, and so soon after it started (3 hours if I recall correctly). My RfB started extremely well - there were a lot of supports before any opposition. When someone opposes an RfA or RfB they tend to spend more time with their rationale. They look over everything to make sure they have a solid basis for their oppose. When someone opposes like that with a solid rationale, it tends to lead to more opposes based on that same rationale and they soon build up. My reasons for withdrawing was based on the fact that I was already below the expected 90% "threshold", with a significant number of people commenting (not just one or two) and at such an early stage. If I thought the bar was set at 85% would I have carried on? Perhaps for a little longer, but that's irrelvent because people would have opposed for similar reasons to other people and that would quickly have put it below the 85% margin and hence a quick end. I just thought there was no point in wasting the communities time with people commenting when it was clearly not going to succeed. At the point that I withdrew, Riana was in a significantly better position than I was, and she only entered the discretionary zone after a significant period of time and stayed there - mine on the other hand would have failed badly. I conclude that my RfB and Rianas were in no way the same and if I had continued, they'd have ended very differently so it's therefore unfair to say that Riana should suffer because I might have carried on for a little longer - it would simply be a waste of time. I hope that explains a few things. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irony, of course, is that comments like that underline exactly why you should have bureaucrat rights. Well said sir. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, thank you for explaining. I just wanted to make sure you were being fairly treated in this. Kingturtle (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem Kingturtule, and I can understand your thinking and thankyou for caring - just thought it best I get it out in the open my thoughts. take care y'all. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read on the project page that WJBScribe seems intent on promoting Riana. I note that he's having to do this by insisting on an immediate, post-hoc revision of the widely-understood and acted-upon context in which the RfB was conducted. Even to the point of allowing Riana's RfB to remain open indefinitely until someone engineers a temporary situation in which it might result in straightforward (rather than complex) promotion. This is coupled with the suggestion that this is OK because it will chime with a few people on WT:RFA, and would help to establish some arbitrary 'lower' standards which WJBScribe very clearly desires (having also promoted on such novel criteria very recently). I would suggest to bureaucrats in this frame of mind that fait accompli are among the worst ways of pursuing things, as repeatedly made clear by the arbitration committee speaking for the community. And, that if a bureaucrat intends to proceed in these novel ways that WJBScribe in particular has advocated over the last few weeks, that he should step down as a bureaucrat and run an RfB in the style of Mackensen, who was up front about his views on things, rather than belatedly unveiling a revolutionary zeal noone was aware of a priori. (Disclaimer: I wrote a strong, lengthy support on Riana's RfB). Splash - tk 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Splash, it is not revolutionary zeal to listen to what the community wants. I don't think this decision has much bearing on the ^demon RfA close. I support no general lower of promotion standards on RfA - I felt that a reconfirmation RfA where someone was entitled to simply have the tools returned had to be looked at differently than the ordinary case. There was no precedent of someone failing an RfA when they could simply have asked for the tools to go by. Turning now to Riana, I am trying to assess what level of support the community wishes bureaucrats to have - I think it is telling that there is no community discussion that endorses a 90% figure and that the most recent one clearly thinks it is lower. All I am trying to do is listen to what people want - the WT:RFA discussion is advertised on the centralised discussion template, the village pump, and the admin noticeboard. Anyone can still join in and have been able to throughout the discussion here. Despite this publicity it still seems to me fairly clear that 90% is not the community's standard of choice. So where has this 90% come from? The question I am trying to raise is that this figure is the result of the "fait accompli" approach you are objecting to. In any event, you will note that even though Dan and Kingturtle have given me something of a window to do so - saying they would allow me to close it as successful despite their disagreement. I have not and do not propose to do so. I could also have just promoted Riana without asking the other bureaucrats for input. My revolutionary zeal is not apparently as great as you seem to think... WjBscribe 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot really attempt to produce a well-considered new opinion when the context in which one is collecting input is so heavily conditioned on a current event in which almost all the participants have a vested interest. (This to the point of one of the recent RfB candidates repeatedly bemoaning the standard he was about to fail). This is why it was made clear on WT:RFA that it would be wrong to use a developing conversation as a pretext to summarily amend the basis on which in-progress RfBs were conducted.

There is a fundamental difference between using a proceeding set of events to create new 'facts on the ground' to point to as a reverse-engineered justification for something and relying on literally years of custom and practise for justification. The former has little to no consensual basis; the latter a very strong one as is well-established in the Wikipedia doctrines of how consensus may form. On custom and practise, one could easily argue that the RfB situation is in fact considerably tougher than a simplistic 90% or 85% or whatever; that in fact it is "no significant opposition", as most of the successful bureaucrats have enjoyed. For example: would you say there is "no significant opposition" to Riana's RfB? If you would not, would you say that an RfB candidate with significant opposition should be promoted?

I agree that Dan's and Kingturtle's abdications are puzzling in the context of their other quite clear responses. Splash - tk 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my first comment - I made it clear that I was not sure Riana's RfB could pass if "no significant opposition" was the test - other bureaucrats took the view that this was not the test. Therefore it seems to me consensus with a supermajority is the test for promotion. I then took considerable care to try and establish what the community thought supermajority should be, looking back at discussions since 2004 and found no support then or now for 90%. I don't think that can be said to be recentism and I have no intention of apologising (or resigning) for my approach. I think one the strength of this has been that bureaucrats have reflected the spectrum of feelings on the matter from the community. Your views have been aptly reflected in Dan and Kingturtle's comments, other who wanted bureaucrats to more actively assess community intentions as to promotion thresholds will have seen their views expressed by me. Ultimately I found myself in a minority, but you will note that I never proposed acting unilaterally on the approach I proposed. Some will no doubt fault me for timidity, you do so for zeal. Ultimately, the result is that Riana's RfB is unsuccessful. The community will now have a chance to make it extremely clear how they would like bureaucrats to close RfBs and we will listen whether conservative, or revolutionary zealots... WjBscribe 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with zeal, just not in 'real time' with very specific, localised purposes (which I do think is 'recentism', but we can disagree on that). I was also pleased to see that there was little sign of unilateralism at any point as that would probably have caused a lot of disintegration. With a (imo) very surprising, and perhaps a little unfortunate, outcome of the 6(ish) RfBs lately, it will be interesting to see how many of the conservatives put on their zealotry outfits. But waiting to see which way the tide turns is going to be the important part; not the inevitable crashing waves that people will point to as they go past. Splash - tk 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This rule was never--not once--put before the community to develop any consensus around it. Now that it is being discussed, it's being roundly rejected. The fact that four 'crats are digging in their heels at the 90% line is a bit disturbing to me, given the discussion, and round rejection by the community, of the standard at which they're digging in their heels. Is this really what you were given the 'crat buttons for? Bellwether ^B_C 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One must really study the archives of RfA/B before making such claims as in your first sentence! Splash - tk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, show me where the community roundly endorsed 90%, as they're roundly rejecting it now. I wait with bated breath. (Sorry if I sound angry. I am.) Bellwether ^B_C 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does not need to take place in the context of this particular RfB any longer. Apologies for wasting the time and energy of... 260+ people. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't waste anyone's time, Riana. The four 'crats who dug in their heels at 90% (in opposition to community consensus) did, though. But that's not your fault. Bellwether ^B_C 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is descriptive in many cases, in other words unless there's discussion on something the practice that's currently in place has legitimate justification. RxS (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy isn't legislation - it is a record of what we do, and should reflect consensus. We don't wait until new legislation is passed until we change policy, policy changes as we do consensus. I've never seen such pathetic rules-mongering as I've seen from the crats here. They've reduced judgement (the thing they were picked for!) to arithmetic and snubbed common sense. Not only would common sense say that there's an overwhelming consensus to promote, and that (some of) the limited opposition is trivial to the point of being tendentious, they also have a community discussion that is patently endorsing a threshhold somewhat (if not a good deal) lower than 90%. Short of an Act of the Wikiparliament, copied in triplicate, and given royal consent by the signature of the holy Jimbo, I'm not sure what clearer hint they'd receive to use their judgement and leave their abacuses to the side. This call is depressing in the extreme.--Doc^g 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from crats that support the 90% threshold as the absolute minimum, despite all the opposition to it, are what bother me the most. Ceocropia's last comment isn't the only example, but it is the shortest and to the point - it essentially says "No matter what the community says, we must not promote below 90%". Avruch ^T 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingturtle said in the Bureaucrat discussion:

Starting on 1 November 2005, the published guidelines to promote admins were: "one rule of thumb is that below 70% support compared to oppose generally fails, above 80% generally passes, and you should use discretion in between."

That was changed on 14 January 2006 to read: "the rule of thumb is that nominees with a 75% support:oppose ratio are not promoted without a reason good reason, such as elimination of sockpuppets or bogus votes. Similarly those with more than 80% support generally are, and you should use discretion in between - In the case of bureaucracy be aware that, in a year and a half, no one has become a bureaucrat without at least 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes. - If you make a promotion or deny one outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, be prepared to make an explanation to any editors who asks in a civil manner."

The percentage guidelines were removed on 3 April 2006 and remain absent from the official guidelines.

Was there a consensus to remove the percentage guidelines on 3 April 2006? If they were removed then, doesn't that mean there is no percentage guideline and so percentages shouldn't have really played a part in this decision? If they were removed then, why are we relying on "memory" of what the guidelines were at different times in history? 237 supporting (a record level of support I might add) versus 39 opposing is a wide gap to the eye. This was my first ever participation in an RfB. This outcome is quite confusing. I understand the importance of the Bureaucrat title and the work that comes with it, but seriously.. 237/39/4 here, 85.8%. If 85% of people supports, so should the outcome be. That would be a "B" in college and I never failed any class for a "B". - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the page says at any given time isn't actually relevant. If the page doesn't reflect consensus, then it is quite simply wrong. We don't settle an argument about policy by reading policy pages, policy is what we want to do, pages ought to follow that.--Doc^g 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's nothing but making the rules up as you go along, IMHO. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwether, the 90% bar indeed has been put before the community in the past. For example, in October 2004, there was a Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat poll that addressed the question: "should the standard for promotion to bureaucrat be different than for sysop, based on the added responsibility or other factors?" In June 2005 there was a Poll to see if the Bureaucrat system was in need of reform. In September 2005 there was a Bureaucrat consensus poll to gauge what percentage users felt should be required for a promotion to bureaucrat. On 14 January 2006 the published guidelines for bureaucrats was edited to read: "In the case of [RfBs] be aware that, in a year and a half, no one has become a bureaucrat without at least 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes. If you make a promotion or deny one outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, be prepared to make an explanation to any editors who asks in a civil manner." That edit was reviewed in March of 2006 (see Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone" to replace the currently posted "instructions" in Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats/Archive_1). The percentage guidelines were removed on 3 April 2006 and remain absent from the official guidelines. This question has been formally debated a number of times. Kingturtle (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that in both of the first two polls a standard below 90% got more support than 90% did. It's also a little disingenuous to say that no one passes below 90%, since before today, only one nom had ever closed above 85% and failed, which is to say there have been almost no noms near the threshold (successful or failed). You also ignore the bureacrat discussion in July 2007, where people supported the promotion of Andrevan and adoption of an 85-90% discretionary range. Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not to defend a specific side of the 90% argument. My point was to dispel the notion that "This rule was never--not once--put before the community to develop any consensus around it." Also, I was not ignoring any particular community discussion. I mentioned as examples the ones I could think of. Please add more examples that you can think of. Kingturtle (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then perhaps a better question would be why was a 90% rule adopted by the crats? Yes the community has discussed standards, but what conversations actually formed consensus around such a threshold? Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important, when analysing the validity of any current consensus, to understand the logistics of consensus-building on Wikipedia. As a general rule of thumb, consensus can exist in two forms: (1) As a result of formal decision-making processes and consensus-building discussions; and (2) Silently. The ninety per cent pass rate on Requests for Bureaucratship is very much a fruit of the second's: that is, it exists as a result of silent consensus—it was introduced, received no opposition, and thus was generally accepted, and has been running for a number of years now.

How then, can one say that the 90% rule was never agreed upon? Over twenty successful RfBs have passed through our system, all under the 90% rule, and no eyebrows were raised when they passed under the basis of a 90% support rate—if one includes the numerous unsuccessful requests, that's a silent consensus if I ever saw one.

The 90% rule is very much a product of our system of consensus-building, which is very much in par with the common-sense systems in use in society today: if a rule is implemented and receives no opposition, it can be assumed that consensus by silence exists, and the rule stays. Whether the rule is suitable and just, and should remain in the RfB system is a totally different matter; and, whilst I would obviously not oppose a consensus-building exercise for an alteration of that rule, I would be opposed to that rule being scrapped on the basis that "it has not been agreed upon". AGK (contact) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the 28 successful noms had less than 90% support. In fact there have been more successful noms below 90% than there are unsuccessful ones above 85%. In my opinion, history simply doesn't support your notion of silent consensus for a 90% threshold. It seems more like something that was written down when no one was looking and now people resist the notion that it never really reflected community expectations. I've yet to see any discussion of RFB standards, old or young, that didn't have a majority of people saying that a 90% threshold was too high. Dragons flight (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually correct there – out of interest, are there any RfBs that have passed under 85%? It may well be that my theory of silent consensus applies to that, rather than 90%, but generally, what I'm saying still applies :) AGK (contact) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cimon Avaro passed, March 2004, 11/3/2 = 78% Support. His is the only one to pass under 85%. Dragons flight (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I reiterate my previous point: silent consensus exists for RfBs passing at 85% (excluding one exception from 4+ years ago). Whether it will continue to is a different matter... AGK (contact) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, five of the successful RfBs were under 90%. Three of those occurred in the first four months of RfB's existence. Since July 2004 (3.7 years) there have been only two: 88.9% on 31 March 2006 and 86.7% on 11 July 2007. Kingturtle (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the entirety of RFB's existence there have been only 2 failures that closed with over 85%: Quadell - January 2006 - 58/10/8 - 85.3% and Riana - now - 237/39/4 - 85.9%. (Incidentally giving Riana the distinction of having the greatest support precentage ever for a failing RFB.) KT, you are among those who argued forcefully that "the bar" was 90% and that Bcrats should "stick to it". I would argue that both precedent and community sentiment says you are wrong about the standards that the community expects you to use. Dragons flight (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Dragon here—consensus by silence has very much been that RfBs pass with 85+ percentage of support, and yet this decision seems to operate counter to this. Perhaps this is a case where consensus by silence is required to become "cemented" by discussion and consensus-building exercises: there is obviously some confusion over the pass mark of RfB, and whilst that confusion exists, the operation of the project as a whole will be hindered. AGK (contact) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Cecropia's last comment on the page, I have an issue with it. He states "We are not dealing with mere numbers"... then goes on to quote the following numbers... "15%", "10%", "90%". Is Cecropia simply using a calculator to close RfA/Bs, or is he looking at the arguments which is what bureaucrats are supposed to do? Majorly (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also bureaucrats do not need "universal trust". Bcrats on other projects are promoted with much lower levels of support, so why is enwiki the exception? (And anyhow, it isn't really, considering the number of RfBs under 90% that have passed.) Majorly (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about numbers in a section complaining about talking about numbers, then since July 2004, only 2 RfBs have passed at under 90%, according to Kingturtle above. More interestingly, what sort of trust measure would you say bureaucrats do need, if you are sure they don't need the "universal" kind? Presumably it is necessary to be sure they are trusted to some degree as expressed in the RfB, but it is tricky to express a meaning of "trust". Splash - tk 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Does being trusted by a 6 to 1 margin (even when the specious oppose !votes are not thrown out) count as trusted? If those are thrown out, does being trusted by a 10+ to 1 margin count as trusted? What would convince you that a vast majority of the community trusts Riana? Anything? Nothing? Bellwether ^B_C 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, he's dealing solely with numbers. See his rather ludicrous "15% is significant opposition" quote. To that, I say, no it's not. It means that by over a 6-1 margin, the community trusts Riana. That's an overwhelming margin, and is further evidence that if all we're going to have 'crats like Cecropia do is punch up the percentages, check the box "Is this candidate 90%+?" and press promote, then we need to just let bots do the job. Bellwether ^B_C 00:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all well-rehearsed rhetoric which is of no particular relevance since Cecropia played no role in the discussion prior to the eventual definitive closure of Riana's RfB. To study it slightly, though, what are you trying to prove? Cecropia says it is significant opposition, and you say it's not. Where does that take us? You would promote on this RfB, Cecropia would not. I don't think that such binary comparatives on mere assertions teach us much, really. Splash - tk 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have strong issues with that comment - it makes it look like Cecropia wants to keep bureaucrats to an elitist group. Does he not want to promote candidates because he doesn't want them to reach the same level? I'm not sure at all but I honestly do not believe that the community wants a bureaucrat promoting candidates so rigidly based on numbers (and this isn't just in RfB, he also won't look at candidates at RfA below 75%). That said, I think the other 'crats on both sides were well reasoned. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your flow chart from Cecropia's comment to the contents of your second sentence? Splash - tk 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't really got one, it's just a feeling I've had for a while after reading some of Cecropias comments and this seems to prove it - he wants to set bureaucrat standards to almost unreachable. As I said above, I'm not exactly sure though. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with Cecropia's comment is that he says promtions under 90% should never happen. I was surprised and disappointed to see a 'crat so directly ignore all of the discussion about passing percentages that have ever taken place, most importantly the very highly trafficked one that is still ongoing. I'm troubled that I think Cecropia only stated more forcefully what other 'crats think, which led me directly to the idea that crats should be recallable or participate in mandatory reconfirmation at defined periods. Avruch ^T 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia's loss that they don't want someone as good as Riana to work extra when she doesn't even have to. I think the bureaucrats who took silly opposition into account should have a tad more common sense. Mike H. Fierce! 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What opposition would that be? Most seemed well-grounded in very particular facts. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The ones that cited "...Kelly Martin" as their "reasoning." Bellwether ^B_C 06:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, Bellwether, but I want to kiss you. Mike H. Fierce! 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who remember Kelly Martin there was nothing silly about that. There was very good reason Kelly was no longer an admin, and renominating Kelly again showed very poor judgment. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember Kelly Martin (sometimes things aren't what they seem). I didn't like Kelly Martin. I find people opposing on the basis of "this person nommed someone I don't like" specious. I also find the number of "per Felonious Monk" !votes a bit disturbing, since the only real reason you cited was that she nominated someone you didn't like. Why is that difficult to understand? Bellwether ^B_C 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that reasoning is far more specious than pointing out an example of very poor judgement. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating someone you don't like isn't an example of poor judgment. It's just an example of nominating someone you don't like. The fact that your friends piled on "per FeloniousMonk" and torpedoed the RfB of this fine candidate says more about you than her. Bellwether ^B_C 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It went beyond "nominating someone you don't like", Kelly was a hugely disruptive force here for a while and it was bad judgement to nominate her, not just because of her disruptive past, but because there was no possible way the RFA could have succeeded. Further more, creating a RFA that was bound to be controversial (with no chance of succeeding) underlines the bad judgment. I say that as someone who supported Riana, but who can balance the good and the bad. Now, I know you said you remember Kelly, did you have an account before this current one? (nothing wrong if you did) Because someone who just joined us in Dec 2007 wouldn't have been around for the real disruption and controversy that Kelly generated. I don't think you can judge people's attitudes toward her enough to call their judgment on the matter specious. Bottom line, the cornerstone here is respecting the opinions of others, and being civil while doing it. RxS (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• <---Undent I did, and I'll leave it at that. I chose not to jump into the KM fray, but I didn't like or respect how she conducted herself. I disagreed with the nomination of her, but I don't find it "bad judgment" that someone nominated someone I didn't like or respect. And I'd never consider !voting "oppose" because I didn't like or respect a person someone nominated for adminship. Perhaps if there were a pattern of bad nominations, that could be a rational oppose. Opposing based upon one is not. That's my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the character of those opposing based on such specious grounds, but with the lack of actual reasoning behind such an oppose. One mistake doesn't besmirch a great record like Riana's. I did not say "shouldn't" because it's not an opinion: one mistake doesn't besmirch such a record. Bellwether ^B_C 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep putting it terms of who you like/dislike. Like I said, it goes beyond like or dislike but is really about the effect the nomination and unlikely promotion had at RFA and in the community. But where you really run aground is stating your opinions as facts...but I think readers can sort that out for themselves and I'll just leave it at at that. RxS (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk, I'd say this comment of yours from an earlier RfC has notable parallels to this RfB. The opposition section here is certainly useful as a laundry list of cliquish rabble-rousers always eager to smash the hopes of anyone they deem an enemy. krimpet✽ 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that. Saying it without a hint of hipocrisy or irony is another matter. The fact remains that renominating KM was an example of very poor judgement resonates with many outside of the clique you name. You yourself, and Riana for that matter, belong to your own clique. I wonder if there are any examples of similar participation on your part? One doesn't have to look far to see there is. That sword cuts both ways, Krimpet. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you interpret Krimpet's friends as "a clique" or not, we don't go about using our numbers to make sure votes go our way. Take that for what you will. Mike H. Fierce! 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handbags at 10 paces, ladies! Splash - tk 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Splash, you haven't seen how this diva goes for broke! Mike H. Fierce! 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]