Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat discussion

Comment[edit]

A high necessary page. Good move, WOD. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Shouldn't Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 be on this list? There was a bureaucrat discussion, it just didn't happen on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be better suited as a historical note, since from what I can tell there was no onwiki bureaucrat discussion in that case? Though the edit summary describes it as a "discussion among a group of bureaucrats", so perhaps you are right. It is of course, rather unlike any of the other examples. –xeno^talk 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion was not on-wiki, and there is no way to link to it, I don't think it belongs here. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the speedy reply, User:xeno and Avi. I didn't expect that considering that the last comment here is 7 years old! Thanks for filling me in, I had thought it might have been an off-wiki chat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improving bureaucrat discussions[edit]

Content copied from WT:RFA at 17:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether RFAs themselves are votes or not, I'd at least like to see closing cratchats be consensus-based instead of passing by narrow majorities, like the last few really contentious ones have. —Cryptic 09:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Could you clarify what you mean by ...closing cratchats be consensus-based instead of passing by narrow majorities, like the last few really contentious ones have? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this will help, but I expanded on similar concerns, on the crat notice board here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, just a note that I've read all your comments on how the bureaucrat discussions can be improved and will strive to do better in future. –xeno^talk 13:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so much. In case it is not clear, since the last close, I have generally been aiming to message to all about process (not, at all, to critique any one person), and I would really like if it inspires some inter-group internal reflection, since you are the ones who have to do it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already got some ideas on how to restructure my own contribution. I don't know if you'd have time, or if it even possible from the input, but if you took a recent bureaucrat chat and re-wrote it into an example of what you're looking for, this might help me (and others) to fully understand the format you're suggesting. –xeno^talk 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am pleased this has been raised. As I have said elsewhere the Rexx cratchat doesn't even give the vaguest impression of a chat. Only one mind was changed - on the face of it when the wind changed direction. So we ended up with a vote amongst 17 instead of a consensus amongst 250. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always open to suggestions to improve my processes, etc. Having read your comments on the subject, it sounds like you feel a bureaucrat chat would be better if there was more "back and forth" between the bureaucrats. In the past, it's always been pretty much everyone showing up and stating their piece and then that was that. I'm definitely open to re-examining that process. I still wouldn't expect unanimity between the bureaucrats very often, though, but I think the process and/or format of bureaucrat chats is definitely something we could have a conversation about. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that avoids the appearance of 17 votes replacing 250 !votes would be good for cohesion when a contentious decision is inevitable. Back and forward behind the scenes or back and forward in a structured way would be preferable to the existing approach in which it is too easy to "fall into line" or for the closing 'crat. to be stuck with a marginal decision to weigh. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think nothing "behind the scenes" is preferable, build the consensus out in the open. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. Unanimity is of course good for amity but, no, to insist upon it would be unneeded, probably unworkable, and heavy handed. I suggest single agreed upon explicit rationale, among as many as possible, and perhaps process incentive to do so, because that looks more like consensus, and more likely causes careful, persuasive, and explicit messaging. (I think, read alone, decide alone, at the beginning is probably good, even though it has a implicit trust factor that that is what was done, such trust seems well placed). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Useight's Public Sock, xeno, from my perspective, I'd have loved to see some more genuine discussion/debate in the chat, followed by an informative summing up by the bureaucrat making the final conclusion, explaining their judgement. It wouldn't need to be fancy... a quick 5 mins strawman version for the last chat might have looked like this for example (NB: if I've misrepresented any bureaucrat in writing this, my apologies - I'm trying to represent the views in a neutral way for the example to work, so any misinterpretations aren't intended!):

"Although the final percentage was beneath the level of the new discretionary range, the bureaucrat chat was opened on the basis that RexxS was a well established editor and, as such, deserved additional "leniency"; there were no dissenting bureaucrat opinions on this procedural issue.

"There was little substantive debate between the bureaucrats, who were ultimately divided 7 to 4 between "consensus to promote" and "no consensus", with one bureaucrat changing their view during the course of the chat.

"Those arguing in favour of "consensus to promoted" highlighted that editors had noted RexxS's wider value to the Wikipedia project, and that no concerns had been raised over the editor's technical or other editorial skills. Although almost all bureaucrats in the chat accepted that RexxS had displayed incivility towards other editors, those favouring "consensus to promote" typically noted that those editors supporting RexxS's candidacy were not concerned with this issue, or did not regard it as significant as those editors who were opposing, and that it should therefore carry less weight as an issue.

"Individual bureaucrats raised additional arguments. One argued that a "considerable amount [nfi] of opposes [were] of questionable to no merit", and another argued that 35% of editors having concerns with RexxS's incivility should not be sufficient to block their candidacy. Another felt that only one uncivil incident had actually occurred, and another argued that opposers might not have carried out sufficient research on the candidate during this incident before expressing their opinions. One bureaucrat argued that as only kind of concern (civility) had been raised, that this should give additional weight to the supporting comments. One bureaucrat argued that the views of editors who were willing to post repeatedly on the talk page should be given more additional weight than those who were not.

"One bureaucrat did not give specific reasons for believing there was a consensus to promote, but by context implied that incivility concerns were not a sufficient issue to oppose in this case.

"Bureaucrats arguing in favour of "no consensus" argued that there was a "substantial amount of opposition supported by facts and based on reasonable interpretation of policy". The bureaucrats felt that both sides of the argument were felt to be strongly held by editors, and that the community was "entrenched in their positions". Most bureaucrats arguing that there was no consensus mentioned the civility concerns over RexxS, one noting that "almost all of them of them are well-founded and well supported, and do not relate to one particular incident", and another noting the "multiple recent examples" of undesirable behaviour.

"No bureaucrat felt the "April Fools issue" to be an important factor in weighting up the arguments in the case. Concern was raised over a sockpuppet investigation that continued for much of the chat, with one bureaucrat noting that the conclusion "might be an important factor in... reaching a determination". After the sockpuppet investigation concluded negatively, finding it "unlikely" that any sockpuppetry had taken place, no further mention was made. Only bureaucrat explicitly mentioned the "neutral" comments in the case; they argued that they added weight to the "no consensus" argument. By implication, no bureaucrat felt that RexxS's temporary resignation from the RfA process should influence the outcome of the chat in either direction.

"On the basis of this, I conclude that... [consensus to promote / no consensus to promote], because..." Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masterpiece! –xeno^talk 17:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]