Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315

Ral315

Voice your opinion (talk page) (65/8/0); Scheduled to end 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I have been interested in running for bureaucratship for a while now, but with a sudden focus on RfB, and four other users up for bureaucratship, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring as well.

I've been an editor since October 2004, a regular editor since about December 2004, and an administrator since September 2005. I am also a former mediator. Since August 2005, I've served as editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a community newspaper founded by Michael Snow. If promoted, I would continue to serve as editor-in-chief of the Signpost.

As a bureaucrat, my interpretation of consensus would be fairly straight-forward. I do not see myself as being a straight by-the-numbers person, nor do I believe that the numbers are completely useless. Everyone seems to agree that almost all cases of over 80% support would constitute a "passing" RFA. In the not insignificant number of RFAs that fall within bureaucrat discretion (i.e. RFAs where numbers do not indicate an overwhelming decision either way, or where well-reasoned arguments can be made on both sides of the coin), I would weigh the arguments carefully, and render what I felt was an appropriate decision. In a case like that, I think the form of bureaucrat chat used on Danny's RFA, where bureaucrats all agree to meet and attempt to declare consensus within a short amount of time (24 hours or less, say) would be a good strategy to ensure that all aspects of an RFA, and the opinions of multiple bureaucrats are considered.

I would, of course, be willing to perform username changes and bot flagging, and I expect that all three tasks would be part of my work as a bureaucrat.

Ral315 » 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ral315 » 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: At least one user has misinterpreted or misunderstood my situation, so I'll clarify it quickly: If this RFB passes, I would continue to serve as Signpost editor-in-chief, but would not be involved in writing any stories on bureaucratic actions, by myself or by other bureaucrats. Moreover, were it to be determined that I had acted inappropriately in this way, I would immediately resign my status as bureaucrat. Ral315 » 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I absolutely hate numbers, but I consider somewhere around 70-80% within the community's preferred zone. Anything above 80% results in an almost certain promotion, and anything under 70% would probably lead to "no consensus". That ~70-80% zone is where bureaucrats are trusted to interpret the results, examine and weigh arguments against each other, and come to a fair, rational decision, with the hope that most users involved will respect their decision, even if they don't necessarily agree with it.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. As a bureaucrat, the only criticism that should matter is criticism that you have not upheld your duties, by making a biased, or grossly incorrect decision. With any close decision, some naysayers will clearly, vocally disagree, but I do not see this as a major issue, again, so long as the decision is respected, if not liked.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I believe that I have a well-grounded knowledge of policy, having acted upon it as an administrator for a while. As for fairness, I believe that I am fairly unbiased, and I can assure you that on any RFA where I feel any sort of bias, I will recuse myself from participating in the decision.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I do. The Signpost takes up a lot of time on Sundays and Mondays, but the rest of the week I would be willing to handle these duties, as I have plenty of free time.

5. (Self-question) You haven't really participated in that many RFAs. Isn't that a key part of being a bureaucrat?

A. Yes, and no. I follow RFA on a regular basis, but I don't feel that adding my name to runaway nominations really makes sense, unless I personally know the candidate. My policy on RFAs is usually "Why the hell not" promote a user; however, I emphasize that my personal opinions on RFAs will have no bearing on how I close them.

6. (Self-question) What is your opinion on discussing promotions on IRC?

A. I'm answering this because it came up on another RFB, and I feel it's an important question. I fully oppose discussing any promotions on IRC. While I do participate in Wikimedia IRC channels, and am a channel op in a few of them, it is fundamental to the process that all activity be fully transparent. Bureaucrat chats on-wiki are perhaps one of the best ways that I've seen to handle promotions publicly; however, I'm not opposed to any other ways that allow bureaucrats to discuss a candidacy that are fully open to the public.

Question from Walton:

7. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A. Danny's RFA was a case where I personally agreed with the result, but the way they got there was kind of questionable. One of the complicating factors for me personally is that a small, though not insignificant number of the opposing arguments may have been handled unilaterally due to his work with the Foundation, and whether he was making those actions as an editor or as an employee is not entirely clear. Honestly, I think going into the bureaucrat chat, I'd be on the fence like Raul654 was, but would have probably been convinced by Rdsmith4 (Dan)'s argument for promotion, and UninvitedCompany's comment after the promotion was enacted. It's hard to judge things like that after the fact, though; when following Danny's case last time, I was thinking more as a reporter (as I wrote the Signpost story immediately after he was promoted), and less as a bureaucrat.

Question from daveh4h:

8. You state that you liked the bureaucrat chat for Danny's RfA. A 'crat chat was also used in Gracenotes' RfA. The 'crat chat for Gracenotes' RfA went on much longer, spilled heavily onto the talk page (perhaps other places), and was generally seen as less helpful in determining the outcome. This suggests to me that it is not the be all and end all for controversial decisions and new procedures should be applied in future controversial RfAs. Do you acknowledge that the crat chat worked well in one instance and not so much in the other? Are there certain requirements that make a "helpful" 'crat chat? Do you have any ideas of some other "outside the box" procedures that may be useful in determining future controversial RfAs?

A. In watching both chats closely as they developed, I think that the mindset is important. In Danny's chat, 6 or 7 bureaucrats were involved, and made it a point to make the decision relatively quickly. In Gracenotes' chat, it took nearly a week to handle, and no real decision was even made (the official closure was "withdrawal by candidate", with consensus either way not yet determined.) While speed of decision is not the most important facet, it's important because as controversial issues are brought up, they can often get heated as time goes on. As you said, Gracenotes' chat led to much discussion on the talk page and even on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and much of that discussion did little but stoke the flames. For the record, I would have probably closed the Gracenotes RFA as "no consensus", as it was clear there that bureaucrats could not come to a consensus. If I were to participate on a bureaucrat chat, I would make it a point to confirm with other bureaucrats that the chat would last no more than 24 hours, and I think that would handle most of the problems that ensued on Gracenotes' RFA.

I don't have any particular "outside the box" ideas, but I'm perfectly willing to try a few ideas. One idea I've considered would have bureaucrats ask users on both sides (those who made persuasive, possibly controversial arguments) to elaborate on their opinions, either by providing additional information or by asking the users questions to help clarify their points. I'm not positive that this would have a positive impact; in reality, it could quite possibly raise some questions about biases, based on the wordings of questions, or worries about what would happen if users on one side replied to their questions but others were not able to in time. I'm merely providing this as an example of what I might consider, not what might be the best way to handle things. Ral315 » 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from JayHenry:

9. Ral315, I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia Signpost and believe it has become a critical part of the Wiki's operation. This question is as much for WT:POST as here. An independent press is essential to the function of all societies, including ours. Do you think your role as a bureaucrat and a newspaper editor would conflict? If so, how would you handle that conflicts? Is it good for the Wikipedia community to have one person in both of these important roles? --JayHenry 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A. In most cases, I don't believe that these roles would conflict. The only real issue would be controversial RFAs (which I'll admit are quite an important story). However, multiple editors already contribute to the Signpost; in fact, the stories on Gracenotes' RFA (first and second) were written by another user, Sr13. Sr13 stepped forward specifically to report on this story, and I think that I'd have no problem finding other users to write future RFA stories. As long as I'm not the one writing the story, my only duties as editor would be to check for spelling errors and publish, and I don't think that'd be a problem. Ral315 » 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC):

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere (here) about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the community thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A. In the first case, I'd probably be inclined to promote, providing that there weren't any serious issues coming from the opposing users. Standards are guidelines, in my opinion; if a user trusts another user enough to make them an administrator, I see no reason to discount their vote merely because they're more familiar with this user than with other users, and are willing to waive usual requirements in order to support. In the second case, I think it'd depend on the circumstances. Clearly, users change standards all the time, but if I felt that there was a concerted effort to mask bad-faith opinions with standards that the users did not normally use, I would probably give their arguments a lot less weight. Whether they would be promoted or not is another story - it would depend on the proportion of opposing users who were involved, and any other issues raised by opposing users. I should hope that the latter case would never happen, of course. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Voice-of-All

11. What do you think of User:Voice of All/Consensus? Voice-of-All 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting essay, to say the least. I agree that number strength is a part of consensus, as is last-minute information that may affect the discussion (in which case extending the RFA may be a good idea). The "whole community" v. "part of the community" is also a good point, although it can't be easily applied to RFA, since a significant part of the community participate there, and most who don't are aware of it. The one part I'm not sure about is homogeneity - I'm not convinced that it can be applied in most cases. Which is the better argument for declaring a "no consensus" in a close decision - one reason for opposing that everyone supports, or ten reasons for opposing that some users support? Clearly, the ten reasons may indicate serious flaws, but they may also indicate that oppose voters disagree on whether their own opinions are even valid. In the Gracenotes RFA, for example, (which, for the record, I opposed on), most users cited one reason for opposing. That means that they all agree that it's a big issue, but clearly much of the community disagreed. So homogeneity is one thing that is very subjective. I do agree that community membership, rationality and foundation issues are all very important, with the caveat that a relatively low bar should be set for membership and rationality. All in all, it's a very interesting essay, and much of it (not all) is in line with what I would call consensus. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from TwoOars

12. In the context of the Gracenotes RfA: My impression is that a significant number of opposes in that particular RfA were based on a difference of opinion, perceived or actual. a) Do you agree with this assessment? b) If yes, what weight would you give to such oppose comments that are based solely on a difference of opinion, especially if they are worded such that they cast no doubt on the judgment of the candidate nor do they convey a concern that the candidate has a tendency to act against consensus whatever his/her personal beliefs may be? (provided the RfA falls in the discretionary range of course)

Actually, Q.12b is valid even if you don't entirely agree with my take on Gracenotes RfA. You can answer that one independently from 12a if you want to. :) - TwoOars 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A: To your first question, I do agree that it was a difference of opinion, on many fronts. It was a difference of opinion on whether attack sites should be linked to or not. It was a difference of opinion on whether banning links is censorship. I think to some extent it might have been a difference of opinion on Gracenotes' opinion, although that's hardly something that can be remedied. To your second question, I think that in a request for adminship, a difference of opinion on a potentially serious issue (or, at the very least, an issue that is serious to the opposing user) is something that can be considered. I think the opinion of many oppose voters was that as an administrator, Gracenotes would campaign against the removal of links to attack sites. Whether that's true or not, or whether he would add them back, is a question that probably won't be answered. But it's a serious objection on behalf of the oppose voter, and should be considered as part of an attempt to judge consensus. And, clearly, a significant minority of the population had that opinion. I think in Gracenotes' case, there was a belief that his judgment might be clouded, due to the wording and tone of his replies. In a case where I was under the impression that the user did not distrust the candidate's judgment or ability to follow consensus, I would probably give the argument less weight when factoring my decision. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up questions:12c) "an issue that is serious to the opposing user" - I presume all users oppose someone for what they consider serious issues, whether the oppose is based on user page design or civility or whatever. Is that not so? How then do you determine which issues are really serious and which are not? Does your personal opinion come into play here?

I think common sense is the key here. What I meant particularly were opposes where it was pretty clear that the user was trolling, or similar situations. I think most opposition reasons are valid to some extent; civility can be important, as can, to some extent, edit counts (although I personally do not use them as a marker, they're usually valid reasons for opposing). I would argue that "user page design" is not a serious issue in most cases. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

12d) In a hypothetical RfA where the candidate has done good work overall and has ~1800 edits, there is 72% support with almost all opposes being "edit count too low". Do you consider this a serious issue? What helps you in deciding whether this issue is to be considered serious or not? Do you think your personal opinion will have absolutely no bearing on how you close this?

Personally? No. In the context of the RFA? Yes. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider promoting, or not promoting. It would depend on the situation. My personal opinion would have no bearing; as I said, I wouldn't consider the edit count a problem as a voter, but I would have to consider it as a bureaucrat. Discounting opinions can be done only on the merit of those opinions, and not on personal beliefs. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

12e) In determining the consensus at an RfA, would you also go through the candidate's contributions or would you base your decision entirely on what transpires on the RfA page?

I think it's a bit dangerous to go through a candidate's contributions unless necessary, because it's another situation that would, instead of giving bureaucrats the ability to judge consensus, it would give them the ability to alter consensus. I can think of situations where it would be useful, however; for example, (and an extreme example at that), in a close case where a low edit count had been cited, but the user had written 5 or 6 featured articles essentially from scratch, then I would probably give mainspace edit count-based opposes less weight in my mind, because the user's clearly shown a dedication to article-writing that an edit count might not show. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

12f) Is TwoOars asking too many questions?

I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds that it might incriminate me :) Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

13. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A: This question is a bit vague, and I think that it would depend on the situation. In no instances would I let my personal beliefs about the candidate interfere with my decision; the community's decision is what is imperative, otherwise it would essentially give bureaucrats a highly-weighted vote in close situations, rather than the ability to judge whether consensus has been reached. If I felt that my opinions would cloud the matter, I would recuse myself from the decision; otherwise, I would judge the situation, look at the arguments on both sides, and determine the result. I can't say what that result would be without more information. Ral315 » 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The question was deliberately vague, by the way, to increase the actual 'likelyhood' of the situation - ie: this is something that you would probably encounter as a crat, and if I had gone into too much depth it would have been superfluously complicated. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Ral315's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Jeez, one more? Well, the issue here is whether the community trusts you to be a bureaucrat, and I personally do, due primarily to the Signpost work you've done. Before it comes up, though: do you consider the 70-80% range to be the only range in which 'crats have discretion to decide either way? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   A complex question in itself. I believe that the community has indicated its general desire that 70-80% be the discretionary range; however, I believe that over time, that could change (as at one point, the range was generally considered 75-80%), and frankly, I believe, in general, that arguments are much more important than numbers. Ral315 » 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Support High-profile editor who has still managed to remain relative controversy-free. A good bureaucrat type. AKAF 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Per ridiculous oppose. That user got banned for a year, FFS. Good fellow, should do well. Knows how the wiki works. Moreschi ^Talk 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Ral's dedication, longevity and Clue would make him an excellent B'crat, in my opinion. Daniel 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Daniel. Clearly dedicated into improving the project, and will make a good 'crat... --Dark Falls ^talk 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Very good editor, will be a good 'crat (good work on the signpost!) GDonato (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Seems fine, like most of the current RFBs. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support. Will make an excellent bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Definitely a good choice for a bureaucrat. Captain panda 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support WJBscribe and I were discussing who'd make good bureaucrat candidates - I do believe your name came up! Majorly (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Strong Support - Will make an excellent Bureaucrat ..--Cometstyles 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Has a good head on his shoulders. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, Ral315 does great work for the community and is trustworthy. · jersyko talk 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - With your editor-in-chief position you have shown yourself to be trustworthy and a good contributer. I am happy with your interpretation of the meanings of RFA/RFB and think you would make a good bureaucrat. Camaron1 | Chris 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - Ral315 has exceptional judgment.--ragesoss 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Ral315 is one of the most senior and well-respected admins on the project. I see nothing to worry about. Shalom ^Hello 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per most of the above. Neil ╦ 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose Too nice ;-). ~ Wikihermit 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, I see absolutely no reason to not give you the bureaucratic tools. Wizardman 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. You've been an admin for a long time, an editor for even longer, and we need more bureaucrats. Obviously a good candidate. --Deskana (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Reasonable, reliable and trustworthy—all what bureaucratship is about. —Anas ^talk? 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong Support- Great admin, been here for a long time, excellent work with the Signpost. That's enough for me. He'll make a great bureaucrat. Eddie 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Strong support. Excellent candidate. ElinorD (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Top notch editor, excellent choice. I trust Ral being a crat'. KOS | talk 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - excellent admin with a reputation for neutrality and good judgement. New bureaucrats are always welcome. Warofdreams talk 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support no concerns. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. No concerns, and I hope they will continue to reduce the backlog. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Very strong support again. Acalamari 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Support this user. Oppose all these RFB nominations happening almost simultaneously. —« ANIMUM » 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per above opinions. Will be a great addition to the bureaucrat corps. Eluchil404 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
31. A long-standing volunteer to the project, I am rather pleased to see Ral315's willingness to accept a bit of additional responsibility. He's been active in all facets of the English Wikipedia and I can think of few others that are as well-equipped to determine consensus as this fellow gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
32. 100% Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Bureaucracy for everyone! (Seriously, this candidate seems to me to be highly qualified and completely dedicated.) Bucketsofg 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per the above no-need-to-state-ad-nauseam rationales. —Kurykh 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. All said :) Phaedriel - 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Trustworthy, a good contributer, dedicated, an admin's admin. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats, and turning away a volunteer (who's willing to sacrifice his spare time for the project) for rather constructed and far-fetched reasons is exactly the kind of wikilawyering that we've got too much of already. That being said, I also think he's a fine choice. -- Schneelocke 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Very experienced user who has been here on Wikipedia more than long enough. ♠TomasBat 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Good admin; should be a good 'crat. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Has Clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Support A good user. --Banana 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Agree with Riana...Clue is indeed in possession here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. I'm not seeing any red flags in Ral315's judgment. It seems he is absolutely qualified for the position. - auburnpilot talk 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
44. 100% Support - Absolutely. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
45. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Ral315 is a very active user whom I trust immeasurably with the 'crat tools. Cbrown1023 talk 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Reasonable and trustworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Mainly because he shares my enthusiasm for 'crat chat. Bureaucrat discussion=good, transparency=good. Borisblue 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Per nom statement and answers to questions. The Signpost question doesn't concern me at all. Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. "Why the hell not"? Mostly kidding, but I do like the tone of that essay. No worries about Signpost issues COI, the work shows dedication, and frankly I like the Signpost's attempt at neutrality, I think they're as successful as could be expected. Danny decision comments as good as can be expected, Gracenotes decision comments quite good. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
51. Support I would however like to stress that I don't feel the 'crat chat is the magic bullet for controversial decisions. Some believe it worked (or was helpful) with Danny's RfA. I'd say it was helpful in the way of transparency. I do feel it was a fluke that it appeared helpful at all. The same decision would have been made without it. I do like that Ral315 is willing to think outside of the box. Daveh4h say: A bold decision to act is better than no decision to act, even if the bold decision is wrong. daveh4h 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - mostly based on overall trustedness, but comments about need for transparency really endear the candidate to me. Cheers, WilyD 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Candidate is dedicated and able. Majoreditor 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. Jon Harald Søby 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
55. Support wholeheartedly. the wub "?!" 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
56. Support We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do. I don't object to him being Signpost editor at the same time, provided he recuses from articles about RfAs. EdJohnston 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. Mature user, will do a good job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. Looks like a good candidate for that spot. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. With respect to the oppose votes, the idea of Ral as a bcrat doesn't faze me in the least. In fact, I believe I'm actually quite comfortable with the idea, and I'd readily trust him to make these sorts of calls. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Good user, good admin, will be a good bureaucrat. Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. I respect Ral's judgment and believe he would promote people when there is a consensus to do so and not promote when such a consensus is absent. I am happy with his question answers and unpersuaded that his role for the Signpost is in any way problematic as a conflict of interest. I think Ral would be a fine addition to the crat team. WjBscribe 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Good, trustworthy editor. Prodego ^talk 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Weak Support per answers to questions. The fact that he is on the Signpost seems pretty irrelevant. Voice-of-All 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
64. Support. Dedicated and fair user. The "Signpost"-related opposes are simply from left field; seriously, a conflict of interest because a guy is editor of some online newsletter? Puh-leeze... - Merzbow 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Weak support. The Signpost issues are quite minor for me, though Ral315 should take care to avoid any appearance of a COI. I thought the answer regarding Danny was rather weak, which is why my support is also weak. I'd consider Ral315 to be the best out of the current bureaucrat candidates. Chaz ^Beckett 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support A good, sensible admin. I do not see any conflict of interest in the Signpost issue, given that neutrality is required in both roles. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
67. Support -- Slade (TheJoker) 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose — No thanks, you call yourself "editor-in-chief" of this newspaper thing you go on about... if I even recall you had a hissy fit when somebody tried to start up a rival "newspaper" (because you wouldn't let it join your team?). Wikipedia works on consensus, not your likes and dislikes. Matthew 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall the issue was more about the other editor complaining about an article stub not being accepted, then trying to start a rival newspaper. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn oppose per Ral315's PM. Matthew 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting for you. As a user who was involved in that whole incident, let me just say that what Ral did was exactly the right thing, as evidenced by the community ban that the user in question is now "serving" (and has been reset a couple of times); see this. Daniel 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose I am concerned about his ability to accept critique by those who might question him if he promotes a borderline Rfa. My personal experience with this editor is that he is not mature enough for this role. I am also concerned about his editoral work on the Signpost, where quotes and facts are sometimes cherry picked to alter the tone of the transpired event.--MONGO 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose for two reasons. First, I concur with Mongo: I think Ral exhibits mostly good judgment, but I have not always been satisfied with the thoroughness and clarity of the explanations he's provided. Secondly, I feel JayHenry has a valid point: I think it is not in the community's interest to have the SIGNPOST run by a b'crat -- too much consolidation of formal and informal "power." As the candidate's statement specifically said he would remain at the SIGNPOST, I must oppose. Xoloz 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Xoloz, you have a good point actually. 'crats are supposed to be er... "neutral" in almost all aspects, very formal, but the Signpost often does not exhibit these features. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   To your point, Anonymous Dissident, I believe I can be neutral on RFBs even though my writing for the Signpost, by definition, would require a little original research and potentially a point of view. I have no intention on reporting on bureaucratic actions if this request passes; other Signpost writers would pick up the stories (as happened last month on Gracenotes' RFA). Ral315 » 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Do you mean RFAs? Ok, thats good then. I am on the support side Ral. It was just a comment. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I did indeed mean RFAs, though since bureaucrats decide RFBs, I suppose that could be a much less likely situation :) Ral315 » 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Xoloz, what's the scenario here? Raul654, UninvitedCompany and Essjay all are/were both bureaucrats and arbitrators, but this has never been a problem.(Essjay left because of trust issues, not concentration of power.)--Chaser - T 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed. No offense intended to Raul or UC, but I oppose that concentration of power as well. I have opposed other ArbCom members who sought b'cratship after being elected (K. Martin, Mackensen.) Essjay, appointed to ArbCom for one week before his deceptions caught up with him, is -- in fact -- a great example of why concentration of power is bad. Raul and UC's good records are a credit to themselves, but I would say they are the exception, rather than the rule. For most people, at a minimum, the two high offices would cause a conflict of interest, leaving aside the possibility of outright malfeasance. As the Carnildo case demonstrated, it is at least possible for ArbCom to review b'cratic actions, which now (in controversial cases) are actions they tend to take as a group.

   Of course, Ral is different. His potential conflict-of-interest lies in reporting on controversial promotions, an informal -- but significant -- community influence. Even if he doesn't do reporting himself, his position as "editor-in-chief" creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, something b'crats -- as calm, neutral pillars of the community -- should always seek to avoid. Xoloz 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   I'll try not to be offended by your comments ;) Raul654 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Xoloz, and per answer to my optional question. Although the Signpost thing doesn't really worry me, I am extremely unhappy with the fact that this candidate states he would have been "persuaded" by the arguments for promoting Danny. Bureaucrats should not be "persuaded" by any arguments, nor should they make decisions. They should promote based on the opinions of the community. Otherwise the problem of concentration of power, which Xoloz highlights above, will only get worse and worse. See m:wikidemocratism and m:wikithoritarianism. Walton^talk 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose As "editor in chief" of the Signpost, Ral315 is the boss of a small handful of Wikipedians. This position as a boss of Wikipedians is irreconcilable with the neutrality needed in a bureaucrat. Ral, this is not personal. I strongly support you as editor, and I would strongly support you as bureaucrat, but I cannot support you as both. It compromises the neutrality of the bureaucrats -- and of equal concern to me, it transforms the Signpost from an independent newspaper to something more akin to a corporate newsletter. From a media ethics standpoint, it's not even a close call. And I find it troubling that you don't see the potential for COI here. --JayHenry 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   That's interesting- why is it OK for an admin to be editor in chief but not a bureaucrat? I've always seen the signpost as more as a "church bulletin" than our equivelent of the new york times. Cratship is, after all a technical post, not a political position. Frankly, since 'crats have been Arbcom members without any problem, I really find it hard to see why an editor-bureaucrat would be any worse. Borisblue 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I would also be rather opposed to crat/arbcom members. What can I say? I guess I got bit hard by the "separation of powers is a good thing" bug when I was in 8th grade social studies. I really think it applies to organizations and societies both large and small. For anyone interested, I did offer a more detailed explanation at WT:RFA#Conflict_of_interest? but won't clutter the discussion here with it. --JayHenry 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. I am not comfortable with Ral being a bureaucrat and editor-in-chief of the Signpost at the same time. Even if he will not personally write stories about controversial bureaucrat decisions I still think there is a potential conflict of interest. I am also generally in favour of distributing responsibility as much as possible. As a side note, I think his Signpost work has been mostly good but I felt Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-09/Danny was not a neutral treatment. It is fairly long, yet, despite having the word 'controversial' in the title, it nowhere mentions any reason why more than a hundred people felt Danny should not be trusted with adminship. Near the end there are some 50 words from Everyking, he is the only one quoted of those who opposed Danny's adminship. Maybe this is what MONGO means when he says: "quotes and facts are sometimes cherry picked to alter the tone of the transpired event". Haukur 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should have explained the opposition to Danny's promotion better, but the reason I only quoted Everyking, if I recall correctly, is because I wrote the article literally a few hours after the decision was made, and there were very few quotes to pick from at that time. I picked one supporting user, one opposing user, and one user who, interestingly enough, argued that there was no consensus, and yet he supported the promotion. I respect your opposition, however. Ral315 » 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for replying. As I said this was more of a side note - I wouldn't oppose over it. It did, however, annoy me at the time. Everyking (someone I respect a lot) is introduced in the article as someone with a record number of opposes on an RFA attempt of his own and then is the only one quoted of those opposing Danny's RFA. I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to discredit the opposition but I felt it was an unfortunate factor in unbalancing the article. Haukur 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Respectfully oppose per Xoloz, JayHenry and Hakur. Let's leave holding more than one high position as a grandfather clause. The potential conflict of interest might possibly mean that the Signpost becomes a mouthpiece of crat decisions, whether unwittingly (influence) or otherwise. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
7. oppose based on inconsistency in answers to Q1 and Q7, and dislike of answer to Q7. User:Argyriou (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose, per Xoloz, JayHenry, Hakur, Walton and Mailer diablo. If he is both a 'crat and a Signpost editor, there may be a conflict of interest and publications may have some problems in the neutrality of the articles. Its an either...or situation here. Terence 06:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

   Hi, may I ask how bureaucratship + Signpost editor-in-chiefdom presents a conflict of interest? To me it sounds like a non-sequitur. MessedRocker (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

   The danger is that he may be able to influence what other Wikipedians see in a situation through the signpost. And as a crat, he may be able to influence what people see in his decisions. That's what people are saying, anyway (withdrawn my vote) G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

#Opposing per my response to Messedrocker's response to Terence's oppose (if that makes sense). G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Oops, withdrawn G1ggy - t|c|p 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral In the real world, you would never want the editor of the newspaper in a position of authority, even a bureaucratic one. If the editor of the New York Times were elected the comptroller of the Port Authority, he would be asked to resign as editor. But is this a valid analogy on Wikipedia? No, it's flawed, but I'm not sure precisely why. And shouldn't this be discussed at the Signpost after the election? Maybe. I certainly have trusted Ral as editor of the Signpost. And I am inclined to trust him as a bureaucrat. But do I think it's healthy for the community to have one person in both roles? I need more time to ponder this. --JayHenry 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Shalom is doing most of that story this week instead of Ral315. [1]--Chaser - T 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And Shalom voted support in this RfA. You inadvertently helped me realize why I feel that I must oppose. Any good reporter will support his editor/boss and this is a giant conflict. --JayHenry 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would believe that if the editor actually paid anything to his subordinate, which is not the case here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect JayHenry's opinion, but I will say, for the record, that Shalom's never written for the Signpost until this week, I honestly had no idea who Shalom was until this week, and as far as I know, Shalom has no debt to me, as editor or otherwise. Any writer who would vote for me to "keep their job" is nuts, because I have no real authority to "fire" anyone, and my status as "editor" is at the community's will anyway. Ral315 » 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree here -- the title of "editor in chief" of the Signpost seems really bloated -- if there was actually any power, then he would've had to jump through about ninety-four hoops to get it. MessedRocker (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)