Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crat tasks
USURP reqs 0
CHU reqs 0
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 12
Approved BRFAs 0

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 21:10:12 on February 12, 2016, according to the server's time and date.

Discretionary range[edit]

As per below, which is on the same topic. Dennis Brown - 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A current RFA nearing the closing time is likely to fall within the new discretionary range as per the recent RFC. I want to make sure the crats are aware of the new discretionary range and apply it in closing the RfA. I have not voted in the RfA. Ynr01 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there are a number of !votes after the official stated time of close, and a number of !votes may possibly have been associated with an off-wiki site not to be named here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Bureaucrat note: Chat is now open. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I probably messed up some formatting bot-wise. If someone can tweak that, I'd be grateful. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think there are any bots to worry about on bureaucrat discussions. There is a category, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I took the liberty of formatting header templates (modeled after my own 'crat chat back in 2013), even though I'm not (yet?) a 'crat. Revert or tweak as you see fit. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Thank you both. And, User:Salvidrim!, if you want to join the Wikipedia migraine club, WP:RFB is thataway, no one is stopping you Face-devil-grin.svg. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Meh. I don't feel like there is any need for more 'crats, and although I do assess consensus frequently in closing miscellaneous discussions, I rarely visit RfA discussions, so am probably not the best to clerk/close them. ;)  · Salvidrim! ·  16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
              • But we need more galley slaves (my arms are getting tired)! -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
                • Then put your money where your mouth is and nominate me if you really think I can be of any help! ;)  · Salvidrim! ·  16:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
              • On the contrary, additional voices are always useful. I would like to see Masem, Dank, and Risker throw their hats in the ring too. –xenotalk 13:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
                • Thanks Xeno ... Dave reached out to me too, and I appreciate it. I'm hip-deep in a TFA project that's going to take several months, but I'll check back in and see how things are going when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe curious as to why this did not go for a Crat chat after it was put on hold as it was in the Discretionary range.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe[edit]

Boldly closing based on request. Crats are good about listening and will take concerns to heart. Any actual requests for change in policy should take place on the respective policy pages. Dennis Brown - 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has requested bureaucrat review of the unilateral closure of Brianhe's RfA; specifically input by uninvolved bureaucrats. Esquivalience t 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no review needed, as far as I can see. Nihonjoe acted within the limits of what we bureaucrats are allowed to do; bureaucrat chats are not required for every RfA that falls into the discretionary range. If a bureaucrat - in this case, Nihonjoe - feels secure enough to make such a close on their own and can justify it either way, that's completely acceptable. Acalamari 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've commented there (special:diff/703533202). Nihonjoe if I could suggest one thing: typically in very close results we have rendered the decision as "no consensus" instead of "unsuccessful". I realize the net outcome is the same, but the former is understood to be a more fair and accurate word choice. Perhaps you could modify simply that? –xenotalk 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In answer to: in very close results we have rendered the decision as "no consensus" instead of "unsuccessful", let me slightly disagree. A closing person has to take a decision, and take responsibility for this decision. When closing a Request for Adminship, the closing person has to chose from three statements:
  1. Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is successful.
  2. Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is not successful.
  3. Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is Move on, shameful community, make your decision by yourselves, instead of relying on the almighty Bureaucrats to clean a situation you have shamefully messed.
Facing a non consensus situation by only stating that the situation is a non consensus situation is not a fourth choice, but only saying that Bureaucrats are useless. Moreover, suggests that, among circa 1300 of them, only 850 admins have exerted at least ONE registered action in the last 12 months. Should we trust these figures (and give any weight to the figures relative to the Bureaucrats themselves) ? In such a case, new improvements of the process could be required. Pldx1 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. If a bureaucrat feels there is no consensus, they cannot deliver a successful result. You may be mistaking "consensus unclear" for "no consensus". As to your comment about administrators not using their tools, I'm not sure the relevancy. Activity requirements were recently implemented for bureaucrats, fyi. –xenotalk 15:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"no consensus", "unsuccessful"... Neither term is inaccurate or unfair in my reading. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus. I really don't think either term implies a different result or is more or less fair. Just word choice. HighInBC 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1, when there is no consensus amongst the participants in a discussion to afford access to a toolset, the status quo remains and access is not provided. Some of us like the term "no consensus" to emphasize that when we close, we are not acting on our own decisions, but clarifying the contributors' overall decision, or lack thereof. I would suggest that your interpretation of Move on, shameful community, make your decision by yourselves, instead of relying on the almighty Bureaucrats to clean a situation you have shamefully messed is inaccurate and misleading, at least in my experience. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Crat chat for discretionary range[edit]

Since this is apparently the place to talk about these issues, I bring to your attention two posts I placed on the previous page, but I shall add that short of coming up with a new consensus-binding guideline for requiring a Crat-chat for all the discretionary range, I want to hear your views of doing it voluntarily. I am concerned here with what I have made clear in the posts here, namely, that the decision process is not as transparent as you may think and that a reform is needed. But here I just want to hear your thoughts about a voluntary Crat chat when the process is not obvious. I felt comfortable with the way Avi led the Crat chat in the previous RfA, even when I disagreed sharply (but did not voice) with some of the crats' criteria (e.g., arbitrary discounting voices because they may not have been as articulate as other). Following my suggestion of voluntary (unforced, but willful) Crat-chat in the discretionary range may not solve or satisfy everyone at the moment, but it would bring more openness to the process. I am almost positive that this last nominee would have preferred the chat to help make sense of what just happened; it gives closure to a contentious debate. Not doing it may have helped the fact that the discussion spilled over and Joe had to forcefully (because it was not the first time mentioned to cease) close the discussion in Brianhe's RfA's page. At the heart of my concerns here is not redressing the past, but the short and long-term futures: the candidate and those who participated. I think you need to make it more manageable for them to make sense of what just took place. What I am reading all over the place is something like this, "oh, things are just like this." Well, then, I think it is our fault that the RfA process is such that we can only excuse it with these words. Neither I see it fair nor clear. But we can start with talking about a voluntary Crat chat in the discretionary zone. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador 17:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that all RfAs that fall in the discretionary zone should have a cratchat? Because that doesn't really sound all that voluntary. 'Crats are bound by policy more than any other role, and so if you want them to pernanently change their behavior, you should really look to change the relevant policy, rather than seeking promises like this. Just IMO. jeez, these sorts of situations are why I resigned 'cratship; nothing good ever came out of trying to close RfAs Writ Keeper  17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for clarification. As I mentioned above more than once, I am limiting my request here to ask for your views of a voluntary Crat-chat within the discretionary zone. I purposely used the word "unforced" for this reason. There are other sub-questions that could be raised within this broader query (e.g., when even a RfA in a discretionary zone has an evident outcome, and how to word the finale, etc.), but here, I want to hear how you take my concern about the power of the Crat-chat in clarifying the process, particularly when the numbers are within the discretionary range. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Crat chats do not change outcomes, they add clarity for the single Crat who is doing the closing. This is why they are seldom used. The policy change is why it was used last time, and Avi made a good call. The closing Crat can still (technically) close against a consensus of Crats, so it isn't "voting round 2", and the opinions of Crats in a chat are not binding, so it is pointless to force a chat where it is not needed. Dennis Brown - 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The main reason why I responding to your post is to correct an apparent perception of my words: "force". I just wanted to hear your views about the usefulness of the chat and how it may help new people and even the candidate to clarify what had taken place in the RfA. Otherwise, at the beginning you did address the question. Thanks Caballero/Historiador 18:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • As a group, Crats hate drama. If a close is really borderline, they aren't afraid to call a chat. Most RfAs don't need it. We may disagree, and although I voted in this RfA, I think I can be unbiased enough to see the outcome was fairly clear, which is why the chat wasn't needed. I think people look at the percentages too much. I've closed other discussion that had 2/3rds support, yet I closed them as no consensus. This is a perfect example. No one complained, and even DrC sent me a thanks (as did others) because he understood why and how I reached that conclusion, which was actually more difficult than this RFA. Those are tough cases, but "consensus" is bigger than the numbers. In this RfA, my opinion is that the consensus was weaker than the numbers indicated. Hopefully, Brianhe will take the advice given and run again in the future, where I could possibly support. Dennis Brown - 02:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Slightly unrelated to the discussion here, but if the problem is that a RfA is stalemated, a better alternative is to lengthen the RfA by 1-2 days. Cratchats are less effective then short extensions in such cases. Esquivalience t 01:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Crats will do that. I think they extended Hawkeye's. There are lots of situations when that makes sense, although they are rare. Dennis Brown - 02:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats are all clear about current policies and guidelines.

The RfB process is very efficient at choosing people who stick to policies and guidelines.

It therefore follows that if you're looking for a group of editors to ignore all rules and do something different "voluntarily", the Bureaucrats are the last group of editors that you would want to choose.

If community consensus forms that all RfXs in the discretionary zone should be decided by CratChat, the Crats will of course follow that consensus, but unless and until that happens, we'll continue to work in the way we do, which is that each RfX will be assessed on its own merits and sometimes a Crat will decide for themselves and sometimes they will choose to open a CratChat. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dweller's thoughtful comments are spot-on, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this. Very accurate, Dweller. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No issues with anything, other than what was identified in another thread relating to consistency in approach. If a 'crat chat is agreed and held open for a particular 'crat to "opine" and within a few days an RfA with an almost identical profile in terms of the swing in voting pattern and the 'crat for whom the first 'crat chat was left open peremptorily closes it without a 'crat chat, then there is apparent inconsistency in approach. I have no issue with the resulting outcome in either case, but I would have expected a 'crat who's own RfB was subject to a 'crat chat and who's request to "opine" had delayed a closure 3 days earlier would have considered a 'crat chat in the second RfA, or at least explained why a 'crat chat wasn't needed in the second RfA. Bear in mind that approx. 100 new contributors to RfA are joining in following the Watchlist message. Apparent consistency is as important as actual consistency. Anyway, hopefully something will come of @DGG:'s proposal [1]. Leaky Caldron 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm having trouble grasping this so-called 'inconsistency' people are pointing out regarding delaying the closure of an already-opened bureaucrat discussion so that a bureaucrat who stated they wished to opine, could opine, and the non-opening of a bureaucrat discussion. Where is the inconsistency? That we held a bureaucrat discussion open for a few hours to allow a particular bureaucrat to opine does not suddenly mean that same bureaucrat is then required to open a bureaucrat discussion on a completely separate and dissimilar request. –xenotalk 16:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Leaky caldron I strained my mind trying to follow your logic. As far as I can tell it is a non-sequitur. HighInBC 16:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure what my RfB having a 'crat chat has to do with anything. I had no control over that, and I've never let it affect how I handle RfA discussions. Every RfA is different, no matter how similar you think they might be. Therefore, every RfA can and should be handled on its own merits, and not necessarily be influenced by any procedures implemented on a different RfA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, I have opened at least one or two 'crat chats in the past, so it's not like I completely avoid them. They are only necessary when the closing 'crat is unable to determine consensus on their own. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Strain away. I would expect nothing more than a Crat of 'crats, or whatever the collective noun is, to stick together. Simply put, and leaving everything thing else out of it, the second RfA warranted a 'crat chat on the same basis as the first, or the first didn't need a 'crat chat. They were identical in major respects. Jo's involvement in the first is not relevant. His failure not to account for the similarity between the 2 and treat them in the same way is inconsistent. Now, quit your badgering and wait for the RFC to be opened. Leaky Caldron 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The collective term you are looking for is, believe it or not, "a shuffle of bureaucrats". Keri (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is "badgering" you as you said in your edit summary. People are just disagreeing with you. Your conclusion does not follow your premise. There is no conspiracy against you here, if you want to change policy propose a change in the appropriate venue. If anyone is badgering here it is you. HighInBC 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You keep trying to imply (and failing) that my actions were in some way unusual. Every 'crat who has commented here and elsewhere has told you that you are wrong. A significant percentage of non-'crats commenting have said the same thing. The only people who seem to have a problem with how things were handled are those who supported the candidate in question. I'm fine with someone (you? DGG? someone else?) creating an RfC if you want to propose a change to how things are and have been done, but trying to imply that the correct process wasn't followed is just flat out false. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You really need to get facts straight if you are going to use phrases like "Every 'crat who has commented here and elsewhere has told you that you are wrong." I made 6 edits here [2] only 1 on this subject where I was pointing out that end result was correctly gauged in both cases. This thread is my only other comment on this issue. You are confusing me with someone else. Please try to be accurate when you are denigrating a fellow editor. Leaky Caldron 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And this is why it is good to try to keep discussions like this in one place. You made comments over here, too. I was including those in the overall discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. That is the same link I provided above. Really, if you wish to persist in this nonsense that I have been told I'm wrong here, there and everywhere, would you mind supporting your claim with a diff. or two? The only minor comment I made there on this topic was supported by DGG, otherwise nothing. Please stop making accusations that cannot be supported. Leaky Caldron 18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Your general opinion, from what I can gather from all of your comments, is that you believe I closed the RfA incorrectly. As I stated, every 'crat (who has commented...I can't speak for those who have not commented) disagrees with the position that the RfA was closed incorrectly. I'm not accusing you of anything. If I have misunderstood your stance on this issue, I apologize. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no doubt that you have misunderstood. You're plain wrong. I opposed both candidates, agreed the need for a 'crat chat and agreed with the closes. Suggest you actually read my contributions rather than making a general assumption. No where have I ever suggested that the decision to have a 'crat chat or either final close decision was in error. I have actually supported existing 'crat policy on the subject. The issue here is, bluntly, your blinkered view of what you think rather than what the actual evidence makes clear. Leaky Caldron 18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If you don't want to hear back from bureaucrats, probably don't post to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Bureaucrats determine the result of any given RfA on the facts and merits of that particular request. –xenotalk 17:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a bureaucrat but it seems like the fundamental misunderstanding between some of the editors here and the crats who are responding is that the editors view the two RfAs in question as very similar while the crats see them as very different and unique. The insistence that a crat chat should have happened is based on the view that the two requests were, as Leaky says, "identical in major respects." Without rehashing the RfAs, perhaps the crats could explain the different circumstances they saw which might satisfy those who are arguing that the process isn't transparent. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The major difference, of course, is that one editor is a former administrator: such RfAs are typically judged with finer lens to ensure that opposition merely for disagreeing with otherwise legitimate administrator acts is weighted appropriately. Perhaps these editors could highlight out the similarities they're seeing, apart from the raw percentage at close. –xenotalk 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that former administrator had the tools removed from them, rather than just giving them up. That makes a big difference, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In opening this subsection, it was never my intention to bring any "drama" here or to tax your already overburden schedules. It was only a question about views. I appreciate Liz's rephrasing and improvement of the question. We would all benefit from your answers, but I would like to repost my original concern, which parallels that of Liz: What is your view about the power of Crat-chats in clarifying the RfA process, particularly for those who are not veterans and even for the candidate itself (who may well be veteran, but considering the circumstances may benefit from a clearer process). The question about how you feel of a voluntary Crat-chat (one in which you do not have to call it, but you still do) is not misleading or distracting, but it is an honest inquiry into how the Crats see their participation in this type of discussions. The other side of the question may be, do you see the Crat chat as obtrusive, too burdensome, and potentially more confusing? Though as the context above shows the last RfA as the origin of my concern (shared by some), it is not merely about the last two, more about how do we move to the future. From my perspective, I see a crack in communication, clarity, which can lead to deficiencies in trust. I understand that you follow policy and that if we want a change of policy, we should move this discussion to another page, but before following any other step we would benefit from your views on the question I posted above. Again, here I am not questioning Joe's motives, as I said before, I think he followed the book. My sincere wish is to have an exchange free from personal attacks and hear about how you view the impact of Crat chats and how you feel about opening them. Caballero/Historiador 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The only time I consider opening a 'crat chat is if, after carefully reviewing an RfA, I am unable to determine what the consensus of the discussion is. The 'crat chat can help in cases such as that by talking things out with the other 'crats. In cases where I have no problem seeing what the consensus is (or what the "no consensus" is), there is no reason to open one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Joe, so, let me have this clear: Would you only open a Crat chat for personal clarification? Even if the chat could help others, you would prefer to use it only to what the policy required it for, to elucidate, clear up, enlighten an outcome potentially unclear to you. Caballero/Historiador 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A 'crat chat is not (and has not ever been) meant to help clarify things for others. It's a discussion among 'crats to help clarify how a discussion should be closed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Caballero1967 I don't understand this 'voluntary bureaucrat discussion' suggestion, it seems you are asking us to commit to always opening a bureaucrat chat in a discretionary situation (that's not 'voluntary'). As a group we do not institute new/novel procedures unless community consensus exists for it. –xenotalk 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Crat chat for discretionary range (break)[edit]

Xeno, I have addressed your question already. Your impression is not my intention, and thus, I apologize for not being clearer (I tried to include more to provide context, but it seems that in hurried discussions, less is more). I just want to hear about your views regarding the Crat chat impact on others, beyond Crats. Do you see it so differently that we see it (non-veterans)? Yet, it seems I am nearing to an answer. Caballero/Historiador 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Is what you are saying is that "the result of a bureaucrat discussion is 'easier' to accept than a result handed down by a single bureaucrat only"? –xenotalk 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Xeno, let's be clear, here we are diverting a bit from the original question, but I am glad to address yours now: Simply put, yes, I thought it was obvious, but "obviously," it was not. Caballero/Historiador 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so what is the question you're trying to ask? –xenotalk 19:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Joe already answered it from his view (thanks for that). To rehash it, would you ever consider opening a Crat chat for the purpose of making the process more open for the WP community (particularly when it is in the discretionary zone), or would you only do it when it is not clear to you? Caballero/Historiador 19:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures, the only policy guidance for bureaucrats on closing RfAs is Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be promoted using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement. That's it. Crat chats aren't even mentioned or suggested so they should not be considered standard practice unless the policy and guidelines are changed.
The chats occur on request from one bureaucrat, to hear feedback from other crats and I don't believe they are done for the benefit of the larger community. It is good that the chat is public as these discussions could have easily occurred on an email list like functionaries' discussions are. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x20 that is a read herring. The reason this is in public is because there is no private information at play. Discussions sometimes happens on functionaries-l is because a situation leans heavily on private information and concern the use of the CU or OS tools. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:CRATCHAT exists. Leaky Caldron 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, but wanted to see if the Crats saw in them the same value we (me and those who have expressed similar concerns) saw in them, and thus would have been willing to open them in moments when they would perceive "we" would benefit from it Caballero/Historiador 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual policy page that governs RfA is here: Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. –xenotalk 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You got me, Leaky, I didn't know that page existed, much less that records are kept about when a crat chat has happened or how long they last. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What is your view about the power of Crat-chats in clarifying the RfA process
Indeed, bureaucrat discussions can give a deeper insight into how bureaucrats individually and as a group approach closing RfX'en, this can help newer users understand the RfX process
do you see the Crat chat as obtrusive, too burdensome, and potentially more confusing?
No, and certainly we really don't have much to do anymore so if the community consensus were developed for "discretionary range==mandatory bureaucrat discussion", we would be more than willing to oblige. My opinion is that this would not necessarily be kind to the candidate: having multiple bureaucrats over a period of 24-72 hours opine that the RfX is not successful might be more crushing than simply having one do so, and it of course provides yet another community venue where non-bureaucrats are opining one way or the other (the talk page of the bureaucrat discussion); basically adding to the 'stress-week' of the RfA proper
would you ever consider opening a Crat chat for the purpose of making the process more open for the WP community (particularly when it is in the discretionary zone), or would you only do it when it is not clear to you?
I would prefer if first considered the affect on the candidate: as explored above, simply opening a bureaucrat discussion to assuage the concerns of the community may not be kind to the candidate. Bureaucrats are already "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner", so if any particular closure seems to lack transparency, the community is free to seek clarity at the bureaucrats talk page, or the bureaucrats' noticeboard (as is ongoing in the current thread). –xenotalk 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno. These are excellent answers! If you allow me to sneak yet another, but for clarification. Could I assume, then, that your concern for the candidate's wellbeing makes you lean toward not opening a Crat chat if you see the outcome crystal clear anyway?Caballero/Historiador 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes: if I was settled on what I felt was an accurate read of consensus: a justifiable and defensible result upon which I was able to compose a coherent closing statement encapsulating my thoughts, I would not open a bureaucrat discussion (unless some hypothetical policy consideration required it). –xenotalk 19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Xeno, Thanks very much. You have answered my question(s). Just to point to the context of the original question and the diff I submitted above (here), I find that you guys are walking a fine line, and in your attempt to make the process open while also show kindness to the candidate, you may have overestimate the negative impact of the Crat chat on the candidate and subestimate its power to make things better for everyone, even for the candidate. But that is why it is a fine line: we don't know for sure how the candidate would see this, unless we ask them. Thanks!!!Caballero/Historiador 19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm just worried that such bureaucrat discussions (opened to 'make the process more open' instead of 'source wider opinions on an unclear situation', as now) would be "process for process' sake". You can see from WP:CRATCHAT that bureaucrat discussion are rather rare, very much the exception rather than the rule. –xenotalk 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A paradigm shift could be helpful[edit]

Please make proposals like this at WT:RFA so that more of the community can participate. That page has far more people frequenting it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the present, RfA is to be decoded as Request for Adminship. And this results into attributing (or not) something between a Bachelor's degree in Wikipedia Letter Soup and a Speech Contest Award. Another approach would decode RfA as Recruitment of Administrators. And then, the key criterion would be balancing the load of work to be done (according to relevant measures) with the available working force (according to relevant measures). Additional question: should such a shift be described as an innovative change of policy or as the come back of an old practice ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting unpacking the admin tools and granting some that are "needed" to the "available working force". The community has consistently opposed unpacking the toolset whenever it's been suggested. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Hierarchical_structures. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: That discussion is probably better suited for WT:RFA, where a broader section of editors interested in the process can comment, than the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is the wrong place to be discussing those ideas. As Dweller has pointed out, they have already been proposed and soundly rejected time and time again, but you are welcome to propose them again in the proper forum. This is not that forum. It is time to drop the stick, and admit (or at least accept) that policy was followed to the letter. If you want to change policy, WP:BN is not the place to discuss, propose or demand it. Take it to the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 12:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crat chat for discretionary range (arb break)[edit]

Just to make a small but relevant point in support of Nihonjoe, personally, if I'd been the closing Crat in the Hawkeye RfA, I wouldn't have opened a Cratchat. That's not to criticise the Crat who did - I can understand why they chose to - but an observation that the noise from a couple of editors of "why didn't you do the same thing here?" could equally be turned on it's head as a "why didn't you do the same thing there?". The answer to both questions is the same. The closing Bureaucrat looked at the RfA and assessed whether they could determine consensus. In the case of Hawkeye they decided they weren't sure, so in my book that was a good decision. In this case, Joe was sure, so in my book that was a good decision. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In my world bureaucrats are not freelance - they follow rules not for individual interpretation. Obviously WP interprets the bureaucrat's role here as a sort of "please yourself". So no consistency = the "noise" as you describe the comments made by a few people who think consistency (either way) would have been preferable. Leaky Caldron 22:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
But the thing here is that the rule is individual interpretation. When bureaucrats (as individuals) interpret the results of an RfA into a consensus (or lack thereof), they are doing it because that's exactly what the rules tell them to do. So, if you want RfAs that fall within the discretionary range to consistently start a cratchat, you need to change the rules to require that--otherwise, this kind of thing is exactly what the rules are telling the crats to do. Writ Keeper  22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not here, or anywhere, advocated that as a remedy. Others have done, not me. I really wish you would stop misreading what I said. Leaky Caldron 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry I misread what you said, then. It wasn't intentional. Writ Keeper  23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Leaky_caldron could you please let us know what aspects of these two requests you found so similar in nature as to require a bureaucrat discussion "for consistency"? –xenotalk 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This isn't going to go anywhere. The reality is that a 'discretionary range' close is subjective - crat chat or no crat chat. Either we just do away with this discretionary thing and have a hard x% rule or we live with individual crat decisions. It is totally legitimate to bring up concerns about a close (and I'm disappointed that not every crat is treating those concerns with due respect) but it doesn't make sense to go on about it. If sufficient numbers of editors feel that a crat is consistently making bad decisions, then they should bring it up in the form of an RfB recall or take it to arbcom or whatever the procedure for de-crating happens to be. Personally, though I supported the RfA and I think the opposers were completely misguided, given the strength of those opposes, I don't see how any crat could close it any other way. Doesn't seem much point in having a chat just to have a chat. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am agreeing with regentspark. Though only two crats answered my question(s), I take the silence of others as consenting. I think we raised legitimate concerns here, but this forum may have reached the end of its usefulness (unless more Crats would like to join, of course). To those who participated, thanks! Caballero/Historiador 00:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Crats and other have bent over backwards to accommodate the questions about the close. They have boiled down mainly to disagreeing with the outcome without a single reference to any policy misinterpretation or violation. Looking at the RFA page and here, I would disagree and say that everyone has been amazing patient with those who keep asking the same questions. Just because someone asks a question doesn't mean every Crat is going to opine about it, nor should they feel obligated. Again, we need to drop the stick instead of stirring the pot with it. Dennis Brown - 00:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Dennis, hopefully you are not misreading me. I am in no way thinking differently from you. I meant to give closure to my own questioning feeling satisfied with the answers, even when it would have been even better with more Crats' involvement. Caballero/Historiador 00:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not down on you, I'm just wanting everyone to go edit something, go mentor someone, go create a template, just go. This is literally beating a dead horse. Dennis Brown - 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Discussion here is way past its due date and is putting the bureaucrats in zugzwang, so this discussion should be closed. Esquivalience t 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Second the motion. Caballero/Historiador 05:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.