Wikipedia:Adminship survey/B

(37/22/12) I have trust in the judgment of current bureaucrats in determining consensus
Points to think about :
 * If the bureaucrats were to stand for RfB again, would they make the cut today?
 * Do you agree with their judgments? At times of disagreement, do you accept their rationale/explanation(s)?

Yes
I haven't seen any recent bad calls. The fact that the b'crats respected the lack of consensus on Gay Cdn's RfA is encouraging. I would not want the b'crats to participate in the discussion, except possibly to move replies to people's !votes onto the talk page. Αργυριου (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Seen bad call, changing position.
 * 1) I can't say I would always agree with bureaucrat decisions, but at the same time, I've never seen a controversial case where the admin was actually bad. -Amarkov moo! 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *User:Freestylefrappe was promoted 38/14/4 with controversy associated with the discounting of late oppose votes (i.e. after the "deadline" but before the close). He was subsequently desysoped by ArbCom for consistent abuses.  Dragons flight 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) **True, but that was in the fall of 2005, an eternity ago in wiki-time, and the non-prescient bureaucrat who made that decision hasn't done an RfA promotion for months. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Proof is in pudding. Pudding seems fine. Perhaps the bureaucrats could be a bit more agressive in ignoring people who are not contributing to consensus, but no serious complaint. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Bad pudding. Hipocrite - User talk:Hiplaquo; Talk &raquo; 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) The job of a bureaucrat is to interpret consensus, and I think they do a fine job of that. In the case of a bad admin, that's the fault of the people voting, per my comments above, not the crats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Apart from Ryulong's RFA, yes. Proto   ►  16:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes. Even with Ryulong's RFA, I think what was done was something that needs to be done, but it was the wrong RFA to pick for it.  Several users that everyone 100% completely and totally agrees are trusted users have failed to get promoted because they didn't jump through the right hoops.  This is where the bureaucrats need to exercise their discretion.  If someone is 60/40, but every single one of the opposes is for namespace balance reasons, then a bureaucrat needs to consider promoting that user. See Requests for adminship/Gay Cdn, for example. --BigDT 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I do have faith though I would prefer for a far greater discretionary range to be available.  Again, its just a metric that itself doesn't make sense as the range is determined by a proportion without looking at the overall total.  A higher total number is also an indicator and that is never considered by the proponents of a particular % figure.  Perfectly happy with Ryulong.  MLA 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm confident in the current set of 'crats, for the time being. I suspect most of them would fail RfB if renominated, but that would be due to shortcomings in RfB rather than with the current set of 'crats. --ais523 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) If anything, bureaucrats should be more willing to take specific arguments into consideration, not less. Chick Bowen 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I have absolute confidence in the bureaucrats, and I want to express my opinion that I support their use of even more discretion than is currently used.  Ral315 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) I trust the crats to make the right promotions, but (as below) don't think that has much to do with consensus. Kusma (討論) 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Put me here. AN and ANI have been on my watchlist for quite a while and I have not seen anyone criticize Carnildo's actions once that I can recall, so it seems as though the crats called that one right. Ryulong was promoted on a bad rationale but I think that one will turn out OK as well. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes I trust them. However I think they should be more proactive in sheparding difficult disscussions toward consensus, rather than standing by while people become more and more entrenched.  Determing consenssus should not simply mean reading a page after X number of days and making a choice.-- Birgitte SB  20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) I do trust crats to make the right decision, which should be determined by consensus from discussion, not from merely numbers. Using percentages may have seemed like a good idea when it was first introduced, and probably still does, but we need to be weaned off of addiction to them. Grace notes T  &#167; 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course. Yuser31415 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, the few occasions where they have gone against numbers show clear evidence of the application of Clue. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) yes, per BigDT Agathoclea 23:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I think they are doing as well as can be expected within the framework of the current process. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Despite having been involved in one of the more infamous disputes regarding the closing of an RfA by a bureaucrat, I think they do a fine job. It's actually not as demanding as closing contentious AfDs. —Doug Bell talk 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree the bureaucrats generally do a good job. Durova Charge! 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I think they do a good job. Occasionally there is an error of judgement or action that is controversial but overall they do well. James086 Talk  14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I have no issue with any of the decisions taken by the bureaucrats, I feel that they have always acted in the best interests of the project. Rje 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely. I support them even more after the Ryulong and Carnildo affairs. Those were both difficult and controversial promotions, which were done to benefit the encyclopedia, not to make people happy or show draconian devotion to percentages. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. The system's not great. They do their best with a bad lot. --Dweller 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes. But I'd like to see them being bolder still.--Docg 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Aye. &mdash;  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) With the occasional slipups, yes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm sure that there are occasional mistakes/malicious problems, but for the most part they are doing a good and honest job. Koweja 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) The vast majority of cases are handled properly. There's a small room for improvement (having more bureaucrats participate in a closure, for example), but still, they're doing a good job. Tito xd (?!?) 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) No complaints, but few dealings with them anyway. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) In my experience, bureaucrats generally seem to know what they are doing, and provide smart explanations for doing it. They sometimes stray from rigid supermajority definitions of consensus, and that is a good thing.--Danaman5 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) I have yet to see a bureaucrat's decision that I have disaggreed with. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. Nobody is perfect, but I haven't seen a bureaucrat's decision that I thought was unreasonable.  skip (t / c) 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Tony Sidaway 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The problem does not lie with the bureaucrats, who are if anything somewhat timid and unwilling to use their discretion. I would like to see them make the running on the problems of administrator recruiting, but it doesn't seem to be about to happen. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Most of the time. But in some instances a unilateral decision is not easy and an alternative should be discussed. For example: Abolish WP:CANVASS and make the current numbers game official. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) They act in good faith, and they mostly get it right. I hope we don't expect anybody to be perfect around here. --kingboyk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) I have the highest faith in our crats. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 20:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) The carnildo thing wasn't really addressed by the resultant arbcom case - other than to determine the independance of bureaucratship. They let us down there. The point is, if you get desyssoped - that's usually for a good reason, if the community make you come back 3, maybe 4 times to RFA to get your tools back, well that's just tough you should have minded your P's and Q's a little better. Arbcom should also perhaps more fully consider the consequences of desysopping.--Mcginnly | Natter 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nope. They don't take into affect blatant falsehoods and the reputations of editors in compiling true consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Nope, this, this and this immediately come to my mind. And since it is near impossible to become a bureaucrat these days, the current ones will not be changing with new and fresh ideas and influence. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) While some probably would make the cut again, some also probably would not. I've seen at least one recent contentious close where the bureeaucrat offered a rationale that was orthogonal to the issue of consensus, so couldn't be accepted.  GRBerry 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No confidence. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I do not trust the current system, which allows for single users with bureaucrat rights that have only been marginally active to step in and make a personal decision, which is essentially not reversible. However, most (if not all) of the bureaucrats actively performing bureaucrat duties are trustworthy. -- Renesis (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No. I do not believe that bureaucrats are doing what is necessary, as they should, such as weighing arguments. ST47 Talk 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No. Agree with above comments. It is also disturbing that they are making efforts to prevent other editors becoming bureaucrats for spurious reasons as in Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe. Catchpole 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No. There should be a formula for consensus, not a person that can be swayed by any number of potential things. Just H 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No way. The Carnildo incident immediately strikes me as something the 'crats had poor judgement on and it only escalated from that point on resulting in poor behavior from editors and admins alike. — Moe  23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) The Carnildo thing was a slap in the face. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)t
 * 12) I accpeted Danny's explantion for Sean Black's promotion but felt that Carnildo's was clearly against consensus (which is oddly enough the opposite of my own oppinions of the candidates). Bureaucrats should not use their own judgments on a candidates accetability but rather consider the feelings of the community.  If a substantial minority feels that admins must have attribute X then they must have it to have the consensus support of the community.  Eluchil404 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Decisions should not be left to one bureaucrat. They should be discussed in a place such as the b-crat noticeboard, where multiple crats will determine a consensus of the consensus.
 * 14) If I can't trust the system which they were spawned from the foul creatures ;) (Kidding of course...) then how can I trust them? As I said above, 1 oppose vote should in theory be able to negate an army of support votes. This is not the case & bureacrats are partly to blame. Why I say they are partly not to blame is becuase if they ended a RfA because of one really valid oppose despite the 100's of supports, then they'd be ousted from the community... Other wise yes I trust them, but overall I don't. They can't win basically... Spawn Man 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. And after seeing the links Majorly gave, I trust them even less...
 * 15) I totally agree with what the guy above is saying. Every time someone is made a bureaucrat, their screenname should be modified (all of them) so that anonymity might be maintained. Obviously, this shouldn't be complete anonymity - they should be held accountable, but they shouldn't be able to be dogged by 100s of users. Alternatively, my proposal shouldn't be enacted but something else done instead... --Seans Potato Business 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but then again, I don't trust anyone.  . V .  [Talk 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Unless tyhe decision is unanimous or near unanimous, it should be discussed between multiple bureaucrats and members of the community. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 11:06, Friday, 23 February '07
 * 2) Consensus of whom? The readers?  The editors?  No: whoever happened to show up.  The whole notion is ridiculous. -ac
 * 3) No. The high profile incidents mentioned above (Sean Black, Carnildo, Ryulong) suggest that determining community consensus is not always what is going on.   Buck  ets  ofg  00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sorry no. Sean Black and Carnildo promotions made a mockery of our bothering to vote in the first place. Yeah, okay, someone note that we don't have votes and enjoy the sound of my mocking laughter. Grace Note 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely not. Take a look at this RfA - the closing bureaucrat did not promote the candidate, even though there were 41 votes in favour and only 14 against, making it a clear consensus. IMHO the current process gives bureaucrats too much dictatorial power - once SPAs and obvious trolls are discounted, the RfA should be decided on a majority vote. It's not the role of a bureaucrat to decide whether someone would make a good admin, or to disregard consensus. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No. Not after Danny's RfA. Αργυριου (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) What do you mean by "consensus"? There is rarely consensus in non-unanimous RfAs these days. Bureaucrats often decide by supermajority, and only rarely dare to stray from the old 80% definition. I don't understand how people can believe a 73/27/7 RfA to be "no consensus" but a 165/35/27 RfA to have reached "consensus". In both cases, there is not really consensus to promote the candidate, as sizable minorities are opposing. However, what is important is not consensus, but whether the candidate should be promoted or not (which can be decided by taking into account the arguments provided). As there have been no complaints about Carnildo and Ryulong since their promotion, the bureucrats acted correctly in their decision to promote even though they ignored the supermajority requirements others think they should have used. Unfortunately the Carnildo promotion resulted in a lot of other bad things (none of which were related to Carnildo's admin actions since repromotion), which the closing crat might have anticipated better. Anyway, the bureaucrat's job in my opinion is not to determine whether consensus has been reached, but to make the decision whether to promote or not to promote in cases where there can't be any consensus due to the large number of participants in the debate. Kusma (討論) 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) It’s not a matter if I trust them; I accept the system how they became crats as long as there’s no system that’s considered to produce better crats. --Van helsing 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with that--I do not necessarily trust the way they are given the office, but the decisions made in RfA seem to be sensible, which means that we should not really tinker with this part. DGG 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It's a tough job, as some of the other questions here demonstrate. I haven't seen a huge amount of decisions made where I disagree with the reading of the result, and as elsewhere we aren't constantly running to desysop (even in the cases I've disagreed), so they can't be going that far wrong. --pgk 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I do, however I wish there was a better system for dealing with disputes over a Bcrat action.  Daniel.Bryant  04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) In view of the extremely idiosyncratic usage of 'consensus', then yes. Whether consensus can be measured by percentages, or what those percentages should be, is a question separate from that of whether to trust the bureaucrats as individuals. Opabinia regalis 05:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) What Daniel.Bryant said. Viridae Talk  07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) In general I trust them, but I do think there's been a lack of collaboration and transparency in some cases. ChazBeckett 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) In general, yes. My somewhat flawed first RfB notwithstanding, I wish there was a way to bring fresh new views to the bureaucrat staff. I'm starting to think there should be one-year terms for bureaucrats. No, it would be nowhere even close to causing the same problems as reconfirming administrators, so don't tell me it won't work for the reasons reconfirming administrators wouldn't work. Grand  master  ka  08:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I trust the crats, but I think that standards have gone up so high that an RfB is nearly impossible. I also believe that an exact measure for consensus is contradictory to what RfA is all about.  bibliomaniac  1  5  22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I have lost faith in the bureaucrats regarding User:Gaillimh. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo;
 * 12) I think that they generally do the best they can with the system in their hands. However, I'd like to see them take Neutral !votes into greater account, rather than discounting them. I'd also like to see them throw out !votes than are essentially meaningless such as Oppose/Support per X user. Again though, they are simply working with the system at hand. Vassyana 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)