Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 13

Why has BL not been added to the admins? He won his vote. See below.


 * ...He did not "win his vote" because there was no "vote". The polling is for "consensus", not to determine a "simple majority". Please don't confuse "polling" with "elections". And please don't change the rules for determining a process's outcome, just because you don't like the outcome which those rules have produced!!!'

BL
BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Wikipedia. BL 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Support votes:
 * 1) Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! 172
 * 2) Support. Uncle Ed 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Viajero 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Wikipedia deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Stewart Adcock 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * 7) Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, but count me as noncommittal for the time being. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Very active and Started a number of valuable articles. May05 17:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Secretlondon 17:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support ugen64 03:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Wenteng 09:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also . Angela. 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) (removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)

Oppose votes:
 * 1) Oppose. Maximus Rex 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jiang 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement . Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- Seth Ilys 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose.  Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks shouldn't be kept.  RickK 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --Imran 14:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. --mav
 * 10) Oppose. silsor 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral. Ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BL did win by a margin of 11 to 10. Perhaps Ed just failed to see that the tally above had not been updated when the time limit expired. This mistake should be corrected right away. 172 22:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont agree with your vote counting. I personally either count neutral votes as both support and oppose, or I dont count them at all. It's not fair to count a neutral vote as only support or only oppose. Optim 18:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think you have to win by more than one to become an admin. Perl 22:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now that we have more users granting sysops, a clear criteria of what constitutes a consensus must be spelled out. A simple majority of 1 vote is definately not a consensus though. --Jiang 01:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Are we sure? Has there ever been a case in the past when someone had won the vote on this meta page, but failed to attain admin status? This isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer. 172 02:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should use the same criteria here as for Votes for Deletion. There have been many cases where things listed on VfD have had a large majority for deletion, but not a large enough "consensus". I'd be really puzzled if someone got adminship with a less than ringing consensus. RickK 00:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be troublesome, but I'm ignorant of the processes involved here. Thus, I'm still wondering if we have a precedent case along these lines on votes for admin. If there is no precedent, this case points out the need to draft clearer guidelines. 172 01:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Consensus
Has any definition of the consensus required been set out? Do we want to set one out? How about something like "at least 2/3rds majority, with voting by logged in users with at least 100 edits/1 month of being here"? Does that sound too stringent, or not stringent enough? Other opinions, options? -- Infrogmation 01:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * This could get ugly. How about keeping it quiet here and asking for Jimbo's intervention? Also, if the BL matter is unprecedented, perhaps we should ask Jimbo to determine whether or not he becomes an admin. 172 01:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Several times, I've heard "consensus" defined as 80% of those voting &rarr;Raul654 01:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * But on this page? I might be wrong, but I think that I've seen admins slide by with less than 80%. 172 01:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't want this to be taken as any kind of dig on BL, but 172, I think we can agree that anything below a 2/3 majority (66.66% of those voting) really can't be taken as a "consensus" by any meaning of the word. If it was majority, it would say "majority", I think.  If someone got a 2/3 majority....well, there we would be stumped, and I think we do need to set a guideline for that kind of instance.  I just think we all do need to agree that, whatever consensus is, we are agreed that it is not receiving 11 supports to 10 opposes. Jwrosenzweig 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it should be at least 80%. Admins need to be trusted, and there is a problem if 20% of those voting do not trust a person. Angela. 03:51, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 80% is way too high. Keep in mind the effect that this criterion would have on Wiki's diversity. Moreover, let's keep the question of admin status in perspective. Sysop powers can be reversed in seconds. The miniscule risk of a rogue admin (such as that user who went nuts and started a spree of vandalism) does not outweigh the risk of turning the community of admins into a homogenized mix of Wiki automatons. After all, any action by an admin can be undone right away!


 * On another note, perhaps this page already has an inherent tendency to over-represent opposition. Keep in mind that conflict makes more noise around here than cooperation; when there's agreement, users will simply continue to add content to articles and communicate fleetingly. Users who disagree on what makes a proper encyclopedia article, or specific coverage issues, also form biases against each other. Baring other factors, it's clear that potential opposition voters are far more likely to be vocal about a candidacy than potential "yes" voters.


 * Before such an extreme measure is adopted, Jimbo's guidance is necessary. Regarding BL, if we cannot find a precedent, Jimbo's ought to decide whether or not he is granted admin status. It would be unfair - to put it mildly - to hold BL up to a post facto criteria drawn up as a result to his own candidacy. A precedent is needed so as to avoid charges of discrimination and unfairness. 172 04:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 172, all I can say is that, with all due respect, we have been remarkably efficient in promoting huge numbers of admins, and we turn down a fairly small percentage of serious applicants. Furthermore, anyone who has spent time here could assure you that this site has always been clear that getting 51% of the vote is nowhere near enough to achieve consensus: this isn't an attempt to enforce post facto criteria on BL.  It's just the way this page operates.  You're free to ask Jimbo, of course, but I think a review of this page's history would establish the kind of support you need here, and that more than 3/4 of nominations here get that level of near-unanimous support. Jwrosenzweig 05:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking for a precedent. Find one and I'll shut up. Irrespective of BL, I'll ask Jimbo and the mailing list about this draconian 80% threshold. Given that Jimbo's the most ardent defender of Wiki's diversity, I doubt that he'd support any limit greater than 2/3. 172 05:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Best I can find in the last month or so is that Metasquares (who was supported by 7, opposed by 7 when the tally ended) was not promoted, and no one raised any fuss at all.  Given that 50% wasn't close enough for someone to scream to keep the polls open, I think it's fair to say that 54% isn't enough to promote.  I could look back further, though, if this one isn't good enough.  And certainly, talk it over with Jimmy!  I'd be interested in what he had to say. Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, crud I miscounted someone twice (I wish people wouldn't post twice) so Metasquares lost 6 to 7. I'll look again. Jwrosenzweig 05:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Here, finally! User:mydogategodshat was refused here even though ahead 15 to 8, by my count, and there was no disagreement here.  Case finally closed, I think. :-)  I should note that I was one of mydog's supporters, and I agreed that consensus was not reached, though not missed by much. Jwrosenzweig 05:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that's it for BL. (I bet the name didn't help mydog's campaign either.) But I still have misgivings about any minimum higher than 2/3. 172 06:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The place consensus works best in Wikipedia is in Featured article candidates. An article becomes an feature article as long as there are no objections. Objections are mashed out, changes are made, and then a true consensus has been had. This is easy with an article. Impossible to do with people. I can't work with you to make changes to an admin candidate's personality. alas. Still, we should set the bar high. 75%+ is a very reasonable place to set the bar. Kingturtle 05:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that winning by one vote should count as winning the vote, and the user should become an admin. BL should be made an admin based on the vote. (I don't really have a personal feeling over the matter) Perl 15:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good. Then let's go back to all of the VfD votes and delete every page listed there that got more delete votes than keep votes. RickK 03:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK, your comment is ridiculous. Anthony DiPierro 03:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think RickK just wanted to show it is ridiculous to count a 1 vote majority as a consensus. An admin should be someone nearly everyone agrees about to be able to edit neutrally and to have enough experience and skills. A significant number of opposing votes should be enough to block adminship. Get-back-world-respect 21:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)