Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 16

Dispute between Getbackworldrespect and Cecropia
First of all, I want to mention, as I said earlier, that I don't believe this is the appropriate forum for this discussion, but since GBWR has tried to make the point so many times, I feel the editors here might want to know what the issue is about, and perhaps be a little entertained in the process.

In the days of my misspent youth (to which I will opin that all youth is misspent, by definition) I could happily sit with friends and friendly opponents in a smoking jacket, with a glass of sherry (or Ripple, as the case may be) discussing the Great Issues of the Day, especially the Viet Nam war (I was anti-, but so was most everyone else in my crowd) into the wee hours of the morning. These discussions went on, but not as frequently, and without the smoking jacket and sherry, while I was in the Army, and to similar conclusions. However, eventually I came to two youth-idealism-shattering conclusions: (1) some dedicated partisans will not be convinced or even yield to a single well-argued point, no matter how well you argue it; and (2) every evening we had all solved the Viet Nam war issue to our satifaction but, the next morning, the war was still there, as strong as ever.

The bottom line of that homily is that I enjoy debating enormously, but after a certain point, there are other things to do; one has to eat, sleep, make love to one's wife, help the kids with their homework; work for bread, pay bills and, yes, think about other things, including on Wikipedia. Now GBWR is quite passionate, and I don't fault him for that. But when I went on to other things besides the instant debate, it was quiet for a while, but then he left on a note on my talk page in which he asked whether I was resigning the discussion on the legality of the war in Iraq. To which I responded, essentially, "No I haven't," but right now I will get to the reference he wanted me to look at by-and-by and comment on it, to which I foolishly appended a brief explanation of why I felt the war was legal. Well, GBWR responded to that, and I did reply but, before I had a chance to post my response (q.v.), he was already bringing the war over here.

Now, to the particular issue. GBWR complained about my posting a documented explanation of connections between the most prominent opponents of the Iraq war (France, Germany, Britain) and their connections to Saddam Hussein. This was in response to the two prior paragraphs which read as follows:


 * Throughout the course of the Iraqi war Bush was often the target of harsh criticism. Both in America and in the rest of the world there were numerous anti-war protests. On February 15, 2003 there were over 10 million people in the streets all over the world. Many of the protesters were vehemently critical of Bush, calling him a "warmonger," an oil-hungry "imperialist," and a "fascist." Critics also claimed that war is not a strategy that works to prevent terror but rather creates more violence and brings misery to whole countries rather than single out the "real culprits." Bush dismissed the protesters as being merely "a focus group". Anti-war protests took place in more than 500 US cities and many cities overseas. There were also rallies in the United States that supported the President's actions in Iraq. (More details at Popular opposition to war on Iraq, Global protests against war on Iraq).


 * Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, including two members of the United Nations Security Council. During the debate about a possible resolution backing the war, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and Russia Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov garnered applause inside the chamber with their speeches against the war and for further weapons inspections, cf. Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq, The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. Since no resolution could be agreed on, critics who claim that war can only be authorized by the United Nations alleged that the war broke international law.

and the two following paragraphs:


 * War opponents have contended that the US was invading so that kickbacks could be given to American companies for reconstruction and America could benefit from Iraq's natural resources.


 * For its part, the US administration soon presented a list of countries called the coalition of the willing, although some chose not to be listed. Only Australia and Great Britain sent troops that participated in the invasion, though other countries have contributed to the occuption. Several other countries, such as Turkey, did not fully support the war and even obstructed it by not granting US troops full access to their ressources. Bush's loudest critic was French President Jacques Chirac who soon set himself up as the leading international voice of opposition to the Bush plan of Iraqi regime change. German Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin made a remark that using a war to detract from domestic problems was a strategy already used by Hitler. These remarks drew strong condemnation from both the United States and Europe; the minister resigned.

Now GWBR's complaint is that he doesn't see how this paragraph was relevant:


 * Many of the supporters of the war criticized the nations of France, Germany, and Russia for opposing the war because they had financial interests in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War. Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, said France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf [was] poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world. [9] On February 14, 2003 (before the war), Iraqi trade minister Mohammad Mehdi Saleh announced that Russia had lost US$60 billion of business due to the United Nations sanctions, but said that despite the loss, substantial new business awaited Russia. He said that Russia and Iraq are negotiating 67 agreements in oil, agriculture, transportation, railways and energy worth more than $40 billion to Russia. [10] Iraq's declaration on its weapon programs submitted to the UN revealed that German companies had been basic commercial partners of Saddam Hussein's regime since 1975. According to these data, 80 German companies cooperated with Iraq till 2001. [11] &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1103;&#1079;&#1099;&#1082;: [12]

I honestly thought that even a committed partisan would understand why this was relevant, even if he disagreed with every word of it. The four paragraphs detail positions of national opponents to the war. When certain nations set themselves up as chief critics of an action, including claims that America motivation was oil and construction contracts and even an accusation by a high German official comparing Bush to Hitler as using war to divert attention from domestic issues (curious assertion, since it was Mussolini who was best remembered for using war in this manner) it's relevant to examine the critic's own interests. Or as I learned in beginning Business Law: "Someone who seeks redress in a Court of Equity must come into it with clean hands.

Thanks for your patience, all. Cecropia 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all it is arbitrary to single out three countries when their criticism is joined by so many others: The Vatican, Venezuela, Syria, Jordan, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Belarus, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, the African League, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Lebanon, Cuba, China, Palestine, Vietnam, just to name a few. The population in all polled European countries was opposed to the war when it started, including UK and the Eastern countries, with overwhelming majorities in coalition partners Spain and Italy. But you try to put the focus on financial connections that are absolutely no surprising. Germany has been world export champion in many years, France and Russia are also members of the G8 and play a big role as creditors in almost all countries with a lot of foreign debt. The most cynical part of the game is that you entirely suppress information on US connections to Iraq. The US was also one of Iraq's five biggest creditors.

I agree that parts of the rest of the entry do not belong into an encyclopedia, with all due respect to German Ministers and without respect to people who scream around "fascist" rather than show their concerns and their protest in a fruitful way. But the solution is not to add more nonsense, just try to improve on what is already there. In twenty years, no one will remember Hertha Däubler-Gmelin, the fact that some called Bush a fascist or how many firms from which country cooperated with Iraq before a particular date. What will be remembered is that GWBush launched a war for dubious reasons, breaking international law. That is all what is needed in an encyclopedia entry, although until there is a final analysis you may add that some in the Bush administration still claim not to have acted illegally. Richard Perle is more honest. This whole discussion would NEVER make it into a decent encyclopedia because it has no relevance to GWB, only here at wikipedia, where every idiot can fool around. That is no offense to the idea of wikipedia, there are people around who take care of such entries, and in some cases it even works. We only need to make sure that people like you do not get extra rights to spread their propaganda. My advice, if you want to become an admin focus on topics you do not feel so hot about. Get-back-world-respect 21:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * GBWR, I've given this a heading that is truly neutral. And frankly, Cecropia has done many good things here, while I have no idea who you are.  You may think this is all about Cecropia, but I have never encountered your editing, and my impressions of it having seen it just now are that it is partisan and biased (I may be wrong, of course -- I haven't had the benefit of seeing hundreds of contributions, and so am dealing with a non-representative sample).  I suggest editing here for a while longer and earning your own "respect" via your contributions before assuming that everyone will take your objections as valid.  After all, simply having edited a few articles does not necessarily mean someone is a good judge of what Wikipedia is and isn't looking for in an admin -- as you rightly note, idiots and good caretakers alike can work here.  Only a track record can establish which kind of person an editor is choosing to be.  Establish a good one, and you'll find more sympathetic ears.  At that point, if Cecropia has badly misused admin powers, you will be in an excellent position to join the voices calling for the revocation of those powers. Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not think one needs to be known or have a lot of experience with anything before one has the right to point out that someone misbehaved. I did so with a link to prove it and if you have any arguments to justify what he did I am interested in them. Get-back-world-respect 23:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * True, you can point out misbehavior (see below for a more detailed explanation of my point). As for arguments, actually, I find Cecropia's argument above in this section generally reasonable.  Behaviorally, one instance of trouble is usually not enough to cause serious concern if the editor has been otherwise reliable.  Most of us have slips and troubles.  It's when there seems to be a pattern developing that we get concerned.  I haven't seen that your comments are indicative of a pattern of behavior, but rather they seem to be motivated by your anger with Cecropia's disagreeing with you over that paragraph.  I personally think the paragraph could be balanced a little, but that leaving it in as-is is far better than cutting it.  I'm just trying to explain to you why people aren't getting outraged -- editors often get in disagreements with other editors here (especially when many editors, as your own username suggests, are here primarily because of their committment to a cause or movement of some kind).  It's the editors who are constantly and consistently getting into arguments and then behaving badly that we worry.  Cecropia doesn't seem to have done this.  That's all I'm saying. Jwrosenzweig 23:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * As I wrote when explaining my vote, the paragraph is only one particularly obvious example of Cecropia's pattern of behaviour: spinning the GWBush entry into a propaganda site, trying to downplay all criticism. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reviewed your and Cecropia's contribs to the GWB article in the last week+ and I have to say, Cecropia does seem to have a bias, but it is a fairly minor one, and not detrimental to the article, IMO. Your bias seems slightly more visible and is less helpful, I think.  You two do balance each other fairly well, and I do not feel Cecropia has acted wrongly....in fact, I think he should continue generally to operate as he has been to help keep the article in balance.  And I personally don't care for GWB and won't be voting for him in 2004.  That's all I really have to say. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The difference is: I am not running for adminship until I can keep my bias out of my edits, which will most unlikely happen before November. Get-back-world-respect 00:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minimum Criteria for voting
I just noticed that user Jor (who I, as a disinterested observer, think is a fine contributor who deserves admin status) just wracked up a bunch of votes against him from users I've never seen. I checked, and two of those voting against him - User:Eon and User:Pavlvsrex, each have been here less than a month and each have less than 100 contributions (Eon has less than 50). I personally don't vote here unless I have a good working knowledge (one way or the other) of what someone is like. Should we institute a minimum time someone has been here before their vote counts?


 * I'd be for such a proposal, but I don't know what would be considered good criteria. I'd say around a month or two and around 200-300 edits should be good. Dori | Talk 18:11, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this proposal. I think the bureaucrat making the adminship decision in the end should weight votes with judgement as is done on vfd.  However, I think it's important that newer users be able to have their voices heard.  A major reason for having this page, IMO, is so that if someone has done something rude or POV or unwikipedian, we can find out about it before giving them additional power.  Rudeness to a newbie or edit wars with a newbie are just as bad as (worse than?) rudeness to and edit wars with Angela or Wik or any of us who would be considered "valid" voters.  moink 18:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've encountered User:Pavlvsrex on only one article, and it seems he took an instant dislike to me for whatever reason (see his talk page). User:Eon is very suspect, I suspect he is a sock puppet for another user I cautiously will not now name but who is known to use many sock puppets. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 18:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Are sock puppets like Eon allowed to vote? &mdash; Jor (Talk) 14:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting on whether or not Eon is a sock puppet. I would say that yes, a user with a relatively small number of contributions is allowed to vote, but since things at Wikipedia don't work on strict numerical votes, it doesn't really matter.  This is up to the promoting bureaucrat's discretion. moink 16:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Moink. No reason why they can't have their say, but we don't have to actually pay attention to them.  Bureacrats know the community;  they can recognize funny business when they see it. Isomorphic 17:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in another instance of people coming out of the woodwork, Democryt's 6th contribution to Wikipedia was to vote against Jor, saying he is disgusted by Jor's behavior. So of course, any beauracrat who has the integrity to promote Jor (now that the newer users have evened the vote) will be crucified for not waiting for consensus and at the very least, someone will inevitably want to remove his beaucratiship (is that even word?). &rarr;Raul654 17:39, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)~


 * Actually, Democryt said, "I am disgusted by Jor behavior", which I read as a play-on-words. I don't think that there should be a criterion of minimum # of edits or time on Wikipedia to vote on RfA and I also oppose your removal of "suspected" sock puppet votes without real consensus on this talk page (moink and Isomorphic opposed this).  However, I also find it rather odd that Democryt's 6th contribution would be to such a page.  Is there any way to investigate whether this user is a sock puppet and, if so, for whom?


 * Acegikmo1 04:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my opinion: The primary rule is that a sysop-candidate should be supported by a near-concensus, isn't it? By determining the weight of the opposition, it's of no importance how the new and unknown wikipedians "vote", but it's important if their arguments can swing old and experienced wikipedians to not express their support for the candidate – or even to express their disaproval. --Ruhrjung 22:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * At least in theory, we operate based on actual consensus, not just "near-consensus" (but with, I would add, an appreciation that consensus does not always require unanimity). Anons are excluded for this matter, and anybody, new or old, who just opposes without stating some justification will probably be disregarded by bureaucrats and the rest of the community. --Michael Snow 23:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to get to the nitty-gritty. Here's a definition of consensus, with my added emphasis: A result achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid solution is arrived at between parties to an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution to the issue or disagreement.

In plain English, we cannot come to a consensus because a person is either made a sysop or s/he isn't. There's nothing to compromise, no concession to be made. So perhaps if we reform our language to something more reasonable like: "a proponderance of sentiment" we have something to work with. Preponderance takes into account both number of votes and the views expressed. It obviously does not mean "unanimous" nor does it mean "50% plus 1". Cecropia 23:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course, that the discussion regarding any singular candidate can result only in "being widely approved" or "not being widely approved" by the wikipedia community. However, the principles for whom to make an administrator can be contemplated, detailed ...and whatever in the process. That's where I see the meaning of "concensus" in case of requests for adminship. (By the way, I like complicated words, but proponderance is not the best choise in a setting where people have as variant knowledge of English as here.)--Ruhrjung 10:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is not a matter of pro/con vote count, nor would that be a good idea...

IMO the question of "vote" validity is moot. From Consensus:
 * "Many discussions focus on whether agreement needs to be unanimous; even dictionary definitions of consensus vary. These discussions miss the point of consensus, which is not a voting system but a taking seriously of everyone's input, and a trust in each person's discretion in followup action. In consensus, people who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they do not wish to impose, and they trust that the ensuing conversation will benefit everyone."

In the case at hand, basing consensus on some fixed ratio of pro-to-con votes would be particularly pointless, as this would only serve to encourage sockpuppetry and other forms of manipulation. Rather than counting votes, the question should be whether or not any well founded concerns regarding a nominee's integrity or recent bahavior exist. Thus, any grounds for opposition (other than a simple "too new") should be looked into and evaluated by the bureaucrat making the decision. Mkweise 17:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The whole point of bureaucrats is that they shouldn't have to make decisions. Dori | Talk 17:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * LOL...of course a true bureaucrat would initiate the formation of an investigatory commission :-) Mkweise 17:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No no, a true bureaucrat would take credit for the formation of an investigatory committee, but that would be after his secretary/intern/lackey actually got things underway. &rarr;Raul654 18:01, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't want to make decisions! There are currently a lot of very new users voting here, and the percentages of support are bordering around 80% for a couple of nominees here. Do they need more 80%, or is more than 75% ok? Who should be discounted from the vote? These are questions for the community to decide, not a bureaucrat to decide. A bureaucrat. 17:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if we are not looking for hard and fast rules some guidelines would be a good idea. If bureaucrats are going to have to make judgement calls (and they will have to, unless Wikipedia is going to become a purely system-driven community) then its only fair to give some indication to people voting that their vote may not count for much. Here are some suggestions:


 * 1) Anons don't get to vote. They can record their opinions but they can be ignored by the bureaucrat. Of course if an anon draws attention to some particularly nasty act by the nominee then that should be taken into account.
 * 2) There should be a minimum time on Wikipedia and a minimum number of edits for a vote to count. However, as for anons, they can draw attention to failings of the nominee.
 * 3) There should be a minimum approval level (after discarding invalid votes), below which the nomination should fail (something like 80%?). That doesn't mean that approval is automatic above that number - it should be a judgement call.

DJ Clayworth 17:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets: can they vote or not?
I'm rather distressed by the situation at Requests_for_adminship. I would like to see a clear policy -- and even if it's not "sock puppets can't vote" because it's a bit hard to define, we need something. It seems like Jor is being derailed by a combination of: first, sockpuppet votes; second, the fact that they are staying on the page and there is debate in the voting discussion of whether these are valid votes; and third, Jor's understandable desire to point them out. I don't think thsi is fair to Jor, but more importantly, it's a terrible precedent -- especially as we're entering a period where there's a rapid increase in the number of nominations and new sysops. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 02:48, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's disturbing that RfA is starting to drift away from the "consensus" model. Just a quality of scalability, I suppose--for example, when I nominated Jor, I wish to say I had no idea about this entire German/Polish thing; it had barely entered my consciousness. What are suggestions? Meelar 02:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said above, we shouldn't be counting votes in the first place. Mkweise 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm tempted to 'be bold' and remove sockpuppet votes against him. &rarr;Raul654 03:00, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are the sockpockets allowing one person to vote more than once? If so, at least the extra votes should be removed. In fact, IMO, all votes for that user should be removed. Cecropia 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what about requiring 3 months/1000 edits or something before voting? Would eliminate sock puppets in one fell swoop. Maybe we can make it 2 months/500 edits or something. -- Arvindn 04:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I started that same discussion on this page about 48 hours ago. See above - "Minimum Criteria for voting" &rarr;Raul654 04:19, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Imposing time/edit criteria for voting is a little difficult, isn't it, if we don't even have time/edit requirements for adminship itself? Minimum criteria cast too wide a net, using the wrong measurements - they disenfranchise users with less experience, when the real problem with sockpuppetry is users who actually have quite a lot of experience. I'm more comfortable with just having sockpuppet votes identified and removed, along with the toctallies that are "feeding" this sockpuppet/troll monster. --Michael Snow 06:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True, but what's a sockpuppet and what's a new user? Accusations will fly, and nothing will be proven. And removing the toctallies won't be that much good--as Wikipedia grows, people will come to rely on numerical counts more and more, and I can't think of anything to do about that other than limit Wikipedia's growth, which I won't support. Is there any way to limit--one account per IP? Meelar 21:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if it were possible, I would disagree with it. I contribute from a couple of different IPs (work & home).  I'm trying to convince my husband to become a contributor and when he does I expect him to use his own account, though on a computer I occasionally use.  I fully expect for him to be called my sockpuppet at first, but we should be able to be different users.  moink 22:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point, but the problem of sock puppets is only going to get worse as time goes on. Already, I don't recognize a good number of the contributors on RfA.  What would you suggest? Meelar 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That when decided upon, whether a sysop-candidate has met general approval or not, then opponents with a short list of edits, a short time of presence here, or otherways justificably suspects of being another user in disguise, such opponents should be informally disregarded and uncounted.
 * --Ruhrjung 22:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)\


 * As long as those counting the votes don't mind going through 15 edit histories. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't recognize every longtime contributor.  Meelar 22:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hoping you exaggerate I wait for their comment. :) --Ruhrjung 22:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a good suggestion. I'm just a big naysayer.  :)  Maybe a minimum time/edit count as has been suggested above?  moink 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My sock puppet is an admin already, so I don't care. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Is it your sock puppet, or are you its sock puppet? ;) Mark Richards 23:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm a sock puppet with sock puppets... Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * My personal beliefs as far as an individual maintaining multiple logins to Wikipedia: I can understand some circumstances where you might want to do this, but under no circumstances should you, ethically, use that to stuff the ballot box, or use it for deception. I don't necessarily agree with enforcing 'one person, one account' but I think (whether it's possible to actually determine this) that an official policy of 'one person, one vote' should be instituted. &mdash;Morven 01:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Actually, I think we should be very hard on this: anyone voting twice anywhere ought to be permanently banned and asked to log-in as a different user (and I am serious on this). The only way to defend true democracy is by defending it to the last bit: if someone cannot understand democracy, then he cannot vote. Pfortuny 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls
These are polls to determine answers to the questions raised in the above discussions. Do not add new poll options - they will be summarily reverted.

Poll #1
Should there be a minimum number of edits / time someone has been here (or both) before their votes count?

Yes
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Wik 18:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Finlay McWalter |  Talk 18:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Jor (Talk) 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Nico 20:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Fennec 20:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) jengod 20:24, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Sam Spade 21:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC), but I also agree w the arguments below, and think voting is way over-rated
 * 9) Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Cecropia 23:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes, with the qualification that it should be just long enough and with enough edits to determine that it is not an account set up for the purpose of voting, perhaps one month and 100 edits.
 * 11) One has to be 18 to vote in the US. One should have a certain amount of time spent here before voting for admins. Kingturtle 02:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Mkweise I would look for at least one supporter whom I know well and whose judgement I trust to state that he in turn knows and trusts the candidate.
 * 13) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) But it shouldn't be terribly high -- just enough to exclude sockpuppets and trolls -- as per Cecropia's suggestion above.
 * 14) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) - even new users could vote but they need to participate in order to get that right. Nothing wrong with requiring some involvement to get counted.
 * 15) Mikez 16:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Time is more important than number of edits, which is easily inflated.
 * 16) GrazingshipIV 16:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) UtherSRG 16:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Being a citizen requires active participation. Simply showing up should not be enfranchisable. However, the minimums should be flexible at beurocrat discretion.
 * 18) Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - As a preliminary filter, yes.

No


 * 1) moink 18:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Moink's argument is persuasive. We may be too focused on vote count these days, and not enough on consensus.  I admit, the toctallies I supported (they were convenient) may have contributed to this.  I don't think the issue should be as much "counting votes" as gauging community support.  Maybe idealistic, but it's how I feel today, anyway. :-)  I am very close to the middle on this one...these are tough decisions to make. Jwrosenzweig 20:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) How can we have minimum requirements for votes if we don't have minimum requirements for admins? --Michael Snow 01:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jamesday 02:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) though sock puppet decisions aren't based on time.
 * 5) anthony (see warning) 22:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Is there even a way to find out how long someone has been here in the first place?
 * 6) 80.255 19:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) New users can add articles; without new users there would be no wikipedia. Anyone who is capable of contributing should therefore be entitled to vote on articles that they themselves can edit.
 * 7) You can never know how often someone used wikipedia before he decided to register. Only concern I have: people might use multiple registrations. But on the other hand, who would engage in such practice and not arouse suspicion by more silly actions? Get-back-world-respect 19:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Number of edits says nothing about edit quality. They can be driven up by editwarring etc. Minimum requirements are discouraging to newbies Marcika 02:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC).
 * No, since I think we should use judgement, not rules. &#9999; Sverdrup 19:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poll #2
Should bureaucrats be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship? IE - should they take into account who the new users are and give their votes less weight (vote "yes")? Or, should they simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting (vote "no")?

Yes (bureaucrats should be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship)


 * 1) moink 18:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Finlay McWalter |  Talk 18:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Jor (Talk) 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Nico 20:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Until we are foolproof at detecting sock puppets, and as long as we're committed more to an idea of "consensus" than to specific vote totals, this makes sense.  But I'm very close to the middle on this one. Jwrosenzweig 20:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) A very qualified Yes, meaning they should only make a decision on new user votes as regulated by the options below. Dori | Talk 23:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I trust them to make judgement calls, my only concern is that this is *not* what they signed up for. But if they don't mind it (as a bureaucrat indicated below) then I support this. &rarr;Raul654 23:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I have to vote yes, because how can they not exercise some discretion when we don't have a clear definition of consensus? Cecropia 23:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Consensus cannot be determined by raw vote totals. Part of becoming a valuable contributor is learning how to recognize consensus, and making judgments accordingly. --Michael Snow 01:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Stewart Adcock 01:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Jamesday 02:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) most notably in not proceeding until objections have been addressed
 * 12) Mkweise Yes, the bureaucrat must judge how serious any concerns raised by the opposition are. Do not give weight to votes, give weight to arguments.
 * 13) UtherSRG 16:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - There are exceptions to every rule. Everyone has a hot button they are unaware of and may get pressed accidentally. Some raw newbies are much more level headed and ready for recognized leadership than some ancient hot headed dinos. YMMV, so drive an economical Fiat.
 * 14) Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) There should always be a judgement call, but the vote itself should weigh heavily.
 * 15) Yes. There is no consensus, without there also being judgement. &#9999; Sverdrup 19:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, bureaucrats should simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Wik 18:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Pfortuny 19:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Bureaucrats are custodians, not referees. Kingturtle 02:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) I'm not opposed in principle, but in practice I can imagine this leading to endless debates and questioning. Also, I worry about what the unintended consequences of this would be.
 * 6) Mikez 16:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Until we get some kind of a 'quality rating' of the users, so judgement could be done in an objective way...

Poll #3
What is your comfort level on what constitutes consensus?


 * 1) 50% + 1
 * 2) 60%
 * 3) two-thirds
 * 4) 70%
 * 5) 75%
 * 6) 80%
 * 7) 85%
 * 8) 90% or more

How much should the bureaucrat's knowledge of who the voters are (new, very trusted, a crank or ideologue, an admin, another bureaucrat) modify his/her use of the raw numbers?


 * 1) A lot
 * 2) A little
 * 3) Not at all

How much should the bureaucrat's reading of the quality of the voter's arguments (and perhaps rebuttals) for or against influence his/her use of the raw numbers?


 * 1) A lot
 * 2) A little
 * 3) Not at all

Responses

 * (5,2,1) Cecropia 21:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) -- I changed my opinion on "knowledge of voters" because I agree it's badly worded--also, I think 80% is a little high because it means that one negative voter cancels out four positive ones.
 * (2,1,1) &mdash; Jor (Talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,3,2) Sam Spade 21:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,3,3) Wik 21:21, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * (2,1,1) Nico 21:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,2,2) And in the second case, I chose 2 because "crank, ideologue" should not be a good reason, but "probable sockpuppet with no evidence" is. moink 21:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,2,3) Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,2,2) Agreeing with moink about the second case -- the "who the voters are" section includes legitimate and illegitimate reasons for discounting votes. Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,2,2) They shouldn't be doing "a lot" of judgement, but they need to use some. &rarr;Raul654 23:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,2,1) If objections aren't founded, that should make a big difference. If objections (or support) seem to all be from "controversial" users or from new users, that should also be taken into account somewhat. Isomorphic 00:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (x,2,2) There is no fixed number for consensus. It depends on the type and strength of the objections. The legitimacy and experience of "voters" is a factor, as is strength of feeling and "quality" of argument. But the whole process is fluid, and that's why the exercise of good judgment is so important. --Michael Snow 01:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (5,2,2) Stewart Adcock 01:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (8,1 [discounting sock puppets],1 [giving time and weight to votes after objections have been raised and if the community has accepted the objectionor not]) Note: the weightings in this response are only for deciding that the community has or hasn't reached consensus - one unaddressed example of great misuse of capability is enough to say no, absent community support following that objection, IMO. Jamesday 02:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,3,3) Bureaucrats are custodians, not referees. Kingturtle 03:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (0,1,1) Mkweise Vote counts are meaningless and only encourage sockpuppetry. What's important is that at least one person whom you trust trusts the candidate, and that there are no serious unresolved concerns (vetos).
 * (8,3,3) Although I'm hesitant about raising the bar while allowing current admins to be grandfathered in. anthony (see warning) 22:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (5,2,3) For example, I respect Kingturtle, but think his requirements for adminship are too high. Nevertheless, it's a valid argument and he's a valuable user.  My opinion of the "validity" of his argument (should I be a bureaucrat) shouldn't matter. Meelar 22:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (5,2,3) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,3,1) Mikez 16:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6,1,2) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - although I was tempted to put (&pi;,-1,B)
 * (6,2,2) While I agre with Michael Snow about # for consensus, the larger a group gets, the less likely true consensus is. Larger groups need some given but flexible number to work towards. (A vote of no means to block consensus, while a vote of neutral is to not block consensus but register assent without agreement. One no vote should block consensus. That would never work here. Pick a number.) - UtherSRG
 * (6,2,2) Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (x,1,2) Consensus is all about judgement. &#9999; Sverdrup 19:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (6, 1 2) Tannin 15:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments
I have a question for all those voting no to minimum voting criteria. At least one bureaucrat has expressed her disapproval of having to make judgement calls. The only people who can reliably discern a sockpuppet from a legitimate new user is a developer. Therefore, I want to hear what you 'no minimum' voters propose besides voting criteria to prevent sockpupptes from overrunning this page (which I think has already started). &rarr;Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour of "hard" minimum voting criteria, but rather the bureaucrat applying "soft" voting criteria, and taking into account the severity of the alleged offenses and the evidence for them as well. I think that if a bureaucrat isn't comfortable making a judgement call, they should leave it to another bureaucrat, as admins do on vfd, or they should resign the bureaucrat position. An alternative suggestion (perhaps a compromise?) is to have minimum criteria for voting but make it very clear that people who don't meet the criteria can leave comments, with links to the potential admin's being-rude-to-newbies behaviour, so that the rest of us can base our votes on sound evidence.  moink 18:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moink's latter suggestion: to make it clear that those not meeting the criteria can leave comments. Perhaps make it clear in the section header.  - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 18:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think if the bureaucrat doesn't think the raw numbers justify appointment, then next s/he should look at the comments and discern sentiment from them, if that doesn't do it, take into consideration other factors, such as extreme new users (like the first timer who wants me in charge of a battleship). If none of that paints a clear picture, leave it for another 'crat. Cecropia 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If people are happy for bureaucrats to make judgement decisions, then I will do that, but my reservation in doing so is based on the idea that when I was made one, I was led to believe I would be simply carrying out an administrative task after the community had made a decision one way or the other. People were voted into the bureaucrat position on the understanding they would not have the power to affect RfA decisions, but would simply be doing whatever the consensus demanded of them. A bureaucrat 19:20, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm saying we trust you. You were promoted to bureaucrat because you had a large amount of trust from the community.  You're capable of making these decisions.  Anyway, "consensus" is so roughly defined that you had to make judgement calls already.  On the other hand, I understand why you would not want to put yourself in the line of fire for making these judgement calls, and some users will be angry when you don't "take their side."  But I think it's better than excluding newbies from the decision-making process.  moink 19:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Bureaucrats are supposed to be just that: people who act according to other people's decissions. No judgement is expected from them (at least this is how I understood their creation and the meaning of the concept). Otherwise, their role would be beyond simple administrative matters. This does not mean "trust" or "untrust", just the definition of their function. Pfortuny 19:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Since there's no representative of the voters saying "this is our consensus" the bureaucrat really has to discern that, IMO, otherwise I guess you're just vote-counting. How about if anyone who's rejected with more than, say, 60% of votes can ask for a reconsideration on the talk, and then an odd number of bureaucrats (three or five, say) decide the issue on any terms they agree on, a majority of the bureaucrats voting decide? Would that work?


 * Otherwise, if the bureaucrat is really not supposed to evaluate, it seems to me the only thing to do is a weighted vote--maybe from -3 to +3 (strongly oppose to strongly support) then add it up and set a level of weighted approval which decides--for example, if you add all the weighted votes and the average doesn't come to at least (say) +1.5, the person is rejected for admin.


 * Having said that, I don't care for that system because it doesn't take into account the quality of arguments that may be made, but if the 'crat really needs clear guidance, I can't think of anything else. Cecropia 20:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Quality is subjective. How new is "too new"? What about when you hear this coming from somoe who's several times newer? Is, say, Kingturtle's "too new" suggestion any better or worse than Dogmaster3000's? - Fennec


 * Have voters prove their identity maybe? anthony (see warning)

There is another principle that we can apply: in case of doubt, don't promote. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, but how much doubt? We're back where we started. Since any bureaucrat can promote, if one doesn't want to, another could. If it's really so controversial, then I think it should go to Talk as a sort of appeal, if promotion is turned down. Cecropia 20:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How many people think the options will result in this poll (like the last one)being inconclusive? Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't expect poll #3 to be conclusive, but since this seems such a nebulous area, it might give us a sense of sentiment. Cecropia 23:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There isn't a maximum time for this. If a bureaucrat sees an issue which causes them to consider that further input is desirable, the bureaucrat should ask the community to address that question, not just act. Same for sock puppets: if a bureaucrat believes a vote is a sock puppet, say so and let the community sort it out, then act accordingly. Jamesday 02:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat judgement
Thanks for all the comments and votes above. It was helpful in making a decision about Fennec, who I just made a sysop. The percentage of support was bordering around 80%, but there were a lot of new users voting, which made the decision harder. I wanted to go with 80%, both because that is what I think it should be, and because that is what the majority in the above poll suggested. Ignoring very new users did give a percentage lower than 80%, but I think this was balanced by the number of very experienced voters. For example, counting only sysops (which I would never do) gives 84% support. The neutral votes were interesting, but they were not committed either way, so I discounted them. Putting some value in the reasons given, as was suggested I should do in the poll above certainly swung me in favour of promoting Fennec as the reasons show:


 * Fennec has been here for two months, made 635 edits, helped fight off vandalism, contributed to policy discussions, helped with the Bird/Brain affair, is an active user, has acted responsibly, contributed to the encyclopedia and dialogue, he is good to work with, thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive, courteous, has an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies, and is friendly and trustworthy

v.


 * Too new, bad April Fool's Day joke.

So, depending on how and who you count, it may or may not be the 80% the majority think it should be, but as 80% of voters in the poll above thought a bureaucrat should use their judgement, I hope you're all happy with the fact I did. :) A bureaucrat.


 * Just a note, mostly for the sake of ironic humor. Assuming for the sake of argument that consensus = 80%, then the poll above doesn't have a consensus for the proposition that consensus = 80%. --Michael Snow 01:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That's great :-) Isomorphic 01:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As someone who didn't vote one way or another on Fennec, it looked to me like there was a "consensus." Isomorphic 01:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote either, and I would agree. --Michael Snow 01:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Me three. moink 01:35, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am happy. This is a perfect example to illustrate what I meant about weighing reasons given pro and con being more meaningful than vote tally. Mkweise 02:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that you acted too soon in this case. The recent votes were in favor and waiting a week would probably have eliminated the need for judgement. Jamesday 02:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point, but I was thinking that if I didn't do anything, another bureaucrat would have made the decision to promote, or would have decided there wasn't consensus and removed the vote. Perhaps it needs to be made clear that in cases where it is not obvious, the vote should be ongoing rather than having to end after a week? Angela. 11:59, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest mentioning that you've considered it and have decided to review it again in at least n days to allow more time for community support to become clear. It's good for the candidate as well as the bureaucrat to be completely sure that they are well accepted, if only because it can be expected to increase the confidence with which they apply their new tools. Besides, patience is a very desirable attribute in any sysop, so it's OK, to let the process take a while if that's what it takes. Your decision was reasonable, but you did have to decide and it's probably better to use time as a tool to avoid that need. Yes, it's probably a good idea to change the wording to make it clear that there isn't a seven day limit, since that has been our practice while Tim was doing it. I'll try doing that now and lets see if what I come up with is acceptable. Jamesday 02:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What is it that you expect to happen in another three, seven, ten days? From just about every case I've seen, people have pretty much made their votes and had their say at the end of seven days. Are we fighting over a big salary here? Leaving someone volunteering services to hang out to dry is not right either. Cecropia 02:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There's currently about 78% support for Cecropia. Perhaps this case would be a good example of one that should be left for another few days? Angela. 02:20, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Angela, with due and honest respect I have to pose the question to you directly I asked above. What do you expect to happen in a few more days that hasn't already happened? Some rather nasty charges were made against me, my integrity, and the quality of my work by two users who are extremely emotional about two topics out of hundreds I've initiated or edited; others read this and evidently decided I was controversial. Others users have refuted the two, and several who didn't know me at all took my invitation to review my work and reported as you can observe in the comments they made. However this turns out, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that some took the trouble to spend the time and express reasoned opinions that make my efforts worthwhile. I feel as though these evaluations are considered as trash and I am being put on probation for want of 2% on an inexplicit 80% goal. Is this what is meant by consensus? Cecropia 02:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what difference it will make. I just suggested it as James seemed to think this should have been done for Fennec. It would probably be a good idea for a bureaucrat other than me to make this decision. Angela. 03:41, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday asked me to comment on the way I used to do this when I was the main one doing sysoppings. Originally I wasn't particularly careful in making sure everyone had been listed for some amount of time, and I was told off for it on this talk page. After that, I made sure that everyone who I sysopped had been here for at least a week. I sysopped everyone for whom there was a clear consensus, and in borderline cases I used my own judgement: either to sysop them, or to ignore the listing. If I ignored a listing, another developer could do the sysopping if they felt my judgement was incorrect. I didn't feel obliged to make a possibly controversial decision, so the task wasn't as onerous as it could have been. I didn't remove listings, I waited for someone else to make that decision. It was always an anxious wait, since I was afraid someone would challenge the fact that I was ignoring the listing. I didn't have any particular percentage threshold. In cases where very few people had bothered to vote, but those who had voted "support", I delayed sysopping them. Sometimes, in such cases, I advertised the vote on IRC. Usually such people are diligent workers who rarely get into arguments, hence they are little known. Such people will be supported by anyone who could be bothered to do the necessary research -- checking contributions and the like. I think it's important to give such people sysopship -- they often ask for pragmatic reasons rather than status reasons. -- Tim Starling 05:12, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia Nomination
I'm puzzled. My nomination for admin has been at the 80% level for two days on a large vote (32 out of 40 in support). Even among the bureaucrats, 4 of 5 voting support my nomination, yet it has languished for 15 days. Isn't this a rather unusual circumstance on Wikipedia? Cecropia 07:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If Cecropia hadn't said it, I would have. Seriously, this nomination has languished for too long, and I don't think it's fair to him when he has such high support. &rarr;Raul654 07:42, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not planning on any steady presence in this forum; but since this page still is on my watchlist, I noticed the question above and wonder: Has there been introduced any 80% treshold? If so, 80% of what? /Tuomas 09:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a rather long discussion about what constitutes "consensus" in admin promotion (and elsewhere) and how much discretion bureaucrats are supposed to use in promotion&mdash;i.e., whether they follow a strict number; evaluate the comments, etc. See "Polls" and "Bureaucrat Judgement" above Cecropia 14:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just before the original deadline for votes, Cecropia edited the deadline [with this edit]. Since it was done without an explanation on this page (although it seemed to be in response to what looked to me like an anti-Cecropia campaign by a certain user), and as I've never seen that before and it didn't give a new deadline, I think that no one has felt empowered to change that... so I believe that's why it's languishing... -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:49, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I just noticed a misunderstanding in BCorr's posting&mdash;I didn't change the end time before the end time, I changed it more than a day and a half after the end date, when the nomination just sat and the voting appeared to have stopped after Angela (as bureaucrat) said she thought the vote should be extended. Cecropia 15:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying -- it was a bit hard to follow. I stand corrected. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 02:56, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I thought of that. I made that edit because I believed that keeping it the way it was (with the expired deadline) would suggest that people couldn't vote any more, and it seemed people were looking for more votes&mdash;and noone proposed a new ending date. Now we're in the 16th day; I'm sure bureaucrats have noticed because they have to step over my still-warm body ;-) to promote others. Cecropia 20:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Anybody feel empowered enough to suggest a new end date? I don't think Cecropia should do it since he's the subject, nor do I want to do it myself since I've been somewhat campaigning for him. Isomorphic 01:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. I didn't vote either way (nothing personal -- I'm just not familiar enough with you), so I think it's OK -- I've set it for a day from now. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 01:48, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

With 8 votes opposing I don't think there's any way this can reach consensus. anthony (see warning) 02:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I made the decision about Fennec, I don't want to be the one deciding on this too, so I left it for the other bureaucrats. I'm quite surprised none of them have done anything. Has anyone contacted any of them? Angela. 19:55, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * (Being a bureaucract) - I did not interpret the results as a consensus, so I did not take action to make Cecropia an admin. However, I also did not want to remove the vote from the page and say that there was too much opposition (especially because I had voted in opposition). So I have done nothing either way. I am sure this has added to the vote tallies lingering on the page. Kingturtle 06:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. Although I voted against Cecrophia's adminship, if I saw a clear consensus, I would have taken action to make Cecropia an admin.
 * The tally has been hovering around 75% for quite some time, which is why the poll hasn't closed. Never quite enough to call it consensus, and too close to it for anyone to want to end the vote and remove.  I wonder what will happen when the current time expires and the tally is still ~75%? Isomorphic 06:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess bureaucrats will do as they are supposed to do: not to take a decission which needs their oppinion. So, in this case, if no bureaucrat has a clear conscience, they -in my oppinion- ought to state it, and inact. Pfortuny 07:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have not promoted Cecropia because there is clearly no consensus to do so.  Tuf-Kat 07:34, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very strange thing. For one thing, my count has been at or over 80% twice recently, including for two days, but negative votes keep dribbling in. I don't know some of the personalities here very well, but the votes include Wik, who seems is the subject of community actions and widely disliked--why did he vote against me? Now Nico--who on his User Page says "I'm not responding to personal attacks any more." I seem to have become a magnet for people with some kind of chip on their shoulders. The recent polls indicate that only one person thought MORE than 80% is a consensus and quite a few 75% or even less.


 * My original negative vote is from a person who openly dislikes me politically, and seems angered that I didn't respond quickly enought to his ongoing desire to debate. I haven't said so until now but he has been virtually campaigning against me, actually soliciting people on my nomination and even asking two why they voted in my favor. So do we have a situation where a dedicated, politically motivated opponent can kill off the nomination of an admin?


 * This consensus thing is mystifying. No one seems prepared to say what it is; several bureaucrats have said it's a number (which I've reached--it's hard to maintain when any 1 "No" kills 4 "Yes" votss) and they can't evaluate the quality of people's comments. So we have a perfect contradiction. No one feels empowered to determine what a consensus is, but they're sure I haven't reached it.


 * Forgive me or not for raving on, but I believe in this project and I've been working hard at and I feel that, in my case at least, this has become an abusive process. Cecropia 11:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not against you (but I cannot be for you for whatever reason). I also did not want to say that you should not be promoted (although now reading my above commentary, I realise it may give a different impression). But if bureaucrats are not comfortable, then I think their proper behaviour is not to act. We cannot force consensus, it is something everybody agrees with, isn't it? On my side, I am sorry that your nomination has ended up in this, but it is not lack of trust, it is the way of democracy and administration in any organization. Pfortuny 15:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I will not vote. I feel to have been too little involved. And my last (User:Graculus) involvement here don't make me inclined to participate in decissions (well, maybe I shouldn't debate then!) on how Wikipedia is run. However, I can't help to note that wikipedia is evolving, and that the (wiki-) spirit is changing. My earlier opposition against granting what practically is a sign of honor (combined with minor extra power and some extra wikipedia-functionality) to people too fresh, too interested in the promotion, and too prone to see things only in their own perspective makes me cautious. Not against User:Cecropia personally (or his persona here), but against users with these traits. I don't know how it is for you, folks, but in my head, the warningbells start when reading Cecropia's posting above. /Tuomas 15:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion, to both Cecropia and the community at large, from someone who has not voted on the nomination. Clear the decks, wait a week or so, and start over. Based on the statements above, and the bureaucrats who have passed over this nomination to create other admins (see Bureaucrat log), at least 4 bureaucrats are not prepared to say this nomination has a consensus. It may be close to a consensus, but it doesn't seem to clear the bar, wherever the bar may be.

Cecropia, you have a lot of supporters, and I'm sure one of them would be happy to renominate you later. For various reasons, there is a sizable bloc opposing the nomination as well. Personally, I believe that in finding consensus, it is often more important to avoid overriding objections than it is to act based on the demands of a large majority. I think that if you would gracefully accept that this nomination has been unsuccessful, and wait for another, future opposition might be less vehement, and you could earn respect and even support from those who have been observing. --Michael Snow 18:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Can the person in question be trusted to use the mighty "delete" and "block" buttons? Well, you only have to get 70% on your written driver's test to be licensed for a machine that kills over 40,000 people a year (in the USA). This is not life or death: it's a project to create an encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 19:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are a bureaucrat and feel there is no need to fuss about it, you might as well promote him, might you not? That is what I said above... Pfortuny 19:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)