Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Neutrality 3

For the purposes of this discussion, this is the last version of the vote page prior to the promotion: 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 Raul654 Rights for user "Neutrality" set "+sysop"

Promotion of Neutrality
Raul654 - Please reply and provide a synopsis as to how you came to your "83% (normalized)" consensus determination to promote Neutrality in this nomination. I informed you of three suspected votes on the support side. I come up with a percentage of 76-77% myself, and considering that the opposition stances were very well documented, I think we need to know why you (who voted "support") promoted him. I think this shows poor judgement on such a close case, as I think getting outside bureaucrat advice (even if you didn't heed Cecropia's) would have been better than simply promoting with no explanation. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * Even before this comment was made, I made a comment discussing my thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. &rarr;Raul654 04:35, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like follow-up discussion to happen here, if possible. This could get quite long. My main question is how you "normalized" the numbers?  Whose votes are you counting?
 * Also of interest to me is why you felt it necessary to involve yourself only after Neutrality withdrew his nomination. You contacted him only after that to let him know you intended to admin him. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to see that you just don't want Neutrality to be promoted. The margin is very high, at 77% for support, 21% for opposition and 2% for abstention. Mike H 05:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like to respectally add that, as a bureaucrat, Raul654 has discretion in these decisions, and is under no obligation to share his reasonings or whose votes he did or did not consider with anyone, including Netoholic. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * He is absolutely under an obligation to explain his reasoning if it is reasonably questioned. Pcb21| Pete 07:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by all of this: func(talk) 05:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) There are 17 "active" Bureaucrats. If a Bureaucrat chooses to cast a vote one way or another, shouldn't they then recuse themselves from being the "promoter", and allow one of the others to perform that job?
 * 2) Isn't it a bit nutty that a single individual decides if consensus has been reached. Surely it would not be too much of a hardship for at least 3 Bureaucrats to reach a best out of 3 determination of consensus, especially in an obviously contentious decision (less than 80%), and especially when one of the Bureaucrats has cast a vote.
 * 3) All of this seems... unseemly, especially after Raul654 choose to contact Neutrality after Neutrality choose to withdraw.
 * As for your "unseemly" comment, I don't really see how... The way I perceived it was Raul654 was planning on promoting Neutrality, as time was almost up, and the nomination was well within the margins of success, and then was confused when Neutrality removed the nomination. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK on point 3. func(talk) 05:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly with func on points 1 and 2 above. Acegikmo1 05:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think what Func is proposing is a form of instruction creep. A better solution would be to promote fewer bureaocrats (we have more than enough already). And, just for the record, this is all speculative. What I did was fully in line with policy as it currently exists. &rarr;Raul654 05:42, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK on point 2. "Instruction creep" is a very strange name, but the point is clear. Too much bureaucracy can get silly. I am still uncomfortable with someone both voting and promoting in a contentious decision. It seems a clear conflict of interest. I'm not questioning whether or not policy was followed, I'm questioning the policy itself, (admittedly, this probably isn't the best page on which to do so). func(talk) 05:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that your promotion of Neutrality was justified. But I also think that this was a case in which two different bureaucrats may have acted differently.  There needs to be a better mechanism for dealing with such a situation.  Acegikmo1 05:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since I contacted Raul654 on this, I'll put in my two cents. My objection was the fear that this would start another battle royal for reasons I stated to him. There is no question in my mind that he acted in good faith and within guidelines. He decided promotion was appropriate and was willing to defend his reasoning&mdash;as I have pontificated from time to time, this is the heart of management. the community has expressed explicitly that this is what they want bureaucrats to do. As an aside, if we have to scare up extra bureaucrats to make promotions, no one will ever get promoted! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality did not have the requisite number of votes. Nor did Raul654 explain how he came to give Neutrality adminship, or how he came up with the 83% figure, when the actual figure is closer to 70. Therefore, the adminship should be withdrawn. -- Xed 16:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Policy was followed, withdrawing adminship would set a bad precedent for ignoring policy. I do think, however, that a firmer set of rules (or "instruction creep", whatever), should be considered for the future. Various users have repeatedly said that "adminship is no big deal...", well guess what, it clearly is, and as Wikipedia grows larger and larger, the tasks of the admins and bureaucrats are only going to become more and more important. It is important to think about setting precedent for the future... and I don't think a very good example was set here. func(talk) 16:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be in Neutrality's interests to withdraw himself, since many (including me) will not take him seriously as an administrator after this debacle. Xed 17:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just add him to your "Rogue Admin" list, that should solve the problem. ;-) Jayjg 17:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I made Wik's list, too bad Wik is no longer maintaining it :) Pakaran. 17:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * People, the whole point about voting for something is to determine a majority. Now I don't know what the criteria are for a successful vote. Is it a clear majority? If so then Neutrality has won the vote. If it requires a higher vote then it seems he got at least 3/4 of the vote which would win most organisational votes even in situations where a higher majority is required. If the concern is that serious objections should be weighted higher than serious support (like a "black ball" in a club membership vote) then is that policy? I have nothing personal against Neutrality and my only contacts have been pleasant. I initially voted for Neutrality and then withdrew my vote after seeing some significant anger and condescension. I felt that was not a good combination in an admin who is, by their position, likely to have abuse hurled at them, usually by the newer members. However, if the vote has gone Neutrality's way then good luck to him and let us all get on with it and accept it. Ongoing hostility towards Neutrality will not help the project. Personally I have no problem with the decision. I disagree with it but it has occurred. If it has followed the rules then I am happy to accept it. I didn't realize that Neutrality had withdrawn his nomination. Perhaps he has learnt from this feedback, which has been fairly brutal, and that may make him more even tempered and more humble in future disputes. We all grow. Why don't we all get behind Neutrality and support him. Basically Neutrality is a nice person, but he does seem a little insecure and does get hostile when this insecurity is attacked. If we all support him then he will feel more secure and less likely to be hostile and condescending. As he progresses as an admin and gains more confidence then hopefully this will translate into more sensitivity. It's simple really. If you support the project as a whole then support the decision and the person in that position. --CloudSurfer 18:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The requirements for promotion are generally considered to be 75 percent and above; some think that adminship should have a lower requirement, while others think it should be higher. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe it's 80. You didn't make the grade. Xed 19:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If 75% is the rule, then at the very least, we shouldn't be using the word "consensus". Its connotation is of near- almost total- support. Wikipedia has to be the only place in the world where ignoring 1/4 of all votes would be considered "consensus". Note: I have nothing against Neutrality, I'm not really familiar with his edit history. I just think there was something wrong with how this vote went, from a policy point of view. func(talk) 19:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was an archetypal example of the rules of Wikipedia being bent --- Xed 20:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re the concerns people had about user Neutrality - he's already starting to throw his weight about. I saw on his talk page that a reporter (Curtis Krueger St. Petersburg Times krueger@sptimes.com) had left a message asking people to tell him about The Wikipedia. I left a polite message and said: "You need to go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality and check out "oppose" and also look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404 and similar pages to get a clearer picture of user Neutrality Mr. Krueger."

Mr. Krueger also said: "... know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow" and I said: "You might try user Rex071404. I don't know if he's interested but I'll put a note on his Wikipedia talk page.WikiUser 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

I then found that Neutrality had taken control of my talk page restoring selectively many paragraphs I'd deleted and saying:

"

Vandalism
Your vandalism of my userpage is not appreciated. I see you have a history of such actions. I advise you to stop this immediately, lest you find yourself blocked. Regards -- Neutrality (hopefully!) 21:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)"

So he sees any comment he doesn't like as "vandalism" and threatens an immediate ban. I think we need to get up a petition re concern about his behaviour and try to have him de-selected as an Administrator. I feel he will drive new users away for example if he treats them this way. See my page for more tedious details at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser

I also don't like the conflict of interest of Jwrosenzweig and Raul654. In the Arbitration on Rex071404 They haven't finished their (mighty) judgement, yet they've already taken action against Rex071404 and not against Neutrality and -when they haven't finished judging the case- gone off and voted for Neutrality to be an Administrator. They should withdraw from either the voting or the Arbitration case, they can't do both. Seeems like a conflict of interest to me:

"26. Support -- Neutrality's obviously deserving and dedicated. ... ...I trust Neutrality to keep this in mind, and have great faith in N's ability to be a trustworthy admin. Jwrosenzweig  20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

By the way he also says: "but I hope N. will consider being extra careful when interacting with new users, especially if admin powers are invoked"

Some hopes! WikiUser 19:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What the...? Please allow me to make sure I understand this: a reporter asked a Wikipedia user for information about the project, and you decided to point him in the direction of a contentious internal policy decision??? WikiUser: what you did was pure vandalism. Neutrality acted in an entirely correct manner with regards to your actions. You choose to make your personal grudge reflect badly on the Wikipedia project in front of a reporter. That's just idiotic. If I have misrepresented what you did, please let me know. func(talk) 20:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've edited the wrong section. Now everyone will have to use "edit whole page" link. You're breaking the personal abuse Guidelines by saying my edit was vandalism. I have no personal grudge, that's also personal abuse as it's a lie. You haven't accused all the other 17 voters against Neutrality of having a personal grudge. Looks like you've got a personal grudge against me from the record then. " and you decided to point him in the direction of a contentious internal policy decision???" Bless gracious! Look how can you have the nerve to come on here with this nonsense? The Request For Arbitration and Neutrality's talk page are secret? Come off it. I'm -like all Wikipedia users- in the general public same as this reporter is. No part of Wikipedia is secret. Sectret from who? Yes you've mis-represented what I did.WikiUser 20:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser "Vote" and Remarks
I moved these from the project page since the nomination is finished. That page should be left "as-is" for the historical record -- Cecropia | explains it all ®


 * 1) WikiUser 20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)I strongly oppose. People who want to know more about the way Neutrality operates on The Wikipedia should see the request for arbitration he's involved in against Rex071404 at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

See the evidence page and related pages too. Unfortunately "related pages" here means many pages and thousands of lines to read. I haven't read all the material involved, but have read thousands of line of it, and this is the reason I am against Neutrality being made an administrator. For example you'll see on the "John Kerry" history page (around 24th of july '04) that he removes several paragraphs and marks this as a minor edit. He also marks reverts as minor edits. I feel the things I've read on the above pages by him show he's not suited to the position and may drive away people that are new to the Wikipedia. I particularly don't like the way he and the other's are ganging-up against one person- in the way that often happens on discussion-boards.

I feel it's wrong of him not to mention the huge arbitration case at "questions for the candidate" - instead he says; "my Wikipedia experiences have been very positive".

And when he says; "The only serious conflict I've had was with a user that was severely disruptive. In the end the user was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee and left Wikipedia.", if he means Rex071404 that's not true as has been shown to be the case.

I think he would fit in very well with the current "board of arbitrators" and you can't say worse than that.

I also don't think that Jwrosenzweig, Raul654 or any other arbitrator should be voting for him when they claim they haven't yet decided about the request for arbitration he's involved in. It means of course that they must already have pre-judged the issue, in their friend's favour - by definition.

Censorship of a Newbie
I have only just completed my 48 hours sentence imposed on me by this candidate.

While I now know that I should not contribute in the area of my expertise, it gave a Newbie to WikiPedia a sour introduction to the process. I was ambushed with accusation and no detail on claims of 'self promotion' and 'Link Spamming'. This in response for attempting to fill the void on that topic.

I respect the establishment of the wikipedia process. But I beg for it's own legacy that wikipedia treat volunteers with due respect and understanding. weide 03:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) ref: Talk:Republican_Party_%28United_States%29