Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Zscout370

Splash's oppose vote discussion

 * I'm going to throw off my normal tact and be blunt. The answer to question 1 is wrong? Frankly, Splash, ZScount370 hit it *right on the head*. He's not at all wrong. A bureaucrat has the ultimate say in promotion or withholding of promotion, and his answer is totally correct. Perhaps you should observe bureaucrat-related processes more closely? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Before this turns ugly, everyone calm down. The exact percentages have been the cause of controversy (if not, remember Luigi's RFA), so he is right to point out that the numbers do matter in order to minimize conflict and controversy. However, bureaucrats are the ones who make the final decision, and should take into account the reasons, not only the numbers. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Linuxbeak should read ZScout370's answer more closely, for nowhere in it does he say what Linuxbeak imagines him saying, which as Linuxbeak says is correct. Perhaps then, Linuxbeak should read Bureaucrats and tell me where in there 85% appears. Maybe then, Linuxbeak will point to a rejection in recent times on more than 80% and a promotion on less than 75%, Luigi30's commonly-accepted mistake aside? I'll be the first to say that the discussion (if there is one) matters greatly, but that is not the principal thrust of ZScout370's answer. As for observing Bureaucrat process more closely, Linuxbeak is the one who tried to suspend the entire RfA process... -Splash talk 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I damn well know what the bureaucratic process is and is not. I happen to be one, thank you, so I can say with authority what it is or isn't. What you are talking about here is something that I'm going to put to rest right now, once and for all.
 * I'm well aware you are a bureaucrat as I implied already. I'm not sure if your assertion is supposed to educate me or intimidate me. And I can say with just as much authority what I think the bureaucratic process is, as can anyone else. -Splash talk 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The 75% voting thing is a guideline, not a rule. It is up to the bureaucrat and the bureaucrat alone to determine whether or not there is consensus for a promotion. He or she does not and should not rely on numbers alone. If RfA was as simple as a number system, then it would have been automated a long time ago.
 * This is an oft-repeated argument that avoids my original point. The fact is that the current practises on RfA do not tally accurately with what Zscout370 says in response to Q1, whether you want to call them rules, guidelines, optionalities or anything else. This is borne out by the fact that you didn't manage to find the examples I asked for. -Splash talk 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To respond to your non sequitor statement regarding my attempt to halt RfA, that was done in conjunction with another bureaucrat, and only after discussion involving Jimbo. Plus, seeing that neither I nor Illyanp have yet to be RFC'd for it, you tell me if the community thinks I'm doing my job wrong. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as RfA was quickly unsuspended and remains that way, I'd say the community didn't like the suspension as much as the unsuspension. -Splash talk 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see why this occurs here. It is of direct relevance to the RfB, and so I'm going to copy it back. I'm now on my 4th edit conflict so I won't. But I do think that Linuxbeak is entitled to challenge me and that I'm entitled to respond. It is not so irrelevant a discussion as to relegate it here. -Splash talk 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to stifle anyone's discussion, but this is already long and may be longer, and very much besides your original stated opposition (and anything you want to amend) would be better not on the main RfB. IOW, I just think the temperature could be lowered a few degrees. -- Cecropia 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. (It's mainly quite closely related to my original oppostion statement, though.) -Splash talk 03:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, don't kill yourselves over this. Just relax and let this run it;s course, though I know that the best I could do is bat .500. I want to take a more active role in the Wiki (and in the Foundation as a whole) and I figured this would be the best way (unless y'all have better ideas). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually quite a good answer and is a fairly decent reason for RfBing. If you're really interested in the Foundation, then there are probably 'jobs' of more direct utility to the Foundation than flipping some sysop bits. There are the (annual?) Steward elections and your area of interest suggests you might speak non-English (though you've no babel boxes), so you'd have a shot there if we hadn't recently had such an election. You could get involved in organising Wikimania, perhaps, although there might be a distance issue there, although you could look ahead to WM 2007. Within enwiki...well...increasing your activity is easy enough, as long as you have the time to go with it! -Splash talk 16:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also condiser working on the copy vio page if you want extra chores, it doesn't come with a title like "Bcrat" or "checkuser", but we could use anyone who is interested to help attack the backlog. I am not sure about Stewards though, as I rarely ever see them use their addition powers beyond sysop. We have 20 Bcrats, almost half of wich are inative, and yet still there are plenty for the tasks at hand. I also don't want to increase the risk of Bcrat edit conflict when closing :). Voice  -of-  All T 19:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "I happen to be one, thank you, so I can say with authority..."...hmmm. Voice -of-  All T 08:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would have to agree with Splash's vote when it comes to the numbers. My reasoning is that the Instructions for Sysoping Someone and Renaming users is really all that a sysop must read to perform BCrat tasks too.
 * In fact, regular admin candidates should know WP policy on a large range of topics, many times that of the short list from the two above. A sysop, who I would assume would know standard policy, should have no problem reading and remembering those few extra rules to keep in mind when closing nominations. Voice -of-  All T 08:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As has been demonstarted multiple times, the issue for bureaucrats is not remembering "a few extra rules." So far as numbers are concerned, a bot could do promotions. The issue is the abaility to make reasoned, defensible decisions in difficult cases that have community respect and retain community confidence in the process. -- Cecropia 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the ability to reason and defend is needed. I am saying that remembering those few rules should also be expected. Even if one does not see them as Exact (and I don't expect anyone too), they should still at least know them. I can't use "I disagree" as an excuse for not knowing deletion policy. When in the uncertainty range, according to promotion policy, obviously that is when a Bcrats needs to NOT be a bot. I never said a bot could do it all the time. Now that I think about it, even admins need to read WP:Consensus and know that closing AfD's is not always just a tally, and be able to defend it, so much of this is just the same thing applied elsewhere. Voice -of-  All T 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, all active administrators on the Spanish Wikipedia are bureaucrats also... but yeah. The (disputed) instructions at WP:GRFA would be enough. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitar. This is not Spanish Wikipedia. -- Cecropia 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be a non-sequitur if I were arguing something. I'm just saying something related to Voice of All's idea. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Titoxd was refering to my Neutral vote, not this page. Also, just because one wiki has it does not make it good. If we took the fairly active (like 300) admins, we could have 300 BCrats all trying to close 1-2 nominations a day...(edit conflict)...(edit conflict)...(edit conflict)...disagreement...And with 300 Bcrats, what if just one account was comprimised: There really is just no need to copy es.wiki. Voice -of-  All T 21:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "User: Comprimised unblocks Willy on Wheels"
 * "User: Comprimised set rights for "User:Willy on Wheels" (+sysop)"
 * "User: Comprimised set rights for "User:Willy on Wheels" (+bureaucrat)"
 * Since it feels like y'all are having too much heartburn over this, can I quit the RFB now? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)