Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfB, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text.

I am not comfortable being the sole bureaucrat to determine the outcome of this RfB. I do not believe an extension of time would be beneficial here - reviewing the history of the RfB, it has oscillated around similar levels of opposition and support and it seems probable that we would be looking at a similar balance in a few days time.

Numerically speaking, this RfB falls (at 85.8%) very slightly above the highest % support for an unsuccessful nomination (85.3% - Quadell) and below the lowest % support for a successful RfB (86.7% - Andre). The fact that this RfB enjoys the highest number of supporters ever has to be seen in the context that the level opposition (39 opposers) is however far higher than the highest level of opposition a successful RfB has had (16 opposers - Essjay). A relevant discussion I would draw your attention to is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfB passing %, where there seems to be significant support for the view that demanding 90% support for bureaucrat candidates is excessive and that some reduction should be made. Although I think shifting goal posts mid-discussion is unhelpful, I think we also need to be mindful of community attitudes that form a background to this RfB. This request seems to be within the scope of discretion and I think the discussion needs to be carefully evaluated if we are to correctly determine the outcome.

Turning to the issues raised in the discussion, I think it would be correct to say that there are two primary concerns raised by those opposing:

• The fact that Riana's decision to nominate Kelly Martin for adminship calls into question her judgment
• Issues of temperament - with diffs cited of a couple of incidents involving the use of profanity/incivility

On the one hand opposition centres on very few incidents, on the other it does seem to have been such that a number of highly respected members of the community do not trust Riana to be a bureaucrat. At the moment I am rather on the fence - I am unsure how to factor in the recent discussions about what should be the correct threshhold for promoting a bureaucrat. If the test remains along the lines of "no significant opposition", then I am not convinced this request can be successful. If were are simply looking for a consensus with some form of supermajority, then that does seem to exist in this case.

WjBscribe 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I think this request is a pass. It meets the requirements for demonstrating reasonable consensus, and has no shortage of support. Disclaimer: I opposed. Andre (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) There has traditionally been a quite high standard for RFBs -- I think 90% support has been quoted in the past. This would ideally have been 100%, but no candidate can please everyone; a few petulant people are bound to find trivial grounds on which to object to even the wisest and most even-handed user, and were we to require absolute support, nobody would succeed. Of course, the 90% mark was established when there were far fewer users participating in these requests. We now see dramatically higher numbers in all categories, and there is no reason to expect the proportion of petulancy to change, though the ranks of the ill-tempered will increase in number. The fact that there are numerically more opposers here than in any successful RFB is hence a distraction and should not be counted as a reason this nomination should fail. It is the proportion that matters.

However, it is not the case that this nomination suffers from the efforts of a few frivolous opposers. The objections are substantive, well-documented, and generally unified: the opposition form a strong lobby, not a disparate rabble. This leads me to conclude that we should abide by the convention in this instance, and consider the request unsuccessful. — Dan | talk 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, do you think we should we should take into account the discussions that suggest that the community is no longer very supportive of 90% being the "line in the sand" for determining the success or failiure of bureaucrat noms? WjBscribe 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that discussion is very much in progress. These should be assessed according to the traditional standard. — Dan | talk 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn by this request since I think it's clear that there is a great deal of support. Yet, the opposition is well-reasoned even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Compared to other successful candidacies, this candidacy does not seem to have the same overall sense of support. On the whole, I would be inclined to consider this request unsuccessful, though I am somewhat ambivalent. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory serves, in the past, we've regarded >90% as a probable pass, <85% as a probable fail, and 85 - 90% as the area requiring particularly close attention. This RfB is on the lower side of that range, and has been within the range for the past few days. WJBscribe offers an excellent summary of the main reasons for opposition, and in general the opposes are unusually well explained. Many support comments have explicitly addressed these reasons for opposition, and some have questioned the relevance of her co-nomination of Kelly Martin to bureaucratship. There are a small number of neutral comments, of which three state that they are leaning towards support.

Regarding WJBscribe's other comments, there is certainly an argument to be made for lowering the expected level of support for an RfB, and that discussion has been going on, but I think that there is a reasonable expectation that these current RfBs will be considered according to previous guidelines and practices, rather than changing them part-way through or during this discussion process. I do not, however, believe that "no significant opposition" has been a rule of thumb, and indeed it is almost impossible to achieve in a discussion involving so many users. In this case, the opposition clearly is significant; the question is whether it is sufficient that this should be closed as no consensus.

In summary, this is within the range commonly given particularly close consideration. In my view, a small number of issues have been raised, have been fully considered, and there are nonetheless a large majority in favour of Riana becoming a bureaucrat. It's a finely balanced one, but I would call it as just sufficient to constitute a consensus. Warofdreams talk 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riana has tremendous support, but does not come close to the 90% gauge set for RfB nominations. Therefore, there is not a community consensus in this case. 90% is the bar and we need to stick to it.

Speaking in terms of raw numbers, with thirty-nine in opposition, Riana is 114 supporters short of reaching the 90% plateau. That's a lot. Speaking in terms of what the opposition said, their concerns are valid and have merit. These concerns involve the Kelly Martin co-nomination, reverting Miranda's attempt to remove a personal attack and the sarcasm and language used by Riana in the incident, stating "fuck it, I'll be at veropedia," and a general sense that Riana lacks proper judgment. There was also one opposition concerning bollywoodblog images and one opposition concerning no mention of consensus by Riana in the Q&A section.

I do not see any wiggle room here to push Riana into a successful RfB. Enough of the community has legitimate concerns and as Bureaucrats we cannot ignore the opposition.

I fully support a reassessment by the community of the 90% gauge and I fully support a new bar set by the community for future nominations. But I do not support changing the gauge midst RfB. Kingturtle (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with Kingturtle. As I have said above, the only reason we require 90% and not 100% is that the latter is surpassingly improbable, even for the most well-qualified candidate. This allows for success in spite of a certain amount of frivolous opposition. However, the opposition here is not frivolous: it is well-reasoned, persistently argued, and unified. Warofdreams, you say that there "nonetheless" remains a large majority, i.e. in spite of the opposition; you might just as easily say that in spite of the enormous support there "nonetheless" remains a strong contigent of users giving serious opposition. This is a matter of rhetorical perspective and not a reason to decide one way or the other. — Dan | talk 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having more difficulty than others putting the discussion about RfB thresholds out of my mind and am leaning much more towards the conclusions of Andre and Warofdreams. To my mind the following points are significant:

• All things being equal are the totals such that a promotion would be within legitimate communit expectations? I think the answer here is "yes" - I agree with Warofdreams that there must be some leeway in the traditional approach to RfB closes around the 85-90% mark.
• I think it worth noting that the 90% figure seems to have evolved organically by practice - that there does not appear to have been any community discussion that has set it as a benchmark by agreement. Indeed those discussions in the archives of WT:RFA (e.g. this discussion or this later poll). where such a threshold is proposed seem to show that little support for it.
• In considering whether one should promote at the lower end of that scale, is the meta discussion about standards relevant? Again I think the answer must be "yes" - the community is giving a pretty clear indication that they believe the standard is too high in a discussion widely advertised (both at the village pump and on the list of centralised discussions). The RfB page is not a vacuum and I think we are required to consider community feelings as to how our discretion should be exercised. It seems to me that if we ask the question, "Is the community likely to accept a promotion at the lower level of the discretionary area?" the answer must be "Yes, as they believe that area to be too high anyway." That is in my view a relevant consideration.
• Is the opposition argument particularly strong or weak? I think the answer here is "no" to both. The objections go to Riana's ability to exercise judgment and are therefore clearly revelant to her ability to be a bureaucrat. It seems to be simply the case that due to some actions in the past, she does not enjoy the confidence of a number of members of the community. No "knock down blows" but I do not think they can be dismissed either.

I think this must be a case that turns largely on numbers - analysis of the arguments does not for me make the discussion look any different. The question seems to simply be does Riana have enough support relative to those opposing to be promoted? In this case, I think the answer is yes given that (a) the decision lies within the discretion of bureaucrats to promote and (b) the community has given a pretty clear indication that standards are in their opinion presently too high. I worry that this 90% figure has been imposed by bureaucrat action rather than at community request and that we are now proposing to apply it again fairly stringently when there seems to be a lack of commnity support for doing so. I think a promotion at the lower end of what has succeeded in the past is therefore an appropriate outcome in this case. WjBscribe 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Riana, the answer to "does Riana have enough support relative to those opposing to be promoted?" is no. If the bar is to be lowered (which I think it should), then it has to be lowered by a community decision. We as bureaucrats are not invested with any power to change standards. It is the community that has that power. As it stands, there is necessary opposition in Riana's RfB to prevent it from succeeding.

The bar can be lowered by a community agreement (a discussion is currently at hand), and unsuccessful RfBs can be resubmitted. But should not change the measuring stick mid- or post-RfB. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Riana, what I write here has nothing to do with my opinion of you or your edits.

I am not proposing changing the measuring stick mid process - 90% is not an absolute figure or Ed Poor, Cimon Avaro, Warofdreams, Essjay & Andrevan would not have been promoted. I think Warofdreams is correct that we enjoy some leeway below that figure on the current system and that a promotion Riana is a legitimate outcome before we consider the discussion about promotion thresholds. In deciding whether or not to promote at what must be the lower end of our discretion, I think were are required to take into account the views of the community. In this case, a well advertisied discussion clearly shows that a lowering of the promotion threshold is wanted. Although I agree we could not change the rules based on that discussion, I also do not think we should factor it out simply because the discussion ran parallel to the RfBs themselves. WjBscribe 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90% is not an absolute figure: it is a traditional one. There have been exceptions, presumably in cases where there happened to be a slightly greater proportion of frivolous opposition; exceptions that do not fit this description should not have occurred, and certainly should not be repeated. This would-be exception does not fit the description of suffering from miscellaneous trivial opposition. Whatever the precise reasons for the opposers' lack of trust might be, nearly all seem to agree that certain of the candidate's edits, decisions, and patterns of behaviour are problematic; I'm afraid we are not empowered to ignore this sort of thing. If this nomination is closed as successful, the decision will violate the standard by which RFBs are traditionally judged; I think the question at this point is whether that would be desirable in this instance.

I maintain that, since the discussion about changing the standard is in progress and far from resolved, it would be improper for us to act as though it were. This will create a precedent that will necessarily affect the outcome of the ongoing debate. I don't think that is our job at the moment. "We should do it because we can get away with it" is an even poorer reason.

I will withdraw my objections if I see that they stand in the way of a (reasonably) quick resolution to this matter, and I will leave the final decision up to WJB, who, as the first bureacrat to act on this nomination, retains the right to close it however he may see fit (unless he'd rather not, in which case we have another problem to solve). — Dan | talk 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not rule out reaching agreement too soon. My biggest concerns here is that what you describe as a "traditional" figure seems to be traditional to bureaucrats but I'm having trouble finding community support for that approach. Every express discussion I can find about what the standard should be for RfBs does not support 90%, the most recently discussion certainly does not appear to support that figure. We could I suppose keep this on ice until discussions about the threshold are "finished" - but it would be hard to decide when things had been discussed enough, and hard to make Riana wait in the meantime. What worries me is that bureaucrats are supposed to implement community consensus not dictate it, I don't see much support (now or in the past) for us using a 90% yardstick to judge the success or failure of RfBs. Oddly our concerns are similar but from different angles - you feel that a promotion would be bureaucrats dictating policy through their actions, I think that's exactly what crats been doing (and would be continuing to do) if we enforce a 90% pass rate without an obvious mandate to do that. WjBscribe 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as though we needed an 'obvious mandate' to start doing anything in the first place. We have never needed any such thing: nobody (I don't think) asked the community, when bureaucrats were invented, what the standard for creation of bureaucrats was to be. The 90% mark was subsequently established by practice and lack of objection; that's how traditions (especially on Wikipedia) happen -- rarely do they arise through formal decision-making, of which our community is notoriously incapable. Formal objections have arisen very recently and are as yet unresolved, and I doubt they will ever come to much. One method to enact change, to be sure, is simply to implement it -- to begin using another standard -- and see how many people take to the streets in fury. If that's what you want to do, go for it, but please do realize that you are introducing an innovation. If you 'get away with it', you have not tricked the community or abused your position; you have merely demonstrated that a consensus existed in favor of your innovation. This saves the community a lot of trouble and argument. The strange thing about this process is that if you announce what you are doing (or if the bureaucrats decide as a group to do it), it is far less likely to succeed; of course, now that this discussion has been initiated, it is too late, hence my insistence that this is a bad time to break from tradition. — Dan | talk 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)

I'm unconvinced by the idea of a bar at 90%. If my memory serves, it has customarily been used as a benchmark of the rough level of support expected for an RfB to be successful, just as 75% is used for an RfA. And the parallel has frequently been drawn. WJBscribe's examples of previous RfBs passing with less than 90% seem to support this view.

While a couple of years ago, RfBs would attract fewer comments and so a 90% level of support would be very likely to indicate that there was no serious opposition, I do not recall it ever having been cited as the reason for the benchmark being set at 90% - simply that there had been a general custom that RfBs required a significantly higher level of agreement than RfAs in order for a consensus to be drawn. It may be that no serious opposition is a desirable benchmark, but unless that has been discussed previously, it seems to me that would also be a case of changing the criteria - by no means impossible, but not something we should be doing here.

Dan, you correctly state "you might just as easily say that in spite of the enormous support there "nonetheless" remains a strong contigent of users giving serious opposition". I was simply using this as a concluding statement to stress that the serious opposition remains a small minority of the total number of editors commenting, and did not intend to suggest that the opposition was not serious and worthy of genuine consideration.

Kingturtle makes an excellent point: "Riana is 114 supporters short of reaching the 90% plateau. That's a lot." To me, that is a strong argument against concluding that a consensus exists, and that's a major reason why I only weakly conclude that a consensus exists. I'm going to be offline until some time tomorrow, so I will probably not get the chance to comment again, so I'll state now that given the closely balanced nature of this RfB, if a consensus among the bureaucrats commenting emerges that this should be closed as no consensus, I will support that determination, but my preference would still be for consensus. Warofdreams talk 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've found before that extended bureaucrat discussions are not productive, so I'm keen to see a resolution one way or another by tonight.

A quick summary:

Would promote:

• WJBscribe
• Andrevan
• Warofdreams

Would not promote:

• Rdsmith4 (Dan)
• Uninvited Company
• Kingturtle
• Deskana

I suggest that if this balance remains the same at the end of today, we should conclude that as a group, the bureaucrats have been unable to determine consensus. If this is the case, then we should close without promoting. However, it may be that discussions today will establish agreement. Warofdreams talk 10:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I too am torn on the matter. She receieved significant opposition, and it wasn't frivolous oppose reasons either. She also received signficiant support, but I do not she has receieved enough to be promoted, given the opposition. Given the divide here, I believe we should not promote, as that is the default if we cannot determine a consensus. --Deskana (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative approach, given that there are continuing community discussions about what the threshold for passing RfB should be, what would people say to keeping this discussion on ice until the community forms a view on the matter? There is after all no deadline... WjBscribe 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this wholly unfair to Ryan Postlethwaite who withdrew at (45/7/0) (86.5%), Quadell who was unsuccessful at (58/10/8) (85.3%), Ram-Man who was unsuccessful at (65/12/2) (84.4%). How are we going to explain Riana's promotion to them and to their supporters? Kingturtle (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That community consensus for promotion has changed? Ryan and Ram-Man both withdrew - that was their choice. As to Quadell 2 years ago, I think it is for Cecropia to explain the result of his RfB to him as he did at the time. How you can find it unfair for us to try and determine what the community wants us to do, and then do it is beyond me... WjBscribe 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to keep fairness in mind, always. If the bar was 85% and not 90%, Ryan may have made a different choice. If we give Riana wiggle room, shouldn't we give Ryan wiggle room? Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give any wiggle room on a discussion that did not run its course and his comments on his withdrawal suggest that he withdrew because he felt that opposition would continue to mount, not because he did not think he could pass with the support level he had at the time. I'm not sure "fairness" is something we should be factoring in to our decision actually. A lot of people are saying it is unfair to oppose someone because of who they nominated for RfA in the past, should we factor that in too? The question should simply be "does the community support the promotion of bureacrats in these circumstances". I believe the answer to that question is yes. WjBscribe 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline because the community assumes we will be professional enough to figure out what to do in a matter of a few days at most. Warofdreams puts forward a reasonable course of action, though of course a resolution would be better. I think 5/2 would constitute a clear decision in a group of this size. — Dan | talk 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are I think at 4:3? WjBscribe 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly have to agree with Warofdreams, Deskana and Rdsmith4 that absent someone changing their mind, or input from other bureaucrats, this request should be closed as unsuccessful at the end of the day. With respect to other contributors to this discussion, who have made valid points to which I have given much thought, I do not feel that this is the correct result and I believe we have failed to correctly interpret the wishes of the community in this case. That said, this discussion cannot last indefinitely and I am now clearly holding a minority view. Given my disagreement with the outcome, I would rather not be the one to finally close this RfB and would be grateful if someone else would do so should the position remain the same then. WjBscribe 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting on 1 November 2005, the published guidelines to promote admins were: "one rule of thumb is that below 70% support compared to oppose generally fails, above 80% generally passes, and you should use discretion in between."

That was changed on 14 January 2006 to read: "the rule of thumb is that nominees with a 75% support:oppose ratio are not promoted without a reason good reason, such as elimination of sockpuppets or bogus votes. Similarly those with more than 80% support generally are, and you should use discretion in between - In the case of bureaucracy be aware that, in a year and a half, no one has become a bureaucrat without at least 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes. - If you make a promotion or deny one outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, be prepared to make an explanation to any editors who asks in a civil manner."

The percentage guidelines were removed on 3 April 2006 and remain absent from the official guidelines.

I personally would not promote, but I will not protest any decision to promote Riana. But the bureaucrat who promotes her must make a statement. In that statement I'd like to see:

• explanations specifically addressing the various concerns on the opposition
• a detailed explanation of exactly what the community wants
• an explanation concerning why it is ok to move the goal posts mid or post-RfB
• some words to calm any editor that might be thinking authority is stepping beyond its bounds and any editor suspicious of a cabal
• why this is fair to Ryan Postlethwaite, who withdrew last week while at 86%, and may have not done so if 85% was the bar.

I am all for lowering the bar. I am not opposed to Riana as a person or an editor. I am working in the interest of fairness to the 39 in opposition and to Ryan Postlethwaite, and in the interest of procedure. Kingturtle (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were making such a statement it would be this:

Having considered the discussion, we are of the opinion that this request should be closed as successful. In reaching this conclusion, we have taken into account:

• The opposition to Riana's bureaucrat nomination was valid and relevant. She does not enjoy the confidence of those who opposed and their input should not, and has not been discounted.
• A well advertised discussion by members of the community indicates that they favour the level of support for promotions to bureaucrat being lower than the 90% threshold that has been used in the past. Whilst an exist figure does not appear to have been agreed upon, there is a large majority supporting a reduction to a marker of 85%.
• Whilst a radical change to the manner in which RfBs are closed would be unfair to participants, the 90% rule applied by bureaucrats in the past was not the result of community discussion and was not applied as an absolute figure. There is a discretion below that figure where other relevant factors may be taken into account. We believe this discussion falls within that threshold.
• This decision is made following public consultation amongst all available bureaucrats following public discussions on Wikipedia, on the basis that the role of bureaucrats is to interpret community consensus (both as to how individual requests should be handled, and how the process as a whole should be administered) rather than to establish rules that do not enjoy community support. It is our opinion that if the community was ever supportive of a 90% threshold, it no longer is, and have acted accordingly.

Note that I deliberately don't address the Ryan point as I think you misunderstand his reasons for withdrawing - he was concerned that opposition would grow, not that it was already too great - and that is something he can clarify himself. Anyway, that is the kind of decision that I was hoping we could arrive at, does it address your points? WjBscribe 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say we, which we is that? Kingturtle (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping the message would reflect the agreement of bureaucrats in this discussion. I don't propose to close with such a message when the majority of other bureaucrats have indicated they disagree, simply because they have said they don't oppose me doing so. You asked what close I proposed, I have provided it, but I do not think a unilateral action on my part would be possible or helpful. WjBscribe 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours have passed since the time when we agreed this should be closed as unsuccessful if no one changed their minds. No one has done so. I had hoped someone else would close it but there's no point in having this sitting around when promotion no longer seems a realistic outcome of this discussion. I don't think that's very fair to anyone. My concerns stand, but I recognise they have after considerable discussion found themselves in a minority. Thank you all very much for your input, WjBscribe 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty here is the 90% threshold. It is our responsibility not to ignore valid opposition, even if it is only 15%. So here we are in the post-RfB discussion, and there's great support to promote Riana, which makes sense considering the great support she had in the RfB. But we still are responsible to that 15%. I'd like to hear more from that 15%. Kingturtle (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Kingturtle, you expressed no opposition to the suggestion above that we should close this at the end of yesterday. I'm now completely confused. Are you suggesting this should be reopened? WjBscribe 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my statement yesterday that I will not stand in the way of the promotion, but that there should be an explanation written to the community explaining the promotion. Kingturtle (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. I would have taken care of this had I been around (it's been a busy 36h); thanks for your effort, WJB. — Dan | talk 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add my voice late, but this should have unambiguously failed. We are not dealing with mere numbers, or thresholds, or tradition. 15% percent is very significant opposition in a position which requires nearly universal trust. 10% IMO is too much. Going below 90% should never happen. -- Cecropia (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing this, WJB. Warofdreams talk 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]