Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Adminship poll/A

< Wikipedia:Adminship poll

Requests for Adminship (RfA) edit

Are bureaucrat chats working? edit

Last year, several controversies were escalated and the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process put under intense scrutiny as some editors were promoted under disagreements (even amongst crats) on what constitutes a consensus. Has the introduction and the use of bureaucrat chat effective in determining consensus, and henceforth the long term solution to making RfA work and less controversial?

Yes edit

  1. I think that they are a Good Thing for potentially contentious closes. - jc37 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I certainly think they have been quite well used for controversial closes, at least in the cases I have seen. For that matter, does anyone have a list of occasions a 'crat chat was used? I much prefer a public discussion between 'crats to the private channel discussion that would probably be the alternative. That said, the question is poorly worded, and to attempt to judge them as "the long term solution to making RfA work and less controversial" is just silly. the wub "?!" 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These chats occur in situations where tempers are flared after contentious RFAs. There's a mistaken belief that the chats are part of the problem. No. The RFAs in which they occur are already nasty affairs. Mistaken correlation to believe there's something wrong with the crat chats. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I personally like seeing the way the crats reach their decisions on contentious RFAs, and think it would be nice to see them more often. They're certainly not pointless - how can anything that's more transparent and public than what might otherwise be the case be pointless? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think they are helpful on tricky situations. The calibre of the participants (by virtue of teh prerequisites to become one) is such that the chats appear to be quite productive really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Even though they made a wrong decision, its still a workable thing that I think is good. MBisanz talk 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Andre (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, by and large. They provide enough tug and counter-tug that explosion are largely being avoided. Splash - tk 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. hmwithτ 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Anything that brings transparency to RFAs that could be potentially volatile is probably a good thing. If the deliberations were held in private, I think we'd see much more irritation around the outcomes. - Philippe 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rudget 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. It's better than a private chat, but there are other ways RFA could be improved to address this. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes they make the decision process more open to the public and allow people to see the bureaucrat's reasoning. James086Talk | Email 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edit

  1. I'd say its about 50% effective, which is about as good as a bureaucrat flipping a coin. Mr.Z-man 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pointless. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. They're a good idea, but in practice most chats contain disagreements among the bureaucrats, and their discussion needs consensus interpretation, which defeats the purpose. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, an individual bureaucrat should be trusted to make the decision. If they mess up, request for comment is that way. EJF (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per EJF—a crat should take the lead. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 03:17, April 21, 2008
  7. Since it's a vote, there's no need. Majorly (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Z-man. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

  1. They're good on paper, and they do work sometimes. There are other times that they don't and it ends up seeming lik ea waste of time. Wizardman 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't understand the question. I don't really understand the 'crat role in admin recruitment, selection and "bit setting". Dan Beale-Cocks 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrats don't have anything to do with recruitment or selection. They simply assess the discussions at RFA when they have reached their end time, and decide if granting adminship is justified. Then they make a few clicks in the software, and the user has all the rights of an admin. the wub "?!" 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the wording of this question, I would say no, but I think that when it comes to actually deciding to promote someone, they do work. bibliomaniac15 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd say sometimes. In theory, they make perfect sense: One 'crat can't make heads or tails of a discussion, so s/he asks other 'crats to give input. Unfortunately, this often leads to long, protracted discussions with little satisfaction in the community, such as Danny's RfA. On the other hand, it has produced satisfactory results. If this were asking "should the practice continue", I would say that it should, with more discretion than shown now. Don't we pick 'crats for their judgment? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have to agree with those above me. They are useful, and it is better to have them than to not have them but at the same time they are not the ultimate solution. SorryGuy  Talk  23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's better to have bureaucrats evaluate RfAs, to minimize the impact of gaming and other disruption. However, I'd prefer that in highly controversial cases (not just votes in the 70-75% range, but issues that are truly divisive), they respect the weight of the controversy, and close as "no consensus". Bureaucrats are there to evaluate consensus, not act as tie-breakers, and I'd say divisive issues are by definition "no consensus".--Father Goose (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I see a slowly improving degree of consistency incontestable instances. I'd hope for considerably more, but it is a slight improvement so far. DGG (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am not opposed to the idea, but I think they need to take the consensus, rather than their personal opinions, more strongly into account. The bureaucrat chat at the Danny RfA was a total failure, with one of the participants completely overlooking that several opposers had serious trust issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ideally, it would have been a good thing. In reality, some of the chats are only a small part of the discussions that happen off line just as they did. Thus, the board creates an illusion of openness which may actually be worse than when the secrecy being an admitted mode of this. --Irpen 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. They would work if RfA was not a vote. RfA is a vote. — Werdna talk 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I am not opposed to the idea either, though I agree that they have not solved all controversy relating to bureaucrats decisions on closures of RFA/B's, especially over Danny's. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_poll/A&oldid=1142160096"