This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page.

• As Gracenotes has indicated the desire to either let the bureaucrats decide his RfA or else resubmit it in "a few weeks" more or less according to my suggestion, I am taking this here to discuss our options and see what resolution we can come to. Unless community sentiment has changed in the last year (and tell me if it has) Gracenotes would have the prerogative of a new RfA in a month's time anyway.

• Google provided me with this definition of "consensus": "A consensual agreement or win-win outcome of collaborative problem-solving and conflict resolution. A consensus implies that debate has taken place, the solution is generally accepted rather than a grudging compromise, and that agreement is deep-rooted enough that it can stand for some time without need to revisit the issue."

• That is pretty close to the way I understand the term, and it was more or less what consensus meant in 2004 when I first became a bureaucrat. Back then pretty much all the 200-some admins knew each other or at least who they were, and also either knew the RfA candidates or else knew (and trusted) the person proposing the candidate. Since then Wikipedia has gotten much larger, the admin poll (existing and proposed) has grown much larger, those participating in RfA are an order of magnitude or so less likely to know the candidate before the RfA and outside issues (like attack sites) are a real concern rather than nonexistent or virtually unknown and the process has, in some cases, become way more political. Whether the way the community now decides RfA and the bureaucrats interpret it fits any sensible definition of consensus today is an open issue to me; "compromise" or "preponderance of sentiment" in contentious cases seem like a more realistic definition.

• I bring up the above because I honestly feel that it will be, at the least difficult to determine consensus in this case; perhaps not even compromise. Why? Because so much has happened in the week's RfA that it is hard to gauge where the body of sentiment would lie if all had a chance to see the facts and the candidate's positions laid out clearly, and if we subtracted the "snowball" effect and some part of the intense emotion. Because of the above, I am at sixes and sevens to see how we can determine consensus based on the current RfA, but I'm open to being convinced. In this case I think we need a real dictionary-definition consensus among ourselves. I would also like you to consider the possibility that we could leave this undecided and bring up a new RfA for Gracenotes in a month's time. I will then defend the result as valid as we are, as several have pointed out, the Wikipedians chosen by the community to make the final decision. -- Cecropia 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

To my mind, the question is whether a consensus to make Gracenotes an admin exists, or whether it does not exist. It is pretty clear that there is not a consensus that Gracenotes should not be an admin, but that is not the question here - if no consensus exists on either side, then that is how it should be closed.

That said, we do have a pretty broad (and somewhat vague) definition of consensus, with the guideline that it can often be sufficiently demonstrated with 75-80% support, and generally cannot be demonstrated with less than 70% support. As this RfA falls in the gap in between, it will, of course, require particularly close study to determine whether a consensus does exist. Warofdreams talk 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree that we should be determining consensus and nothing else. I will withhold my further thoughts on that issue until we've had a bit more input from other bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*sigh*: So we don't have Taxman or Dan. Warofdreams, I suggest we start. We're both active and IIRC we've been bureaucrats since the Great Angela Request ;-). So I've already expressed the opinion above that fairly determining if there is consensus or not (as opposed to declaring that consensus does or doesn't exist) is problematic in view of the issues I outlined above. Please give my your sense of this. -- Cecropia 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand your concern. However, we are in the position of evaluating this RfA, not an ideal one. Whether this RfA might have gone differently, given a different process, is not our concern, unless the actual process of this RfA makes it impossible to determine whether consensus has been reached. It is certainly difficult to determine whether consensus has been reached, but that is the task we are set, and if we cannot say that consensus has been demonstrated, I would be minded to close it as "no consensus". Closing as no consensus should not prejudice a future RfA, and it may be that further discussion on the genuine concerns around attack sites and links to them, on Gracenote's position on them, and on the relevance of Gracenote's position to suitability to adminship may clarify the position in a relatively short period of time. Warofdreams talk 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think we are in basic agreement, but give me a little time and let's see if we have any other input and then I will propose a resolution if nothing has changed. -- Cecropia 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the delay in posting. I've had limited time recently, and that RfA is quite extensive.
Having read all the comments there, I've observed that, on the opposition side, the concern over the candidate's views regarding attack sites is drawing nearly 100% of the opposition. On the support side, there's also been a considerable number of people who have supported commenting specifically that they either agree with the candidate's position or that they would support regardless of his position.
However, even though part — this is in no way a blanket affirmation; in fact I reckon the larger part of the opposition that presented arguments (which excludes the "per X" comments) did present legitimate concerns about their ability to trust the tools to someone who viewed this particular issue, which is a sensitive one, as the candidate does — of the opposition seemed to fail to present convincing arguments as to how the candidate's understanding of a proposed policy and his interpretation of policy (namely WP:BLP) meant that the candidate would not be suitable for the job (boiling down to "oppose because I don't agree with him on this one and that means that he can't be trusted"), the ratio of general support against general opposition, as well as that between support and opposition specifically citing the attack sites issue indicates to me that consensus to promote the candidate cannot be demonstrated safely given the circumstances — it would be different if this issue was not accounting for nearly all the opposition, but as it stands, I must agree with the current opinion that a more elaborate debate over this issue, followed by a future RfA, would be helpful in determining a [at least] less controversial stand from the community, and hopefully render a more clear consensus on whether or not anyone with any given understanding regarding a sensitive issue should become an administrator. Redux 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

First, what everyone is looking for: I need to hold my proposal for ending this RfA until this has been up for about 24 hours in case there is any additional discussion and to give me time to frame the issue. The denouement is not going to be anything so dramatic as the revelation of whether Dumbledore is really dead or not, but it won't evaluate to anything quite as simple as "consensus" or "no consensus." That is because this is a unique case that goes to heart of RfA, the concept of consensus, and Wikipedia policies. It is true that there are similar issues in some other RfAs, but this one is "writ large."

Now I want to comment on what I've been reading about "The Bureaucrat's Job." Some feel that "we trust the bureaucrats to do the right thing, that's why we picked them out." I believe that most believe this most sincerely, but it is not so simple. If a bureaucrat takes an action that someone dislikes, or seems illogical, or arbitrary, or inconsistent with earlier actions by the same or another bureaucrat, people want to know why. The bureaucrat is not bound to explain as a matter of policy, but very much of that will erode trust in the 'crat, and eventually in the process. Nor is the bureaucrat's job quite so simple as "determining if consensus is reached and then pushing the button to promote or not." As I pointed out in my opening of this "chat," this has not really been a truly consensus-driven process for at least two years. Nor is it a vote, although a vote is part of the process. Why? Because (barring sock- or meat-puppetry) each expression of opinion in an RfA represents the opinion, raw, half-baked or done to perfection, of a Wikipedian in a system which we believe gives everyone an equal voice. In fact the main way that this is not a vote is that, unlike most elections, a majority of one-half plus one does not rule and, unlike a ballot election, bureaucrats are empowered to consider the quality of the expression of opinion; but still a promotion with less than 70% of these raw "non-votes" is going to raise some eyebrows, and it has. So what do we have? I have described it elsewhere as a "preponderance of sentiment." That is more of a mouthful than saying "consensus," but it is more accurate because it describes better what actually has been happening.

So what is "the bureaucrat's job"? Here are some aspects as I have come to understand them and have applied them:

• To close RfAs and take action based on his or her understanding of the community's sentiment;
• To explain his or her reasoning if challenged;
• To see to the smooth functioning of RfA;
• To engage with other bureaucrats when necessary;
• To build confidence in the process, so that the bureaucrats' decision will be seen as fair and reasonable;
• To aim for consistency in his or her own decisions and in the overall body of RfA decisions;
• To be fair and unbiased in considering the issues in an RfA, forming opinions based on the concerns raised by the community;
• Except in extraordinary cases to refrain from expressing opinions in the course of an RfA or to try to mold sentiment. In cases where he or she feels so strongly that he or she enters the RfA as an advocate, to refrain from deciding on the outcome. This means that as a technical matter the 'crat can "push the button" (or remove) if no other 'crat has taken the initiative after the passage of time, but only if the outcome is completely unambiguous. The appearance of fairness is almost as important as the reality, or the community's confidence can be lost;
• To treat all candidates equally in determining an RfA. If feelings of friendship or dislike or the candidate's position in Wikipedia are an influence, let another bureaucrat do it.
• To make every reasonable effort to let the community decide for itself the outcome of a difficult RfA, rather than impose a solution simply for the sake of closure. -- Cecropia 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll see you folks tomorrow. Cheers, Cecropia 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll go over it tomorrow and comment ~10 hrs from this post. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Me too. Secretlondon 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, I feel that the issues involved are pretty well outlined in my introduction at the top of this page. I'll withhold going further until tomorrow (Saturday, June 2) when Secretlondon and Nichalp will be available -- Cecropia 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

To expand on Cecropia's points The Bureaucrat's Job, I would like to mention the following:

1. Bureaucrats are called upon to exercise good judgement, in other words, they have been selected by the community for taking actions that are in the best interests of the community and the encyclopedia as a whole. I've always stated that adminship is about good judgement, experience, trust and a committment to the project. When bureaucratic judgement is called for, I evaluate the oppose vote carefully. How seriously do the charges affect the community? How seriously does it affect the project? What are the candidate's responses to the levied charges? How has the community reacted (ie those supporting later on in the RFA)? What the neutral comments say? and most importantly If the candidate had made the same statement as an admin, would the discussion/outcome be grossly different? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and each vote need not have the same weight as another. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Taking raw percentages, the RFA stands at 73% support which does come under bureaucratic discretion. Community members have opposed on three grounds:

1. Suspected bot action
2. Acting rather silly and
3. The WP:BADSITES issue

On Bot action: Not valid for rate of editing given. [1]. 6 times a minute are possible without using a bot. The highest is only 10.

On acting silly: The date was April 1. Many odd things happen on that day including the changing of several mediawiki text. No other diff was provided, so dismissing it as a one off incident.

BADSITES The bulk of the concerns are with respect to linking to attack sites. Many of the respondents opposed on the simple assumption that Gracenotes was in favour of linking to these sites. This is incorrect. Gracenotes has stated very clearly that he does not support linking to these sites (21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)), but rather, a common sense approach to them. Gracenotes wants to discuss the exact criteria as to where to draw the line when it comes to harrasment vs constructive criticism et all instead of a blanket ban on pure whims of one or two users.

The degree obnoxiousness in such grey cases would lie entirely on a few admins, and would be subjective... what Gracenotes is trying to state all along. A common sense approach is hard to define, and that's why Gracenotes is finding it hard to give a true example in the face of the opposition onslaught. One example I can proffer is this: [2]. If an obnoxious post on a former wikipedian was present, would this link be decared as a BADSITE or not? That brings me to my statement in the section above... An admin with good judgement can easily determine what's right or wrong based on the prevailing circumstances. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

My decision: I would promote =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Nichalp, thank you so much for joining the discussion and your excellent observations. My time is not completely my own at the moment but I am preparing some of my own notes, and will post them ASAP. -- Cecropia 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

My concern is that you are evaluating the opposition - deciding whether it is valid or not. In this sense you are almost telling us how you would *vote*, which is not the same as where the consensus lies. We are not to decide whether the opposition makes it's case, we are to decide whether the community wants this person. Secretlondon 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that as a part of the problem. Bureaucrats might analyze issues with great wisdom, even see things that the hurly-burly of the RfA might have obscured, but there is a danger to actually having to weight issues and evaluate stances and so on. We risk dictating consensus rather than determining it. Then I fear the community will begin to view RfA not as the community choosing its admins, but as an advisory board to bureaucrats who make the "real" decisions. -- Cecropia 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Both your observation on bureaucrats and your evaluation of this RfA are impressive and very well expressed and I cannot find much to argue with. Your conclusion that you would promote falls within current guidelines and would be defensible, I believe, but I see problems because of the unusual nature of this RfA.

This RfA is no longer really entirely about Gracenotes. It touches on broader issues of Wikipedia policies and, of special concern to me, the running of RfA, which I alluded to in my "bureaucrat's job" points. I don't believe it is the 'crats job to direct sentiment, as it were, but it is important to watch the general tenor of RfAs and to promote fairness: fairness to nominee; fairness to the participants; fairness to the Wikipedia community as a whole where the running of RfA impacts other issues.

During my retread RfB I was asked about some recently contentious RfAs, especially Danny's. I demurred for reasons that some (especially those who didn't remember my earlier 'crat work) understandably interpreted as evasiveness or unwillingness to commit myself, but the reasons I gave for my reluctance were pretty much what I believed. However, when I saw how important this was to so many, I reviewed "Danny" in depth and made a number of observations. Among those observations was that I thought that Danny comported himself very well in most of his responses. I'm rehashing this to explain why I am going to comment, on a still open RfA, that I feel that Gracenotes comported himself very well in his RfA. I will also comment, since it is on topic, that one thing that I notice has changed in RfA over four years is that the estimation of a candidate's demeanor in responding to the community has lessened in significance while his or her views on issues has increased. The way that an admin candidate approached the community is his or her RfA revealed a great deal about what kind of admin that person would be, and I think that played out in the great majority of cases in the comportment of successful RfA candidates. Issues are important but,

I believe that each and every person expressing an opinion, when following the lead of a supporter or opposer (e.g., "Oppose per..."), but especially an opposer, and especially where the substance of the opposition alleges (or infers, or begs the question) that a candidate's successful RfA will in some way harm Wikipedia or Wikipedians, should be satisfied that they are affirming the opinions and allegations expressed, and that they are not simply expressing sympathy for someone personally or making a generalized statement that they feel upholds noble principles or abhors vile ones.

I have stated often that a person is allowed, when opining on an RfA, to express support or opposition for any reason. Nor are persons required to explain their reasoning and their individual votes should never be considered a nullity; but there is a certain point where the RfA-judging community as a whole may be asked for more, and this is one of those cases. I will elaborate further shortly, but I want to post this so everyone knows that I am paying close attention to this. -- Cecropia 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

"I will also comment, since it is on topic, that one thing that I notice has changed in RfA over four years is that the estimation of a candidate's demeanor in responding to the community has lessened in significance while his or her views on issues has increased."

I think this is a natural response to the growth of wikipedia. In the beginning you knew who people were and how they'd behaved. Now we don't know who people are so we ask them questions on issues to see which "wiki-party" they belong to. I'd see this as one of the signs that RFA is broken, or is at least not behaving as originally intended. I would say that the real attribute we are looking for in an admin is temprement. How do we judge a candidates temprement without party politics getting in the way? Secretlondon 03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Stalking, which is a special kind of harassment (which in itself can be civilly or criminally actionable) is the pivot around which this RfA has been spinning. I ordinarily don't comment on the quality of social issues or Wikipedia policies brought up on RfAs but, as this is an extraordinary RfA and an ongoing issue, I will comment now, as I feel I have an understanding of what stalking and harassment means, on a personal level.

Stalking is one of those things that even a stalker would probably not want to defend. He or she would probably say it was terrible but deny that that is what they do; so I don't think it is especially useful to make bland statements of sympathy for those harassed or empty expressions of solidarity, though it would useful if civil authorities took it more seriously.

I am aware of the impact that harassment has on someone's life--let's call it what it is: in a mild form it is an annoyance, but much too often it is putting someone in fear. Fear doesn't have to be fear that someone is going to jump out of your closet or emerge from under your bed and murder you; it is enough to put someone in fear of being watched, observed, talked about in a hostile fashion, of having unknown others observing their personal details, of not being able to conduct their lives in simple enjoyment; of not knowing when and where someone will attempt to disturb their peace, their loved ones, their work.

I also have to make the often non-fashionable comment that women are especially sensitive to it. I grew up, and worked and played, in New York City for decades, and in an era when much of the city was a very threatening place, a situation that might seem novel to those recently arrived. As recently as 1990 there were some 2,200 murders in the city, and much more non-fatal danger.

I recall that some beggars used to hang out near subway change booths and "ask" for "spare change." But it was shown they especially targeted and "got in the face" of women, and smaller women in particular. There was opposition to forcing these people away from the booths (and there was a similar, but legally different issue with ATMs) but eventually it was understood that there was a right not to be intimidated.

On a more personal level, I once dated a woman who also worked nights, meaning that we were often out after midnight. One time we were chatting about walking in an area of the city (I forget if it was SoHo or the newly minted TriBeCa) and she stopped talking for a bit, and then said: "I resent that you can walk anywhere you want at night and I can't." I was taken aback and several issues went through my mind, including that a buddy of mine, bigger than I am (he was a good 6'4") was mugged just between his office and his car in the nearby parking lot. I also recall that this was a tall woman, slim but strongly built (she was a professional dancer), street-wise and with an affect that didn't suggest someone to be messed with. But these "facts" weren't important; because she was a woman out at night she felt targeted, threatened, and no, she wasn't paranoid.

But this is all just to illustrate that I think I understand the opposition sentiment, but the next question I will tackle is how this relates to this RfA and RfA in general -- Cecropia 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As I outlined at the beginning of this discussion, I believe that this RfA is in a position where it is neither reasonable nor even desirable to close with the usual "consensus--no consensus" conclusion. I had originally proposed that the RfA be reset and rerun according to terms I outlined, and asked for the assent or comment of the other bureaucrats currently active at RfA. I received the support, or at least the willingness to try it from Dan, Warofdreams and Redux, and Taxman. Raul654 would prefer a bureaucrat discussion, which we are having here. Nichalp would simply promote (see his reasoning above). We are having this discussion here because Gracenotes was not sure that he wanted to participate in what would effectively be a new RfA immediately; but now we need to come to a decision.

At this point I must refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LessHeard_vanU, which Nichalp closed as successful at (44/16/4) or 73% raw score. The RfA was within current guidelines and the bureaucrat acted in good faith (which should be assumed anyway, but the good faith is independently evident) and the promotion is valid. The RfA is notable, however, because it dealt with many of the same issues in a similar context as Gracenotes' RfA. So we can see with LessHeard that the bureaucrat used the discretion he is empowered to use, and the candidate earned the promotion, but the bureaucrat's decision did not address the problems underlying the RfA, so here we are again; and if we don't address the underlying issues of the way Gracenotes' RfA proceeded and we seek the comfort of closure, we will be visiting it yet again in the future.

Another reason for treating this RfA in a different manner and actively engaging the community to have them try to reach an observable resolution rather than leaning on the bureaucrats to decide one is the way that Gracenotes' RfA did not follow the pattern of some earlier ones. When opposition on the "stalking" issue came up, oppositions began to rise, but so did support, so that we ended up with another raw percentage of 73%, but the extraordinary raw count of (201/71/4). The very volume of this participation, in addition to all the other factors already mentioned, puts this a poor situation to draw a definitive conclusion based on consensus or even a preponderance of community sentiment.

So how do I propose we proceed? I have already laid out the principles of conduct to reopen the RfA clean. I proposed to Gracenotes how I felt he should present a coherent and unified statement addressing the concerns in the first part of the RfA and otherwise how he would comport himself as an admin. The old RfA will be included by reference except for the voting. Participants may post new questions to the candidate as usual. What would be different? I would ask for the following:

• Neither supporters nor opponents should make assertions about the candidate without providing an understandable rationale, with links as appropriate;
• Try to focus on the candidate: how he answers questions; how he engages the community; how he explains the way he would handle his adminship; how he would deal with the community if challenged; how he would respect the rules and precedents that the body of admins should adhere to;
• Be cautious about using this, or any RfA to debate Wikipedia policy rather than the fitness of the candidate;
• Own your support or opposition; if you want to "Support per" or "Oppose per" be sure you known exactly what you giving your agreement to. Do you have, or have you tried to obtain, any independent confirmation that the opinion you are expressing acquiescence to really represents an excellence or deficit of the candidate?
• Ordinarily I believe 'crats should distance themselves from RfAs but in this case I think it would be appropriate for 'crats to keep an eye on this one, and respectfully ask voters for clarification if they make an allegation in their opinions that supposes something about the candidate that isn't supported or evident in their opinion;
• I believe that, for all the heat, virtually all have been acting in good faith in the original RfA and, with a calmer start, there is no reason the community can't actually seek and obtain consensus among themselves, rather than have bureaucrats tell them what it should be.

Obviously we need Gracenotes' agreement to re-enter this fray as well as consensus among the bureaucrats that we can proceed this way. Test cases need a subject, in this little world of Wikipedia, even as in the big world of issues like Scopes or Plessy or Brown. Someone had to allow themselves to stand up so that we were debating about a real person instead of an abstract idea. If Gracenotes is willing, we can proceed. But I fully understand if he demurs--if so I propose that we close the RfA as "undetermined," as a stalemate. We can't seek to declare a consensus if we don't have the raw material to find it with clarity. What's the difference between "undetermined" and "no consensus"? No consensus is listed as a failure to achieve consensus, suggesting that the community spoke clearly. Undetermined would nullify the RfA and it would be preserved for historical purposes, not as either a decision or a precedent. -- Cecropia 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I also 'vote' rerun. I think our purpose is to decide *how* to do that. Secretlondon 07:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you look at the structure I suggested at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression and comment on or amend that? -- Cecropia 07:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am signing off for the night, See you tomorrow. -- Cecropia 07:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This bureaucrat chat has gone on rather a while and now seems to have stalled. I suggest that we should close the RfA soon, in whichever manner those bureaucrats who did not comment decide to close it. It appears to me that the most suggested option (Redux and Secretlondon) is "no consensus", with one call (Nichalp) to make Gracenotes an admin and one (Cecropia) that it should be closed with a statement that consensus cannot be determined.

Secondly, should it be decided that there is no consensus or that it cannot be determined, we should get more input from the community in establishing which measures, including discussion of the attack sites issue, and proposals for RfA, including those proposed by Cecropia, should be implemented in order to facilitate both this potential candidacy and others in future to run more smoothly. While many of Cecropia's proposals are excellent and will gain my support, I am concerned that discussion of them here is delaying the process and limiting the participation of the community as a whole, and those bureaucrats who have recused themselves from this discussion, in their consideration.

If this process is undertaken, once sufficient progress has been made in this direction that a clearer outcome in Gracenotes' RfA one way or the other appears possible, we should invite them to stand again. Warofdreams talk 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Can I put you down as agreeing with me that Bureaucrat Chat has severe limitations? ;-)

Since the nominee is unwilling to proceed at this time and has said that if he posts a new RfA in the future, it will be a self-nom, I am prepared to close this nomination as "withdrawn by candidate." Is that all right? -- Cecropia 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I will fully support this decision. Bureaucrat chat over an extended period seems to have been a failure; should we choose to use it again, I would like to see an approach similar to that used for Danny's RfA used, where all bureaucrats available around the closing time attempt to develop a consensus over a few hours. Warofdreams talk 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I have closed the nomination as withdrawn by bureaucrat upon candidate's desire to not continue the nomination to establish clear consensus. -- Cecropia 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply