The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (65/12/2) Ended 19:16, 2006-09-07 (UTC)

Ram-Man (also: RM, rambot, and commons:User:Ram-Man)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction: For those who are not aware, I've been around since September of 2002. I ran/run the infamous rambot (see the FAQ) which was responsible for adding (and currently maintaining) approximate 37,000 articles on Wikipedia on U.S. cities and counties. I've been heavily involved on Wikipedia off and on since that time.

As a User I have one of the largest edit counts on all of the Wikipedias, partially due to the rambot. It's hard to estimate the total, but it's a lot. I'm interested in all sorts of things and have worked on a number of areas: geographic articles (U.S. cities and states), botanical articles (plants and fish mostly), and lately Lancaster County covered bridges. I'm also heavily active on the commons uploading almost 300 photographs (See Photographs by Derek Ramsey) as well as image categorization.

As an Administrator I'm generally a very conservative administrator. While I've done a share of vandal blocking, deleting pages, etc, I tend to do it on a fairly limited basis, often for managing my own pages so I don't have to bother other administrators. I'm sure my record will speak for itself, so I won't say any more about that here. I don't get involved in many disputes involving administrators, so I don't think I have a tarnished record at all on that front.

As a Bureaucrat There is always talk about having too many bureaucrats, so let me start by answering the "Why should I be one?" question. First of all, unlike many other requests, my main request is to facilitate bot management. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, since this wouldn't affect my treatment of the rambot. My desire is to be on the approval group that manages bots and to add bot flags when the approval process is completed, to speed things up. Currently this does occur to a reasonable degree, but my experience with bots should help increase the speed of the entire process. As part of being a bureaucrat, I'd be more than willing to help out with the other parts of being one, just so long as it is understood what my main focus is for being one. If this is not sufficient reason for most people, I'll withdraw my request. Consider the recent problem at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Trial Period. While not technically the job of bureaucrat to approve bots, the whole thing could be done in one streamlined step rather than waiting hours or days until someone notices. Now since someone is bound to bring it up, I have no problem spending extra time on WP:RFA than I do now so I can participate in that task. However, I tend to agree that a Bureaucrat should remain impartial. If that means not voting because I might be involved in the promotion, then so be it. I desire what is best for the community, and hopefully most everything about my time here on Wikipedia should show that.

Details: There is a lot on the history of the rambot, but when it was first created, there was no bot flag and the bot filled up the recent changes. This caused immediate controversy. We worked around it (by going slow) until a technical solution was implemented some time later. The second (of many) controversies was over the fact that when I started adding articles there were a total of ~60,000 articles. I added 37,000, so the "Random Page" feature usually went to a mechanically generated page. It became a useless feature for most persons. Next, many persons thought the rambot articles shouldn't exist. However, to my knowledge, none have ever been deleted, but many have blossomed into great articles. There were many issues including lack of notability of small cities, the format of the articles, naming conventions, and discussions over using the various racial links. Despite many objections among many individuals, I helped work on numerous compromises until consensus was reached. In order to maintain good faith, I also wrote the Wikipedia:Bots policy article, which later became offical policy. This is part of the reason for being a bureaucrat dedicated to enabling bots.

I've also been involved in some other controversy on which I was on the wrong side of. I've taken a rule in licensing issues, pushing the multi-licensing campaign from meta to the english Wikipedia. It was for the most part a very successful campaign, although at times even Jimbo was afraid of my intentions (which were later clarified and resolved, especially when we met at a NYC meetup). However, one problem with the whole thing dealt with spam. I had posted large numbers of licensing requests to hundreds of talk pages. At the time, such a use was a grey area, but the bot was temporarily banned during the ensueing controversy. Although the blocking was questionable, I preferred to discuss it rather than demand it get unblocked. As a result, I got involved heavily in the formation of guideline Wikipedia:Spam. While not official, it's important to note the guideline of "Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away)." that got generated at that time. I became to realize the error of the method of doing what I did and never did it again. If I ever theoretically wanted to do it again, I'd seek solid permission first.

I've highlighted the controversies to show my behavior during the tough times. During other times I've been very productive, and my edits should speak for themselves. I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

Edit: I've also recently led one side of the controversy at Planet and talk:Planet over the demotion of Pluto. Despite many heated moments, a suitable compromise was reached after a few days of discussion.

Edit: It's become increasingly clear that as an admin, I don't use those powers very often. While I've always considered that to be self restraint, I don't think that impresses many of those visiting. In fact, it is probably so infrequent that I don't think I'll get much support here. It is apparently not sufficient to merely not abuse one's powers and to only use it in the course of one's normal editing when the powers are merited. I've always felt that I'd rather help be the solution than cause problems by making requests when they were needed (such as blocks or deletions). This was the reason for this request, because I wanted to fill what I thought was a gap to help make things more efficient. When I became an admin, I did a lot of vandalism patrol and I blocked a number of vandals (not sure where the logs of those are, since they are not in the current log. The same can be said about the "move" log, I know I've done more than that!). I was always frustrated with having to request an admin to intervene every time a block became necessary. Being an admin fixed that. I also thought I deleted more articles, but apparently not (only 12!). I understand the desire for a bureaucrat to have lots and lots of admin experience to prove to the community that he is suited for being a bureaucrat. I was under the misunderstanding that my other types of edits and especially my conduct as a normal user would be my strength instead. I was apparently mistaken. At this point, I think I'll just wait a little to withdraw my request until I can get a little more constructive criticism. That can't hurt. I will add this: the work I do is very time consuming. Running a bot, for instance, takes a lot of work. I'm still not done with the 29 articles on covered bridges I was working on. I don't have the time to dedicate to, say, vandalism patrol, while getting anything else done. So I try to take areas that I do work on and overlap responsibility. My admin actions demonstrate that. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm getting a bit of support now, so we'll see what happens. Oh, and just for kicks yesterday I did some administrative backlog work and deleted ~700 speedy-delete-ready images. So now I have a deletion history longer than "12" :) — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• See Ram-Man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool (Also for rambot and RM)
• List of Wikipedians by number of edits (Not valid for User:RM since this account has only been heavily used recently)

Current tally: (65/12/2)

Support

1. Support, looks like a sensible choice based on honest nomination. —Xyrael / 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nom. Michael 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support. Ram-Man is sensible, as his self-nom shows. The request is a sensible one: provide the user with the tools so he can streamline Bot-creation process. If he's willing help out with AFDs RFAs, more power to him: extra hands can always be used. This user's thousands of contributions to WP (he is far too modest: he is listed as the 12th highest editor to Wikipedia and RamBot is listed even higher) show strong dedication; a leave of absense is no bar to becoming a 'crat, nor should it be. User appears to have no civility issues, and by far surpasses my minimum requirements for number of edits and friendliness. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Er, you don't have to be a b'crat to close AfDs... did you mean RfAs? --W.marsh 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Heh. Sorry. Yes. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   About edit count: Many of the Ram-Man edit counts are actually from before the rambot account was created, so they represent bot entries. Of course before I used a bot I was doing the exact same thing manually. I had a text file with hundreds of entries, and I was cut and pasting into articles. I did that for *every* U.S. county article that didn't already exist. That's over 3,000 articles. The remaining 37,000 city articles were automated. The reason the edit count page lists bots separately is because people wanted to rank human edits against human edits. Not really possible with my account. But I've estimated that in total I've probably done at least somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 edits, but that's just a guess on my part. Of course I've never believed it was the edit count that mattered. It was things like participating in discussions, policy formation, good article writing, etc. — Ram-Man

   ^{() (talk)} 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support per above. :) Dlohcierekim 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no concerns over lack of RfA experience. Will be dealing w/ bots, not RfA. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support. i'm not sure why it is a problem to have a b'crat who is going to dedicate himself to one area of the b'cracy. How would that be harmful to the encyclopedia? --heah 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - a long time user with a very specific goals as an burecrat. Also lack of recent involvment in RFA is not the same thing as ignorrence, and his nomination says he plans on helping to approve bots instead anyhow... --T-rex 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. I'll go ahead and support, with the understanding that his primary competency will be bot management. I don't agree with the view that administrators, bureaucrats, or checkusers for that matter need to be involved in all aspects of their positions. The cardinal example is Lord Emsworth who, to my knowledge, never blocked anybody or deleted anything. His adminship was awarded in recognition of his brilliant accomplishments as an article writer and policy-maker. I wonder if he'd be opposed these days because he didn't use VandalProof or some other vandal-fighting gimmick. If there's a need for more help at bot approval then we've someone with the necessary experience offering to help. That seems fine to me. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Wants to help with bots. He has the experience. I see no problems here. Furthermore, insisting that all the crats meet some sort of magic involved in RfAs standard is a bit odd since he doesn't want to use the crat tool to work on RfAs anyways. JoshuaZ 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Moving to neutral. JoshuaZ 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Tony Sidaway 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Trustworthy and dedicated. Good rationale for bureaucratship (which most of the opposers seem to have ignored).[reply]

   No, I didn't ignore that at all, I suspect that actually you have ignored the fact that he has almost no recent experience with the WP:BOTS page, surely that is critical to the rationale of wanting to help out there. Martin 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Um, he wrote the WP:BOTS page... that has to count for something --T-rex 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really no, that was a long time ago. But regardless, I should have really said Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, the is the actual page in question, which I believe he has edited a single time. Martin 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   See some of my comments below. There really hasn't been any recent policy discussion at Bots, because it is a pretty good policy! It isn't the policy that needs work, it is the approval process. (Although I made some changes to the policy today). There *was* a recent reorganization of the approval process, but again this was done by someone on the approval group. My hands are really tied in this, as I am not on the approval group. All I can do is make a few comments here and there. If I pass this vote, I'll have enough consensus to appoint myself to the approval group (so far no one has objected!). It's frustrating because I'd LIKE to do more, but I don't want to do things that may be taken to be in bad faith (such as unilaterally appointing myself without ANY discussion) — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You don't have to be a b-crat to be on the bot approval group, I don't think anyone would oppose you being on it, I'm not sure if there are any particular criteria, though I guess being an admin and having experience making bot software is desirable, which suits you of course. The inital people in the group were just the ones most busy do bot-stuff at the time. Martin 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand the informality of the whole thing, and if I started approving bots and taking an active role, there is a good chance no one would complain or even notice (the latter being part of the problem!). But I'd rather establish explicit consensus, rather than implicit. I don't want to look bad or cause trouble, you have to understand. Obviously the bureaucrat request is not necessary for that task, but is supplemental, and in my opinion quite helpful. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support - more bot approval people are really needed. This user seems very trustworthy, and after 4 years and all those edits, if he doesn't understand much policy I don't know who would. —Mets501 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I like the cut of his jib. Arce 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support He has been honest and demonstrated his need for the tools. Absolute numbers of bureaucrats don't matter to me. This used is showing that he/she has a niche which can be nicely filled by promotion! InvictaHOG 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. You can never have too many b'crats. Has anyone ever complained because there are too many checkers at the grocery store? Good candidate, deserves the position. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I waited over 9 hours for my RfA to be officially closed by a crat. We can't have too many, and Ram-Man seems like an excellent choice. It goes without saying that we need more crats monitoring the bot situation. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support (switched from Neutral) per Mackensen, Mets501, AlphaChimp, et al. Newyorkbrad 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support (switched from oppose). The reason for my change of heart is this. This user is a great Wikipedian and his hard toil deserves some recognition. And I am of the opinion that you cannot have too many bureaucrats who were excellent admins. Morover, he will be dealing with bots, not RfAs. A trustworthy and dedicated user. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. I am also urging this user not to withdraw this nomination yet. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per above _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I try never to reason my opinion through another user, but RyanGerbil10 hit it right on the money hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Sure, why not? --Kbdank71 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, per the thread below. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - looks trustworthy. Bureaucratship for one task. I like it. Good luck! —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, per Celestianpower and many others above.-gadfium 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Automatically generated Support per the above and candidate's solid policy contributions and dedicated record. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Seems very dedicated and humble. -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Though I am tempted to oppose anyone who calls RF(A|B) a "vote" on principle... Great Wikipedian. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per his responses and all above -- Lost^(talk) 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Rambot was a ground-breaking piece of work and Ram-man took on board other editors reservations on it. Dlyons493 Talk 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Trustworthy. Maurreen 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I endorse his rationale for seeking the extra buttons. His work on bots is and will be valuable. Rama's arrow 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. No downsides. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Good rationale in his nom; clear reason for giving him the bit; and no reason that I can see to worry about misuse or mistakes. His lack of recent experience with the bot approval process doesn't worry me; someone who wrote the original policy, as I gather he did, and who has as much experience as Ram-Man at running a bot, is sufficiently qualified. Finally, I can see no problem with a bureaucrat who specializes in one area. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Solidly trustworthy. — Dan | talk 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support good nomination with clear reasons for his interest in the position. Obviously has the skills and knowledge to work in the areas he wants to work in, and specialization is good. I'm not actually too big a fan of the Rambot concept, but that's no criticism of its owner. Opabinia regalis 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support We need more bureaucrats.  Jorcoga  08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. support. »ctails!« =hello?= 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. An inactive bureaucrat will not harm Wikipedia, but managing bots will help it. --Gray Porpoise 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Sane long-time user, knows what should be done for bot approval. [ælfəks] 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I guess, longtime user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per candidate statement and comments. feydey 11:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Weak support per above. Weak because of the lack of recent participation in RfA and consensus activities, but I'm sure that the user will make good decisions on consensus regardless. Good candidate! DarthVader 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. ^BlankVerse 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support per Hoopydink. Yanksox 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Sensible nomination. Speeding up the bot process can only be good for the project. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support We certainly could use a b'crat experienced in bots to manage the bot flags. As long as Ram-Man is careful around consensus discussions, I don't see a problem.-- danntm ^T _C 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support seems to have a grasp on what percentage is needed to promote to adminship, unlike most of our current bureaucrats.  Grue  15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support I liked the response to optional Q7 below. Very honest, detailed answer. I feel he would be a good b’crat if he keeps this positive attitude, enthusiasm, and integrity. So, here is my trust. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Thumbelina 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Very solid contributor, good reasons for wanting to be a 'crat, no reason to oppose. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Well-reasoned and honest self-nom statement and excellent contributions suggest only one possible vote. FCYTravis 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. You argue cogently and clearly for the need, and your expertise, for another bureaucrat. You will not abuse the position. So how could I do anything other than support? Batmanand | Talk 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Ram-man's long history of participation in the project and understanding of the things that make us successful and unique are almost without peer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support cannot find a reason why not. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:09 (UTC)
55. Support trust user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support I don't think there is any downside to giving bureaucratship to this user, however there could be some upsides. This user signed up to Wikipedia 4 years ago and has seen its progress and how the progress came to be. I don't know why I wouldn't support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support older ≠ wiser 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support --Ixfd64 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support by what Nobleeagle, RyanGerbil and others have said. His experience is both needed now and will be needed with the continued growth of Wikipedia and the use of bots. I'd also trust him with RfAs; he doesn't seem too interested in Renames but Redux has been handling that well. I'll go for another 'crat. Teke ^(talk) 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - It's great that Ram-Man wants to help out with the bots, especially since he knows what it's about — he's been there, and done that. I see no reason why we shouldn't let him; this would be like allowing Albert Einstein to teach quantum physics. He is definitely the kind of experienced person who should be a bureaucrat. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support — The concerns below don't bother me. I would, however, like Ram-man to participate in RfA before he gets into closing them out. — Werdna talk criticism 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the comments here are already out of date. Since this has started, I've participated in various RFAs, including the more controversial than normal Carnildo case. -- RM 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62. Support. Wikipedia runs on volunteers, just because he doesn't have as much time to edit as people like me, who edit 14 hours a day, doesn't mean that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process to be a crat. Yes, active bureaucrats are good, but there's no requirement to be active, and a semi-active crat is helpful too. --Rory096 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Per previous comment.--Alabamaboy 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support- experienced user who needs the tools for a valid reason. Borisblue 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support per lots of people, especially myself. --Golbez 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Great editor, no doubt about it, but I think bureaucratship is for people who are active in the project side of thing, for example, looking at his last 500 wikipedia space edits, the last one was on 23-10-2002, I compared that to a few other randomly selected admins, and their's was generally July/August this year. Also, his admin log is very short as well, I would a b-crat to have lots of experience in blocks/deletion etc. Anyway, to summarise, great editor, bureaucratship not suitable in my opinion. Martin 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I've been heavily active using my User:RM account, so don't forget that one. I use them both from different physical locations for security reasons. I hope that isn't held against me! I was on a long wikivacation for the better part of this year due to health issues I'd care not discuss here. But since I've returned, I think the amount of editing speaks for itself. Also consider the amount of photographs added for addition here. Edit: Sorry, I missed the point of your comment. See my comments below regarding project space edits. I suppose I have a problem dedicating so much (read: all) of my time on the project side of things, because I actually like contributing. I was unaware that I had to spend such a large percentage of my time doing admin activities to qualify for bureaucratship. If that is the case, I should just withdraw now. Afterall, the admin responsibilities don't generally have anything to do with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. From a project perspective, I'd just like to get more be increasingly more involved in the whole bot process, and a bureaucrat is part of that process. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. (neutral) Leaning to opposeOppose. You don't seem to my memory to have been involved in RfA to any significant extent in the year or so that I've been around. Current knowledge and a current feel for things and how they change is essential. I'd appreciate some persuasion on this point. I know you say your main focus would be bots, but RfA/B promises don't usually last all that long. Moreover, from my limited interaction at the (somewhat deficient) RFBots page, you don't seem to be 'around' there much, either... -Splash - tk 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose that's because I was "gone" for a while and only recently became heavily active again. (For a while I did little editing, but still patrolled from time to time. I just couldn't totally leave) Like I mentioned in my comments, I do patrol the page periodically, although I don't always vote. My voting has been sporadic, to be sure, but I like to stay informed of the latest goings-ons, which is exactly the reason I read RfA. Now perhaps before your memory, I posted to this page some unknown number of times. I'd have to look at the history, which I didn't even attempt to do. I'm not sure how to be otherwise persuasive. Perhaps I shall give this some thought and add more later, and maybe other questions will bring out what you want to know. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   My concern is not so much the sporadicity, as the non-existence. I can't find a single !vote here at RfA in the past year or more, and your activity on WP:BOTS (whatever!) began a few hours ago. I imagine you did post here before, but 'crats really need to be very current. I'm afraid that coupled with inactivity as an admin, inactivity in the key areas of project space (and project space in general) is too much of a disqualification for me. Your reading of the situation in your answers does seem about right, but it really needs to have had time to 'seep in' through extended participation in the relevant happenings. E.g. in 4-6 months or something. -Splash - tk 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Naturally I imagined you'd feel that way. Still if I might make one last attempt. I've had plenty of past experience, which is suppose doesn't matter in this case. For what its worth, I have a lot of project level articles in my watchlist, which I patrol for changes all the time (Like Bots, Spam, and the Geographic project articles). I suppose perhaps I'm not involved in the right projects, whatever those might be. I try follow major controversies, such as Angela leaving the board and the ensueing difficultly with whether or not such articles should be deleted. In addition, I dove right into a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states affecting all 50 states when I had something important to add. But of course nothing can change the fact that I was on wikivacation (partially for health reasons), and if you simply require more time because of that, well then no argument will change that. Again, my philosophy as an admin is rather conservative in nature. There are a lot of admins and I don't want to overuse my abilities. As for the timing, the responsibilities of an admin have not changed. So when I have acted as one should not be as important as perhaps the other concerns. I mostly use the "delete page" ability over anything else. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I may have made some stupid blunder, but your deletion log says you have only ever deleted 12 articles? Martin 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I know I'm conservative, but I didn't think it was that low. Perhaps I'm more inactive in deletions than I thought. Such is life I suppose. I can tell this isn't going to last long! — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per Splash. I have nothing but great respect for all Ram-Man has done, but some experience with recent RfA is absolutely necessary for a b'crat. Added to this, I really thought Ram-Man was retired from the project for a year or two. I remember seeing his name on the Inactive Admin list up until recently. Xoloz 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I've already addressed the issue of being away, but it is true that for some reason I was put on an inactive list or two. Perhaps I'm still on some list I don't know about (can't manage everything!). I've never been totally inactive, always an edit here and there. But not retired for sure! I do have a habit of disappearing for a while though. Unlike a lot of people, I don't actually LIVE on wikipedia (I just rent). — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak Oppose Experience with RfAs are essential here. Try again in about six months with lots of experience in RfA pages and I will definitely give you my support. But other than this, there are no major concerns here and I am confident that Ram-Man would be a great bureaucrat in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Switch to support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per Siva Needs to put those admin powers to greater use before becoming a 'crat. The mess at fairuse images, IfD, etc needs work. :) Dlohcierekim 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Switch to support. :) Dlohcierekim 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. Good user, long established history, but I feel the approach is backwards in this case. If you want to be helpful in encouraging the creation, approval, and oversight of new bots, then go be helpful. You seem to have almost no recent involvement in the bot process. Even your alter-ego, rambot has not made any substantive edits in nearly two years. I don't think we should be in the business of giving out privledges on the basis of work that someone wants to do, unless they have shown themselves to be actively engaged in the related areas that don't require privledges. Get engaged in the bot community again, and I'll reconsider in the future, but it is too soon for this, in my opinion. As an aside, if one of the active members of the current approvals groups would like to run on the same rationale, I am likely to support that. Dragons flight 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm unlikely to sway you, but by the time this vote is over, I'm sure that I will be reintegrated sufficiently, as I am already working towards. Most of the lack of reintegration is due to the slowness of the process itself. The reasons the rambot was not running were numerous:

   • It is a *lot* of work to run the bot. The last time I was planning to run the bot I was awaiting approval for a couple tasks, which never happened. Also, because of the server load imposed by so many edits, I tend to batch as many tasks as possible. There simply weren't enough major tasks to justify the load. But that can't be said anymore. I have plenty of outstanding tasks, and it's time to restart the process. But it can take days just to set up the bot, and then it has to be run manually for a while and with constant supervision. 40,000 articles is a lot and it will usually take at least a week. I have to find time in my schedule to fit such a task in. That means figuring out where it fits into real life. In addition to all of this, I have to have a working copy of MySQL and hard drive room for all the data that is used in maintaining these things. I've only recently upgraded my ailing computer (corresponding with an increase in activity here as well), but have not yet had the chance to complete installation of my local tools, although that shouldn't take as long as the other issues. One doesn't just run the rambot every day. I mean, as soon as the 2010 census results are released, I'm scheduled to run another update.
   • The rambot is currently broken. I've posted a message on the Village pump (technical) about this issue, which has yet to be resolved. Until that is resolved, I will probably wait, to be safe.
   • While the rambot is "approved" in the sense that it was approved two years ago, as a matter of good faith, I want to get it officially approved again before running it. The approvals group has so far had nothing to say on the issue. So again, wait wait wait.
   • I also was gone on wikivacation for a while for a number of reason

   Of course I've also mentioned that I can only help others fully if on the approval group, which I'm not. It's going to take some time to work that out (more waiting). But in the meantime, I am quite active. Take a look at my recent posts there, and I think you'll find that I'm being as constructive and useful as I can, given the circumstances. The reason, as I understand, that User:Titoxd changed his vote to support was because he read my recent work and comments regarding WP:RFBOT. -- RM 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per Splash. We already have a lot of BCrats that either never or very rarely do much. I fear that might be the case here. Also, I can't remember any recent RfA participation by this user.Voice-of-All 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to clarify: You're not opposing because *other* bureaucrats don't do much are you? That would seem to indicate the need for *more*, not less. And the RfA issue has been discussed heavily. The basic premiss here is that there isn't a problem with a "specialist bureaucrat", in this case focusing on bot management. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   My problem is that I am not convinced that your activity will have the kind of intensity and consistency I am looking for (like Taxman, Essjay). 5 bureaucrats could easily handle all such tasks, it really only takes a few active ones. The problem is that while you have made many contributions here, you have only a handfull of RfA involvement, little recent bot request activity, and I am not convinced that you will necessary bump one of those up and keep it that way rather then add to the large list of inactive BCrats in short time. The main things I want to see in future BCrats is thoughfulness, more descretion (like Danny), activity, and preferably IRC involvment and well-roundedness to the new tasks (only three).Voice-of-All 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ironically, User:Essjay has been inactive for the most part for most of August. And it does seem that Taxman is doing a great job at handling admin promotions. I think that I've demonstrated much thoughfulness, descretion, and activity. If you've looked over my activities, this should be quite clear. But my activities, admin or otherwise, are usually NOT in the AfD area, although I don't see how it's difficult to vote. I've done so today, and there wasn't anything special to it. I don't use the IRC. I prefer to do all Wikipedia activity here and nowhere else. IRC should hardly be a requirement of service. And I can't affect the behavior of other bureaucrats, so I can't really address that issue. I can only speak for myself. I have a question, should bureaucrats be active in all of the administrator tasks too? Who decides which tasks a bureacrat or administrator should do? It is hardly reasonable to expect either party to do everything. There is plenty of work to go around. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   There are only three new tools that crats get, sysoping and bot flagging being the most important. I'd like for a "crats" to have activity in both of those, and enough work with renaming between the crats that it gets done reliably. Essjay is known to leave for several days and then come back as normal, so that doesn't bother me, as I expect him to be back in "full force". As for IRC, its not an absolute requirement, its a preference, a consideration. Its much easier to communicate with such users. As for experience and commitment, my reasons for opposing are pretty much the same as Dragon's Flight. I'd rather have a user more involved in RfA and recent bot approval get the position, rather that one who promoses to become active there.Voice-of-All 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Reluctant oppose. Ram-Man is a great user, and I'd love to be able to support him. However, I don't feel comfortable giving the power of closing RFAs to a user who doesn't participate in RFAs, doesn't close AFDs or anything else where consensus has to be determined, and basically is just not active as an admin. If he were asking only to approve bots I might have a different opinion but, for now, I think I'd be happiest if he joined the bot approval committee, increased his adminship duties, and came back to RFB in 6 months. --kingboyk 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate your comments, and this seems to be where most of the opposition is coming from. I will most certainly try to take a more active role in the bot approval process. As for AfD, obviously I'll have to do that if I want this oppose votes to go away ;-) I should note that I've been involved in building and determining consensus on numerous policy issues, but you probably know that. Honestly though, if it were technically possible to only have permission to set bot flags, I would do that. Also, if I am appointed bureaucrat (this has been pretty close, so we'll see), I can easily choose to not use those powers under the condition that I gain more experience with RfAs and AfDs first. Of course I think half of the oppose group opposes because they don't want me to use promotion power (not enough experience) and the other half opposes because they do want me to use it but think I won't (enough experience, not enough time and/or desire). -- RM 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess i just fail to see how making RM a crat could harm the encyclopedia. The worst possible outcome of making RM a crat is the encyclopedia isn't improved. Odds are, it will help in the day-to-day functioning of the encyclopedia, with no bad outcome foreseeable. The only risk is that this encyclopedia doesn't improve, which, imho, is not something that outweighs the possible benefits. --heah 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I have a partial answer to that question. What some people are afraid of is that I would close a RfA and make a bad decision on consensus because of lack of experience in that area. And frankly, if I were to just jump in and do that immediately after being appointed without first taking an active role in the process, than their concerns would likely be justified. They don't want mistakes, and I appreciate their concerns. But I also agree with you, otherwise I wouldn't have put the request in. It is at least partially a matter of trust. -- RM 19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per the person directly above. Computerjoe's talk 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, sorry but pretty much what kingboyk said. You can be part of the approvals group without being a bureaucrat.--Andeh 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Per above. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per all above. Bubba ditto 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose I vaccilated on this one for the longest time, but in the end there were too many question marks for a bureaucartship request. The support voters provide lots of good testimony why your dedicated work merits reward, but the rewards we hand out here are barnstars, not promotion. The oppose side wins on substance, namely that if you want bureaucratship because there is a backlog in bureaucrat-only work, the path to get there is to do the ancillary work first. I don't see any roadblocks to you becoming member of the bot approval group, but I don't see the current need to become bureaucrat. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak Oppose Agree with the consensus of the other members who oppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrown23334 (talk • contribs)

Neutral

Neutral. Subject to input from the "bot-user community," the candidate appears qualified for the 'bot portion of the Bureaucrat position, but is admittedly not experienced in the RfA and other aspects. The project has made a decision that an administrator candidate should be qualified to perform all administrator tasks ranging from XfD's to vandalism rollbacks to dealing with user-conduct issues, and that knowledge prerequisite to some but not all of these functions is insufficient (even if the result is that we occasionally fail to promote someone who would be a good "specialist" admin). Whether the same principle should be applied to 'crats is unclear to me as is whether there has ever been a good discussion of the issue. One thing is clear though: this nomination is being totally overlooked by being at the bottom of the RfA page in a section to which few users scroll down (presumably many people just look for the new RfA's at the top). Newyorkbrad 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Switched to support, see above Newyorkbrad 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found any discussion on whether someone needed to qualify for all of the tasks, which is why I mentioned only one task in particular. If it were possible to ONLY assign that ability, that would be ideal, which of course is the main issue here. I most certainly won't win this vote, but it should be a good learning experience, and maybe this very issue will be determined more clearly. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (See above), leaning towards support. While you are certainly qualified to handle bot requests, I'd say that you unfortunately did things in the wrong order. Instead of requesting the bureaucrat bit to go into WP:RFBOT to do things, I would say that you should spend a bit of time there, then come here to request the added privileges, as you should get the hang of things around there a little. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing both simultaneously. The problem is that no one in the approvals group is monitoring the bot page, so by spending time there, I am effectively doing nothing. Either that or I could just approve myself, and although being bold is important, I'd rather do things "officially" so no one questions me. But more people are slowly realizing the problems. At the moment, there is nothing that I can offically do at RFBOT. It's just frustrating when the people "in charge" are not paying attention. It isn't a problem with them personally, but it just indicates the need for more people involved in the process. If I were a bureaucrat running on these current terms, then I would have enough consensus (here) to self-appoint myself to the bot approvals group. My hands are otherwise tied here. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you need to be a bureaucrat to get into the bot approvals group, as there are several users there (xaosflux and Rob Church, off the top of my head) that are not bureaucrats (or even necessarily admins). I do agree that the procedure to get into that group is not easy to find, and I'm unsure it is even documented. However, if a bureaucrat or two stop paying attention to bot requests for whatever reason (real life happens), it would cause a bit of trouble, so I'm considering my stand here. Titoxd^(?!?) 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about it: You don't have to be a bureaucrat to help with bots. And we have Essjay, one great bureaucrat helping, but he isn't always around. I'm just volunteering to join those ranks. -- RM

Indeed. My comment was more specific, though: you don't need to be a member of Special:Listusers/bureaucrat to be a member of the bot approvals group. At the same time, the procedure to become a member of that group is not found anywhere. Lately, there haven't been many bots approved, as Essjay has been a bit inactive as of late (he said he won't have as much time this semester, due to his work), so even if you become a member of the approvals group, you still need a bureaucrat to press the Special:Makebot button—that's currently a single point of failure, and redundancy always is good. Additionally, since bot flag granting is easily reversible now, there is less of a risk these days than before, in case you do mess up something. The only thing I needed for support was an assurance of having an idea how WP:RFBOT works currently, and you seem to have it now. So, I'm switching to support. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you were saying. Being a member of the approvals group is a separate thing from being able to push a button to make a bot (i.e. bureaucrat). I desire both functions, since they are complementary. -- RM 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Switching to Neutral per Dragon Flight's oppose comment. JoshuaZ 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral per the above concerns regarding your past involvement in consensus-based activities. I see nothing wrong with what you've done, and I realise that your proposed activity would indeed be valuable, but I'd be far more comfortable if you'd had more experience in AfDs and RfAs previously. This RfB currently looks like it will succeed, and I will consider changing my !vote closer to the ending date, but please make an effort to increase your involvement in those areas in the future. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   It looks like it *might* succeed anyway. It's right on the line. In any case, increasing my involvement in AfDs and RfAs is quite a reasonable request. I'll see what I can do in the meantime! -- RM 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Right on which line? Are you familiar with where the thresholds are for an RfB? Hey, wait, this is important. Do you know how RfB works, since you'd have the ability to act on its outcomes? -Splash - tk 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   When the standard for bureaucrat nomination was voted on, the ~80-85% group succeeded. However, I would hardly have called it a consensus. Most people at least wanted MORE than was required by an administrator. So while I may *technically* be above 80% in this vote from time to time, no one has ever been promoted (in my memory) with less than 85%, and the wide majority have greater than 90%. So while the 80%-85% group may have "won" the vote narrowly, the > 85% seems to be the defacto standard. Some people don't want to promote a bureaucrat with less than 85% (or even less than 90%, although that has happened). I got blasted above because I used the term "vote" to describe these types of elections, and I wanted to clarify that it's about consensus, not the amount of votes. -- RM 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I wanted to add a couple thoughts. First of all, having limited experience with RfA, I would not even consider attempting to close a RfB for quite some time. I'm pretty sure that most people here do not even want me to close an RfA for quite some time, if at all. There are relatively very few RfB and of those even less that get anywhere near success. As a result there is little need for me to get involved in such things anytime in the near future, and I think everyone can agree on that. For anyone who has read any of the comments during this RfB, there are no surprises here. This whole request hinges on the question: "Can a bureaucrat specialize?" There are many who are comfortable with this, and many who are not. This is uncharted territory, but I suppose eventually the issue had to be addressed. But I admit that I don't know if I have enough experience to properly close an RfB. If I was *asked* to, then I probably would, but probably not otherwise until I gain more experience. This is what I've gathered from this discussion what the community would desire anyway (either way, if appointed bureaucrat or not) (re: RfA and AfD experience). -- RM 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can you explain why you didn't properly transclude your nomination [1]? This suggests you might not be familiar with how this page works, a necessary pre-requisite for being a bureaucrat. Petros471 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I apologize for that, but after writing up the page, it was the last thing on my mind. It did occur to me, but it was fixed so quickly that I didn't even have a chance. It was a careless mistake. But I do understand transclusion and its use in votes like this. I just used it over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval a short while ago. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah kinda sad... here we see all too graphically the Wikipedia of 2004 getting mugged by Wikipedia 2006. Ram-Man, RfB has become such a daunting passage that only a handful of current editors could ever hope to navigate it... you almost got opposed just because you didnd't transclude the nom properly, for example. It's a different beast here nowadays. The community seems to require near-perfection to promote a new b'crat... sad but true. --W.marsh 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And it's positively going to get worse I'm sure. You have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to become a bureacrat! It is so strange. I wasn't here at the very beginning of the project, but the ~40,000 articles that existed when I started seems like nothing now. I probably got voted into admin by less than 20 votes. Still, eventually the community will realise there is a need for more and they will make more. The other bureaucrat that does bot work heavily is Essjay, who does both bot approvals and sets bot flags. But there is currently a backlog. I can't get put on the bot approval board OR become a bureaucrat to assign bot flags because even Essjay isn't around to help out with this one. So we (myself and at least two bots waiting for official approval) just sit and wait. I was hoping that this discussion might help bring out some people to help, but since this is at the bottom of the page, few people even notice it anyway. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will post on the talk page to see if I can draw some more user attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well I won't vote oppose because you're clearly a trusted and dedicated Wikipedian. But you're asking to be a bureaucrat primarily to promote bots. The actual amount of work needed there is extremely small, as in a little over 4 months, only a little less than 50 bot promotions have been done. In this case the actual promotion of the bot once it's been approved is a trivial task. Where the work is really needed is on the approvals side, either in giving the approval or investigating the bot proposal to see if it is sound. What I really would have liked to have seen was more participation in the requests for bot process before you made this nomination. You've mentioned you don't see what you could have done, but deciding if the bot request is valid and noting that until people became aware of your skill in that area would be a great start. You could have also found out how to join the approvals group before nominating here. All that said again, you're a trusted, long time Wikipedian and that's probably more important. - Taxman ^Talk 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I was a little more dramatic than I should have been. Since I wrote those comments, I've been helping to get some bots approved by going through the initial approval process and helping to determine whether or not the request is acceptable. I can't officially approve any of them, but it helps. As for approvals group. There *is* no established policy for adding members, so we're having an interim election at the moment. It ends on Sept. 9. After adding new members, we'll clear any backlog and work from there. The backlog will likely include making a couple bot flags. But I believe that most of my supporters would be confortable with me closing some AfDs or RfAs, and chances are that I probably will to help out as best I can. But I surely wouldn't rush into it to clear any backlog, but ease into the role carefully. -- RM 13:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I've read over the debates and discussions over promotions. The criteria as currently understood is that anything less than 75% will probably not be promoted, anything 85% or more will probably be promoted, and anything in between will probably involve much additional discussion, particularly amongst bureaucrats who will make the final decision. Of course the whole thing is not supposed to be a democracy but a matter of consensus, so no matter the vote count, there will always be some level of subjectiveness. Plus new issues and facts can arrive about a candidate in the middle of voting, requiring special intervention.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Potential criticism is no reason to not make a decision about something, only an indication to tread lightly, which is what I would try to do. In the nature of full disclosure, usage of the rambot in the past has caused all sorts of criticism, debate, and policy formation (See: Wikipedia:Bots, Wikipedia:Spam, and a number of geographic Wikipedia:Wikiprojects). Some was justified, most wasn't, but all was dealt with in a civil fashion. My personal policy tends to be to not decide anything unilaterally where there is controversy. I would require confirmation by at least another bureaucrat before making any controversial decision.

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I've been around for a long time (September, 2002), so I tend to understand a lot of policy, although one can't hope to be aware of every fine, sometimes contradictory, detail. I've engaged members of the community in discussions too many times to count. And I'd be shocked if I wasn't considered fair.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Of course. I never use any other forum anyway, so this isn't even an issue. I don't discuss Wikipedia issues in email and I don't use IRC (though I did for a short time in the past).

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

A. Since the creation of the page, I've often stopped by to at least see who was being promoted or depromoted. Sometimes I do this to keep a pulse on the Wikipedia community. I don't always vote, especially on persons who have 75 support votes and 0 oppose votes.

6.. If you become a bureaucrat, how will you keep your feet still on the ground with us mortals?

A I missed this question at the bottom of the page when it was posted! I'm not sure I exactly understand the nature of this question. Are you asking whether or not I will let power go to my head? I don't even want all the powers associated with being a bureaucrat, although if I have them all I will probably use them from time to time to help the community. Are you asking whether or not I will think I am better than "normal" people? Hardly. As far as I know, I've only ever helped write one featured article (Schizophrenia). Lord Emsworth has 58. I've never received a barnstar, although the rambot has one. My point is that there are plenty of non-bureaucrats who deserve a lot more praise. But praise isn't the point. Finally, I'll keep my feet on the ground by working on normal articles. Policy and administrative activities are great, but they don't add or update articles. — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. (Optional question). Are there any recent promotion decisions you would have made differently? If so, what are your main differences of emphasis? Stephen B Streater 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A I'm a strong believer in consensus and will tend to defer to the majority. As such, even if I voted on the losing side, I would support a controversial promotion decision. As far as I'm concerned, any serious decision making problem would need to result in potential demotion. To get to the point of being able to make a promotion, controversial or not, implies a level of community consensus that I have no intention of subverting. As has been stated on this page already, my influence on the promotion aspect is somewhat limited, so I really can't add any more. See some of that discussion above. Update: The recent controversy surrounding Carnildo has put this very question to the test. At first I was inclined to trust the bureaucrat, and in fact am still leaning that direction, despite voting opposite of the decision. Nevertheless, my opinion could change with futher discussion, especially since I'm not sure that this was consensus (see my "definition" of consensus below). — Ram-Man ^{() (talk)} 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A2 I think that this question deals with consensus, and although I suspect some will not read what is down here at the bottom of the page, but I'd like to give a complicated example of determining consensus, since that seems to be where the problem is. Splash asked me about the standards for promotion to a bureaucrat. I'll recite the standard vote. Let's go over the results. The "80-85%" group had the plurality of the vote. The majority (if you want to call it that) went to the "75-85%" group, followed by the "80-90%" group in second. (Oh, and the "75-95%" also had a majority). Now, it is true that most people wanted an increase in some fashion or another, there was no real agreement. And in terms of a controversial decision, I don't believe that someone who wants "80-85%" necessarily would be happy with a standard of "85-90%", otherwise they might have voted for that one! So even to say that there was a consensus of an increase in standard is deceptive, I think. And yet, the 80-85% group was accepted, not as I believe on the basis of consensus, but on a misunderstanding of consensus. The lack of consensus should have followed tradition and kept the status quo at "75-80%" (even though I would have personally voted for the "80-85%" group). Now that was a while ago and the consensus view has likely changed significantly such that the previous vote would not be repeated. So there you go, I'm going out on a limb here to say that I disagree with that decision on consensus. I believe that any other conclusion in that case results in a compromise not consensus, an important distinction. Now astute among us will realize that the wide majority wanted an increase of some sort and the assumption was made that an increase of 5% would be acceptable for someone who wanted a 10%, 15%, or a unanimous standard increase. And it is this assumption that justified the change. However, whether or not this assumption is true was not made clear. Perhaps those people who wanted the higher standard would have voted for "all or nothing", in hopes that discussion would ensue and more people would be brought over to that side of the table. In at least one case, one of the voters mentioned a "minimum requirement level", which wouldn't have accepted the 80-85% group. Such users would not have theoretically been happy with the permanence of the new standard. -- RM 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue troubles me about the whole thing is how can consensus be different for admins and bureaucrats? Isn't full consensus required for both? It seems illogical to me to say that the definition of consensus is dependent on what is being determined (I don't have time to see if I can find a logical fallacy that fits, perhaps someone else knows off-hand). It seems more of a practical determination based on the number of votes, rather than the amount of consensus. A lot of my supporters and opposers are concerned that I do not understand consensus enough to close a vote, but I think that consensus is very nuanced and I don't know if anyone here understands consensus. I think if anything I understand the intricacies of trying to determine consensus. It isn't always easy, and it's very subjective at times. Voting and compromise are about trying to come up with an adequate solution that perhaps most people can agree with. Consensus is about trying to make EVERYONE happy, if possible. The latter is much more difficult. -- RM 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.