Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/SilkTork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question Limit[edit]

As it usually gets asked, no there is not a "question limit" on RFB's, but be reasonable. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: You mean, a limit per person? ——SN54129 12:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: yes. While RfA's have a 2 question per person limit, RfB's are unbounded. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, are RfBs subject to early closure per WP:SNOW? I feel like we will get to 200 supports in less than a day or two with SilkTork. Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as WP:SNOW relates to deletions, I'm going to say no, but nonetheless, this nomination should have easy passage. Doug Mehus T·C 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: RfA's and RfB's are not subject to "Speedy Success" closures, there are speedy closure options for unsuccessful nominations. — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting reflection, perhaps, of the presumption (probably deserved) that RfBs won't be/are not trolled or disrupted to the degree that RfAs are? (See current WP:BN for example—and it's only a few votes in!) ——SN54129 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, yeah, I suspect having gone through one ritual hazing that is RfA, most administrators know well where they stand with their peers and know the likelihood of their passing an RfB, thus there are (usually) less instances of significant opposition to RfBs. The current group of crats we have are of a very high calibre in terms of their independence, objectivity, knowledge, and experience. Some of the current crats I don't recognize (due to their inactivity). I hadn't thought that Stewards can do most of the work of the crats, but I still think it's a necessary role. In fact, with some of the recent ArbCom decisions, let's just say...the respect the crats command is well deserved. Doug Mehus T·C 14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky caldron's oppose[edit]

  1. Per my own and unique interpretation of WP:NOTBURO. There is no obvious, compelling or persuasive need to create more people in a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring. Looks ever so slightly like a hat collecting opportunity, but hey, who am I to say. I've only been here 14 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only had a few encounters with Leaky caldron, but I can assure you that "hat collecting," as you put it, is literally the furthest from possible reality. SilkTork doesn't seek out gratification gestures or gratitude in any way. Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find that my comment is generalised. See the other RfB. I said it was an HC "opportunity" - not that the particular candidate had that objective in mind. And even if they did - HC is not always pejorative, is it? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If not used pejoratively, why oppose then? In other words, whats your reason for opposing? Doug Mehus T·C 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given that plainly and clearly. I won't repeat it. Do NOT turn this into a badgering oppose, I don't agree with them. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: It's a reasonable claim to make that the Wikipedia community does not need more crats, and that therefore any attempt to request the right is "hat collecting" regardless of intention. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, True, and I wasn't trying to challenge that part of Leaky caldron's oppose—that English Wikipedia doesn't need anymore bureaucrats beyond crat chats; only that SilkTork isn't in the business of "hat collecting." That's all. Whether we have enough bureaucrats, I'm not sure; we may, but if the last crat chat showed us anything, we have a number of inactive bureaucrats. I assume inactivity notices are in the process of being drafted, but, not with respect to this RfB, do you think we need to refine the activity requirements for bureaucrats? Doug Mehus T·C 22:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconsistent. You doubled down when I explained my take on hat collecting not necessarily being pejorative, demanding that I give my reasons for opposing. Seemed like a challenge to me. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus:, with respect, I recall someone recently nudged you to resist the urge to address each comment someone makes. I think that remains solid advice as you begin racking up posts just hours into the discussion. By all means chime in with any new insight you have to offer, but your case has been made on this particular issue, and it's been my experience that seeking the final word on Wikipedia is an exercise in futility. Respectfully, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I will have no further contributions to the discussions beyond any future potential !votes. Doug Mehus T·C 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People's reasons for opposing[edit]

I see several people opposing, not because of anything to do with SilkTork, but simply because they don't think there should be any more bureaucrats. Some seem to imply that there should not be bureaucrats at all. Am I the only one who thinks this is an invalid reason for opposing a nomination? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think broader considerations, which are unrelated to the candidate themselves, ought to be invalidated. As I qualified in my support preference, I, too, am not convinced there's a need for any further bureaucrats — some editors may exhibit a position that is more firm in that regard by choosing to be neutral (which I, myself, debated), or even actually opposing. I see nothing that invalidates adopting that position, even if it does not address the candidate, specifically. A protest against contributing to a flaw in the system seems perfectly sensible to me, regardless of my own (mild) agnosticism in that regard. El_C 19:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The UK needs 20,000 more police officers. It doesn't need 5,000 of them to be senior ranks. My oppose is entirely valid. What would you like to do, strike it? A bit draconian considering what usually passes for !votes. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I was just wondering if anyone else shared my feeling. Apparently not. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I share that feeling. This is not a referendum on whether we should have bureaucrats, or how many we should have. I believe that opposes that cite such a reason should be at least partially discounted. - MrX 🖋 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe every !vote without a justification should be discounted. RFA/B are supposed to be discussions. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The police analogy is flawed. The UK needs 20,000 more police officers, but would anyone object to having 200,000 (except maybe hardened criminals?) The reason the latter figure is not realistic is that public funds cannot accommodate that many. A similar, and flawed, analogy is that my local McDonalds may need three new restaurant staff, but once those positions are filled, there is no rationale for spending any more of the budget on personnel. By contrast, the WMF does not pay bureaucrats, so there is no cost to having additional ones. So it does not hurt to have as many qualified ones as we can, provided there is a consensus that they can be trusted. Regarding, "I believe every !vote without a justification should be discounted.", that suggests we should have more crats so they can be around to clerk this sort of stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...would anyone object to having 200,000? Well, we hve an article on that :D ——SN54129 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crime won't crack itself.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in your deeply philosophical options on UK policing or McDonalds. What I object to, as ever where you and I are concerned, is that you always have a ready put down for any assertion I make that you simply don't like. I remember that most recent where you compared your more significant article editing and the work you do here compared to mine. My analogy is perfectly apt. 2 or 3 (probably excellent) admins are going to be "promoted". Who's to say that it is not highly probably that they will reduce / cease their Admin. work? What have we gained when that happens? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know there were deeply philosophical options at McDonalds and I would like to hear more about that. :-) Also, I share Mel's feeling: I don't think such a vote rationale should be struck, of course, but I find, "we don't need any more" to be very unpersuasive as a reason not to give someone tools or permissions. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion in reply to Maile66's oppose !vote[edit]

Maile66 only one Featured Article? Just pointing out that we have lots of arbs with none (indeed, not even a GA). And not all FAs are cut from the same cloth; in many cases, one FA is harder to write and maintain than 50 cookie cutter (FA) articles. And you may not realize that SilkTork was actively involved in mediation before he was an arb, so the "hands-on" experience part is down, along with real content creation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did not know that. But I still think Wehwalt brings up a valid point. What is it Bureaucracts do, that we need more of them? — Maile (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a different point. Best regards, :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not need them? Have we got enough crats? Is it a good idea to bring new blood into a team, or will just having the same old guard around for years, if not decades, suffice? Incidentally, I never thought I would see the day where somebody would get opposed on content for writing an FA (not even GregJackP demands that) - I brought up the GA reviews in my support because I have found SilkTork goes the extra mile in those reviews, doing some helpful copyediting and trying to find better images. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that adding more 'crats may not change the current dynamic; admins tend to support admins (which is why ANI threads on admin conduct don't tend to go anywhere, and we have ended up times three at ArbCom); some admins being nominated at RFB will continue to sysop the marginal cases. I do see the other nominee as following in that vein; I don't see SilkTork that way. We need new blood who will respect opposes and value non-admin feedback more than old blood seems to.
Also, I suspect that Maile66's reference to only one FA has to do with a recent trend towards some writers having dozens or more (a trend I lament in some cases, as it has to do with current FAC standards and a concern about quid pro quo reviews taking hold). Maile66 is possibly not aware that an FA that requires monthly to yearly updates, and is widely edited by Randy from Boise is quite different from a static, rarely viewed or edited FA that requires little further maintenance. Only one FA is quite good enough for me, and would that all RFA candidates had even that! One reason I found Maile66's statement so surprising, and felt compelled to "badger the oppose", is that Maile does have an FA of the type that was hard to write and requires ongoing defense again Randies from Boise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"requires ongoing defense again Randies from Boise"🤣 Sandy, your typing on the go is rofling me 🤓 Lourdes 17:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One never knows what I'll come up with next :) As one never knows if it was intended, or one of my gazillions of typos :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'll assume your assumption of my comment was GF. Besides my initial FA that was the type that was hard to write and "requires ongoing defense". I've added to it and now have other FAs. But, yeah,in regards to that initial FA, I had an ongoing battle with the same editor/IP/sock who had been vandalizing that article long before I was around. The end result is that he kept at it for years after FA, and vandalized himself right into a permanent block (with consensus at ANI). What I actually was thinking ... is that my memory is that just running for admin used to require an FAC background. It sure doesn't anymore. In regards to the crat issue, I'm not entirely sure what the crats do, or what their workload is. How busy are they? — Maile (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: thanks for the update; yep, you are the classic example of someone who had to defend your content work in the trenches, took a lot of time through a lot of agida to build that first FA, and where an understanding admin would have been a big help. I'm not sure why we need another 'crat, or how busy they are, but I do know I don't often agree with the conclusions of 'crat chats. And I know I trust SilkTork to be one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion in reply to FlightTime's support[edit]

Give 'em the screwdriver
@FlightTime:, SilkTork already has a mop. This is an updated mop, presumably made with fine silk? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Better ? geeez I meant the 'crat mop - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: It wasn't a big deal; you could've left it as it, as I just wasn't sure if that was what you intended. No worries. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I have said "give 'em a screwdriver". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Can you clarify the "screwdriver" analogy to refer to bureaucrats? I get the administrator+mop analogy, but am trying to wrap my head around the screwdriver part. I'm sure it makes, or made prior to role changes, perfect sense. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The screwdriver comes from the bureaucrat logo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Ah, that makes sense! Doug Mehus T·C 14:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from the same editor who moved my comments to the talk page, this off-topic discussion is odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:, point well taken, Sandy. I was actually thinking the same thing, "we better move this to the talk page soon." Doug Mehus T·C 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wasn't I just being whiney yesterday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, LOL! No worries; I 👍 Like your positive and reflective outlook/attitude. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 14:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always assumed the screwdriver was bot-related duties and the spanner for close-related duties (finely measuring) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no, we all know that's wrong. The screwdriver is obviously used for screwing (RFA candidates, the community, etc.), and the spanner (or "wrench", if you're not a monarchist) isn't used for measuring, it's used for wrenching consensus–er, I mean for applying torque... which is why Silk Tork is well-qualified to use it. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943's Support vote extended discussion[edit]

Steel1943, noting your change in support rationale via this edit diff and edit summary, two questions: (1) have other editors used "I like pie" as a support rationale, so you wanted to try it and (2) I thought you told me that we're suppose to follow WP:REDACT and strike through our previous rationale and insert new rationale? I'm confused. Which is better? Fair enough; we don't need this off-topic discussion; withdrawn. You may move this to talk, or delete. Doug Mehus T·C 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...W T actual F... Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to talk page per request. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943, on (2), is it because no one has replied to your support !vote? People have !voted after you, but it doesn't seem like anyone was influenced by your earlier !vote rationale, so it's probably okay. Regarding (1), I was just trying to be friendly and playful here; legitimately curious if this rationale has been used because you said you always wanted to try it, so were going for it. It was off-topic, though, so I should've just started this on the talk page to begin with. Sorry. Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...It was meant to be a joke. If you are questioning about the comment's validity in this RFB, specifically if it goes to a crat chat about nominating a crat, it will/should have about as much weight as my original "Sure, why not?" comment I made originally. Results may vary. Batteries not included. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, exactly, okay that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Doug Mehus T·C 23:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/SilkTork&oldid=943111036"