Can anyone explain the RFA rules, Case of Lawrence Cohen Options

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Lawrence_Cohen

This apparently failed. But when I count up the votes, they are heavily in LC's favour. Why did it not succeed? And why did Seicer's succeed, when he had many opposes?

[dtobias]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Lawrence_Cohen

This apparently failed. But when I count up the votes, they are heavily in LC's favour. Why did it not succeed? And why did Seicer's succeed, when he had many opposes?

You need more than a simple majority. Apparently, the cutoff point is something around 75%, but the in crowd refuses to pin it down to a precise figure due to ideological opposition to calling anything on Wikipedia a "vote". In practice, the dominant clique can torpedo any RFA it wishes.

[Amarkov]

The rules of RfA:

1. There are no rules, only guidelines for promotion. Bureaucrats must use their personal discretion.
2. The above statement applies if and only if the proper decision is made. Otherwise, the bureaucrat has ignored the will of the community.
3. To determine the proper decision, all people who disagree with us will be ignored. This is necessary to prevent a WR takeover.

Aren't you glad we have a functional process?

[Peter Damian]

That is extraordinary. I had no idea.

[Jon Awbrey]

That is extraordinary. I had no idea.

Please excuse Brother Damian. He and Brother Moulton are in a cute-throat competition for Best Performance in a Just Fell Off The Turnip Truck Role.

Jon

[Peter Damian]

That is extraordinary. I had no idea.

Please excuse Brother Damian. He and Brother Moulton are in a cute-throat competition for Best Performance in a Just Fell Off The Turnip Truck Role.

Jon

Sorry? What turnip truck?

[edit]Ah I just looked up this American expression here

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miffllffturnptruck.shtml

You are saying I and Moulton are behaving like dim-witted and ignorant country bumpkins who just fell off the turnip truck that is arriving in the big city? And 'cute-throat' is one of your many puns. 'cute' - 'throat'. I get it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 12th April 2008, 6:31pm

[Jon Awbrey]

That is extraordinary. I had no idea.

Please excuse Brother Damian. He and Brother Moulton are in a cute-throat competition for Best Performance in a Just Fell Off The Turnip Truck Role.

Jon

Sorry? What turnip truck?

Sorry, apparently you're going for Meta-Turnip-Truck.

Jon

[Robster]

Sorry, apparently you're going for Meta-Turnip-Truck.

Jon

And I never meta turnip truck I didn't like.

Or an RfA that made sense (to keep somewhere near the topic).

[Pumpkin Muffins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Lawrence_Cohen

This apparently failed. But when I count up the votes, they are heavily in LC's favour. Why did it not succeed? And why did Seicer's succeed, when he had many opposes?

Adminship is granted by community consensus, not by percentages. A Bureaucrats' main function is to judge that consensus. Generally speaking, 80% and over is a clear consensus. At 70-80% the bureaucrats will take a close look at the reasons for opposing, possible sock puppets and how new or how seasoned the voters are. If the RFA had a large number of votes then the bureaucrats may have confidence to promote at a percentage they wouldn't for RFAs with a small number of votes. There have been a few occasions when editors with less than 70% support were promoted, but this always causes an uproar.

In this case, I'm very saddened by the bureaucrat's decision. Because of LC's long tenure, wonderful contributions and passionate but well mannered participation in community affairs, I would have considered this a successful candidacy. I believe many of the oppose votes were not relevant to adminship, and LC got a hefty slap for one of his recent actions that would have otherwise been quickly forgotten. Also, there is a troubling effect whereby the longer an editor has been active, the more enemies he makes and the harder it is to achieve adminship. If I were a bureaucrat I would have promoted.

The good news is that many people feel bad for opposing him, so all Lawrence has to do is address the opposer's reasons (stay out of trouble for a few months). Then when he runs again he can show what he did to address peoples concerns and he'll be a shoe-in

[Jon Awbrey]

That is extraordinary. I had no idea.

Please excuse Brother Damian. He and Brother Moulton are in a cute-throat competition for Best Performance in a Just Fell Off The Turnip Truck Role.

Jon

Sorry? What turnip truck?

[edit] Ah I just looked up this American expression here

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miffllffturnptruck.shtml

You are saying I and Moulton are behaving like dim-witted and ignorant country bumpkins who just fell off the turnip truck that is arriving in the big city? And 'cute-throat' is one of your many puns. 'cute' - 'throat'. I get it.

Close, but no Seger, Bob.

I am saying that you are playing the role of rustic ingenues.

I have always AGF'd that this is due to some clever rhetorical purpose — and of course your denials only confirm my suspicions — designed to educate the masses about Wikipedia.

My only criticism of that plan is that you fail to realize the futility of subtlety in trying to educate turnips.

Jon

[michael]

Treatment of low ~70% RFAs is a huge tossup. Elonka 3 passed at about that percentage a few months ago, with ^demon also gaining back the tools at an even longer percentage. Prior to that, Danny (68%), Ryulong 3 (69%), Carnildo (62%), and Sean Black (71%) were all promoted. Personally I was rooting for LC to gain the tools.

[Proabivouac]

Treatment of low ~70% RFAs is a huge tossup. Elonka 3 passed at about that percentage a few months ago, with ^demon also gaining back the tools at an even longer percentage. Prior to that, Danny (68%), Ryulong 3 (69%), Carnildo (62%), and Sean Black (71%) were all promoted. Personally I was rooting for LC to gain the tools.

Elonka was promoted by her long-time meatpuppet, WJBscribe…
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15343
…so this isn't diagnostic of much except the fact that the bureaucrats' role is unregulated and wide open to corruption.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sat 12th April 2008, 10:23pm

[Amarkov]

The good news is that many people feel bad for opposing him, so all Lawrence has to do is address the opposer's reasons (stay out of trouble for a few months). Then when he runs again he can show what he did to address peoples concerns and he'll be a shoe-in

People claimed to feel bad for opposing me as well. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they're planning on changing their minds in a few months.

[Derktar]

Lawrence is an interesting case, he may be able to make it next time around is he keeps his head down.

[Proabivouac]

The good news is that many people feel bad for opposing him, so all Lawrence has to do is address the opposer's reasons (stay out of trouble for a few months). Then when he runs again he can show what he did to address peoples concerns and he'll be a shoe-in

People claimed to feel bad for opposing me as well. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they're planning on changing their minds in a few months.

This is especially true when the candidate was opposed, in essence, for political reasons. Unless Lawrence turns around and agitates for re-banning Privatemusings etc., these opposes will return in the next RfA because the underlying reason for them hasn't changed. It isn't competence, and it isn't behavior…well, it is behavior in the sense that Lawrence is fair, and isn't going to suspend that to make JzG feel less "uncomfortable" about his terrible judgment. Why would anyone want to change that for an admin bit?

[guy]

Treatment of low ~70% RFAs is a huge tossup. Elonka 3 passed at about that percentage a few months ago, with ^demon also gaining back the tools at an even longer percentage. Prior to that, Danny (68%), Ryulong 3 (69%), Carnildo (62%), and Sean Black (71%) were all promoted. Personally I was rooting for LC to gain the tools.

Ryulong's RfA caused a huge uproar, I think the biggest I've ever seen. It was one of the key reasons Runcorn was banned.

[Jon Awbrey]

Get A Clue, People!

The Only Good Admin Is A Deadminned Admin!

Jon

[guy]

The Only Good Admin Is A Deadminned Admin!

That's true. If I were to post here a list of really good admins, half of them would be deadminned in the near future.

[Krimpet]

Treatment of low ~70% RFAs is a huge tossup. Elonka 3 passed at about that percentage a few months ago, with ^demon also gaining back the tools at an even longer percentage. Prior to that, Danny (68%), Ryulong 3 (69%), Carnildo (62%), and Sean Black (71%) were all promoted. Personally I was rooting for LC to gain the tools.

Elonka was promoted by her long-time meatpuppet, WJBscribe…
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15343
…so this isn't diagnostic of much except the fact that the bureaucrats' role is unregulated and wide open to corruption.

Proabivouac, I know you seem to be hell-bent on pinning Elonka and WJBscribe to the cabal when they're far from it... but you might want to get your facts straight at least.

[Proabivouac]

Proabivouac, I know you seem to be hell-bent on pinning Elonka and WJBscribe to the cabal when they're far from it... but you might want to get your facts straight at least.

You're correct that he wasn't the one who changed her permissions, but the fact that he was first out of the gate to defend the decision - and in fact the only bureaucrat who bothered to do so at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship - strongly suggests that him to have been the driving force behind this decision:

"We also scrutinize the 'crats who seek to throw the election (WJBscribe, I am referring to you.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178346909

"…I'm going to have to ask you to retract that accusation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178346909

Nevertheless, I apologize for the inaccuracy.

Krimpet, your own post there is amusing - almost breathtaking - in its straight-faced artlessness:

"Elonka passed RfA as validly as everyone else: through the decision of a bureaucrat, one of the people we, the community, have placed our trust in to make these decisions. (74% is not even particularly low.) It's not an "election.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178343446

We, the community, have placed our trust in them! Brilliant! Encore!

Far from the cabal? Elonka and WJBscribe form the core of their own cabal, one which, judging from my own experience with both, would be even more aggressive and more dishonest than the other one. Then again, it seems you're part of this one…

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=70127

…so I can hardly blame you for preferring it.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Mon 14th April 2008, 6:00am