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

Mackensen[edit]

Final (140/57/3); Ended 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - In brief, I have been an editor since August of 2003, an administrator since September of 2004, a checkuser since March of 2006, and an oversighter since some time in the middle of 2006. I have sat on the Arbitration Committee twice. I have done considerable work in the article space; I am a co-creator of the ((s-rail))/((s-line)) system of rail succession templates. My statement follows below.

Statement

This is not a conventional statement, but then this is not a conventional candidacy, and if chosen I would not be a conventional bureaucrat.

I am not a regular participant on the talk page of Requests for Adminship. I have never, to my knowledge, nominated someone for adminship. I do not make a habit of offering comments at RFA unless I am acquainted with the candidate or someone has drawn my attention to a particular candidacy. I do not consider myself an “RFA regular.”

I am, however, an active administrator in good standing with my own RFA some two years and change in the past. I am in the middle of my second stint on the Arbitration Committee, where I have played a direct role in determining the limits and appropriate boundaries of administrator behavior. I have known hundreds of administrators in my time here and interacted with them in numerous contexts: onnoticeboards, at the Requests for Checkuser page, on the Oversight mailing list, on IRC, or via email. All this is meant to say that I do not know what “RFA regulars” consider valid criteria for becoming a sysop, but I do know what it takes to be a good sysop.

I have seen past bureaucrat candidates refer to percentage thresholds for becoming an administrator. RFA is not a vote and never has been. That there is a correlation between the raw number of people who support a candidacy and the chances of that candidacy’s success is an interesting statistical commentary but should not be taken as writ. The purpose of RFA is to identify whether someone is suitable for adminship, and whether it would be beneficial or detrimental to the encyclopedia for that person to have the tools. You cannot have N% of consensus—it either exists or it does not. The devil is in the determination of the proper criteria.

Adminship is not a big deal; it never was, and it certainly is not now. We would, on the whole, be better off if we grasped this concept and stopped inventing problems that do not exist. If anything, the insistence on setting higher and higher standards at RFA has the effect of making adminship seem a big deal, but what it is really doing is making passing RFA a big deal, which is perverse. RFA is a means to an end. The end is the encyclopedia gaining another competent administrator. The means must serve the end, for there is no other reason for the means to exist.

Now, I admit that I might be begging the question. What makes a competent sysop? Is it a thorough knowledge of all Wikipedia policies, with the ability to cite chapter and verse? Perhaps having one or more featured articles under your belt? Regular and consistent participation in the myriad process factories clank away, night and day? Ten thousand edits in the service of vandal fighting? Never said a cross word or attracted any controversy? Has the ability to quip in Latin?

I hope that the above are not requirements for a competent sysop, as I fail all of them and I suspect many sysops would (even excluding the Latin). However, in these extremes are the seeds of a successful admin. A candidate has hopefully edited the encyclopedia in some fashion and understands what is appropriate for the article space. She has been around long enough to have imbibed some culture and while she may not know every last policy, she has a sense of how things are meant to work, and knows to ask around when unsure. She has participated in deletion debates and recognizes from them that Wikipedia works by consensus, not mob fiat. While her temper may have flared now and then, the body of interactions suggests a person who, on the whole, values the work of other people and can function in a collaborative environment. Anyone who can satisfy these guidelines is unlikely to abuse the tools and therefore is a net positive for Wikipedia.

I would be willing to promote anyone of whom the above can be said. In closing an RFA, I would place the burden squarely on people who oppose a candidacy to demonstrate why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools. I would not count votes and on the whole would prefer to see a Request for Adminship organized as a Request for Comment. Ultimately, that’s what the process should be about: the solicitation of comments as to whether or not this candidate would be a safe pair of hands. RFA should not be a trophy, a popularity contest, a shouting match, a forum for settling scores, or an exercise in process. It is for the finding of people who can further help the encyclopedia.

I seek this position because I seek to help the encyclopedia and I believe that a need exists. I have no ego at stake here. People often say we do not need more bureaucrats. That may be so, but we need more administrators, and the current system does not produce them. Numerous reform attempts have gone nowhere. I therefore offer myself explicitly on this platform.

Adminship is not a big deal.

Yours, Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

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 have answered this question in my statement above and encourage participants to read my answer therein.

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

A. I would return to the question asked above: will making this person an administrator help the encyclopedia. I would also turn the question on its head, and ask whether the promotion of the user would be so divisive as to negate any possible benefit. These are difficult questions, but I like to think I can't be intimidated by now. I am not going to count votes and I will not talk numbers.

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 have been a sysop for over two years. I am doing my second stint on the Arbitration Committee. I have helped write policy in the past and I am regularly called upon to intervene in situtations where knowledge of policy is crucial. A user who does not understand policy is at best ineffective, at worst a menace. As an arbitrator I have always tried to treat all users fairly, and I think those with whom I have struggled over policy issues would attest to my willigness to keep discussion going, almost to a fault. I humbly submit that I believe I have held the community's trust up to now.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I have the time and desire to change the way in which RFA operates, as I've indicated above. I have no interest in bot approval nor in changing usernames but I would of course be willing to step up there should my help be requested. I have never been able to refuse such requests in the past and I do not expect to change.

Optional question by Snowolf

5 How would you define bureaucrat's role in the community?

A: I don't quite have an answer, but let me offer some thoughts and maybe I'll offer something insightful. I don't know that the bureaucrat has a significant community role as a bureaucrat. Our bureaucrats are signficant members of the community, yes, but they would be regardless. Bureaucrats handle technical functions: bot flagging, sysop promotion, and username changes. While the second of these is of prime importance to many and followed closely, the bureaucrat's appearance is at the end of the final act, and then only a walk-on. They maintain important machinery but they aren't seen doing it. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Xoloz

6 In general, one person should exercising the functions of "judge" and "jury" simultaneously. Would you pledge never to close an RfA in which you have commented substantively in support of, or opposition to, a candidate?

A: I agree completely with the sentiment expressed here and would of course refrain from closing a RfA that I had commented in. This is sensible. Mackensen (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by Ryanpostlethwaite

7 The current RfA system generally requires around 80% community trust for promotion. As the system currently stands, how would you go about closing an RfA that had only 60% support, but felt that the opposers hadn't "demonstrate(d) why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools"?

A Ack, these numbers again! Rather, we're postulating a situation where there are substantial opposing views but on the whole they miss the point. We've certainly been there before. My first thought would be to send a note to other bureaucrats to see what they think. If three, even four bureaucrats agree that on the whole there's reason to promote and that there's consensus grounded in policy to do so, then I would see little harm in doing so. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 How would you have closed this RfA?

A I probably would have promoted, and this helps illustrate one of my points. Many people opposed him based on his interactions with Tennis Expert. Ryulong acted the way he did based on information from checkusers, information that turned out to be wrong. His actions within that context were perhaps by the book, but they certainly weren't wrong, and it's perverse to blame him for somebody else's mistake. There's also much hand-wringing over not warning users before reporting them to WP:AIV. Is this actually a problem? An RfC might have focused attention better on whether he really was too quick on the trigger; the list format suggested sporadic issues but no overarching systemic problem. Certainly this is one I would have kicked around with other bureaucrats. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

9 In "ignoring numbers" you seem to give the example of promoting someone with less than the standard threshold of support, if you don't feel the objections were substantive. How about the other way around - what if someone has 80% or more support "by the numbers", but there is a substantive objection endorsed by multiple editors in good standing? Certainly you'd kick it around with other bureaucrats, but should it still come down to you in the end, would you promote or not promote? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A My answers regarding the opposing situation still apply here. Again, it all depends on what the objections are, and whether supporters of the candidate, or the candidate herself, has a good answer. Say we're presented with a good fellow with broad support, but who has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not understand what consensus is. I would expect under most circumstances that such a person would not attract broad support, but it is of course possible. If it came down to me I might personally engage the candidate to see if he actually knew what consensus was about or not. I'd take a hard look at how he intended to use the tools, and whether he was amenable to mentorship (as a corollary, does he communicate well with people?) Related to this is a desire on my part to see the reading list made required reading again, with some of the default questions pertaining directly to the topics therin. It was when I went through and I found it beneficial. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by Irpen

10 I agree that RfA is broken, but I don't so much agree with your "fix". I can see some logic in replacing the judgment of the community by the judgment of someone in the know who acts according to what he sees as "beneficial or detrimental to the encyclopedia". But have you thought about how comfortable it would be for an administrator to be promoted and granted tools over voluminous opposition from a "raw number" of editors, even if you consider those editor's opposition unworthy? I can see that a certain category of people may want the bit so much that they would not care about the means, but do you think this is common among would-be admins? You can certainly relate to this experience as being yourself promoted to the ArbCom recently with the editors having no say in that action. Several over 70%-supported candidates from the past election were available but brushed aside in favor of you. Do you feel that being promoted with disregard to how editors feel (even ill-informed ones) affects one's ability to effectively dispense one's duties, judging from your own experience of being in such a position?

A Let me clarify that I'm not talking about substituting my judgement for the community's so much as encouraging the community to change the way it articulates its opinion. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I'm mildly dismayed by the emphasis on bureaucratic fiat, to borrow a borrowed phrase. Now, addressing arbcom, let me point out that I was previously elected to the arbitration committee, and resigned as a matter of conscience and not under a cloud of any kind. The community did choose me previously. I do not wake up in the morning feeling illegitimate (perhaps I should?) I find that my ability to function as an arbitrator depends, more than anything, on my ability to work with my fellow arbitrators and to engage the community on the arbitration pages. If either of these has been impeded by my method of appointment then that has not been apparent. Of course, my appointment was not a matter of controversy, but the RfAs you refer to were. Again, the important question is whether the promotion is a net benefit to the encyclopedia, all things taken into consideration. That should be the attitude of person who devotes their time to participating in RfA. I wouldn't call any objection "unworthy," for I dislike the connotation, but at the same time some objections are of greater import than others. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by trialsanderrors

11 Why do you think the current system is in need for reform? From my (non-rigorous) assessment we seem to promote 80%-90% of the non-frivolous nominations, a large share unanimous or near-unanimous. While no system is fail-safe, I don't see where the system you propose substantially decreases the error rate, and all things being equal, I don't see why the pooling of more power in fewer people benefits the project.

A Two primary objections. The first objection is philosophical, the second practical. The present system, as you admit, counts votes. Our lip service to consensus is the existence of a gray area around the 70-80%. RfA is not a vote but it's being treated like one, with attendant problems. How do we inculcate the idea of consensus in new administrators when we've just had them pass a vote? My second objection is more practical: we need more administrators from a broader base but the system as organized works against that. Before anyone objects, look at the backlogs. We need more administrators. Adminship, as I've said above, is not a big deal, but RfA currently makes it a big deal. Look at the generation of sysops from 2004. They passed with 1000-2000 edits sprinkled around the encyclopedia. Adminship went to anybody who wasn't likely to delete the main page or ban Jimmy. At some point we made getting adminship a trophy, even though the task is still janitorial (and, if anything, even more unpleasant than previously). Hand in hand with eliminating the emphasis on numbers is a real need to re-orient RfA, hence trying the method of an RfC. We need to ask whether someone is a safe pair of hands, not whether they've made enough edits in this namespace or that namespace, or participated in enough deletion discussions. Show me someone sensible and I'll show you someone who can figure out how to be a sysop. Adminship is not a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't "admit" that the present systems counts votes, but I think it creates communal limits on 'crat action, although I'm not aware that a 'crat has lost privileges over a decision outside the 70-80 band. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bureaucrat may not have lost freedom of action, but no bureaucrat has moved to assert those privileges, if they do exist. Her Majestry the Queen still has the legal right to dissolve Parliament without acting on the request of the Prime Minister, but to assert that right would likely end in her abdication and the dissolution of the monarchy. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means. Afaik, there were a few cases where 'crats made decisions outside the 70-80 band that went against the "default", and none of them has lost their 'crat bit over it. Feel frre to correct me if I'm wrong on this. ~ trialsanderrors 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally aware of any situation where a bureaucrat did so, unless we count Raul654's promotion of Ryulong. The raw numbers were 69-70%, if memory serves. Raul took considerable flak for this close, but the only way to demote a bureaucrat is via the Arbitration Committee, and the Committee has been loath in the past to involve itself on these questions. I suspect that if bureaucrats wanted to assert this privilege they could so, provided they were prepared to discuss their actions and wander around with a target on their back. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo 3 at 61%. ~ trialsanderrors 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, you're right. That's a statistical outlier for all kinds of reasons, and the outrage which followed that candicacy didn't cause a bureaucrat to lose his bit, but it did lead to several people leaving the project, several arbitration cases, and much bad blood. It also demonstrated, to me, the limitations of the straight vote. An RfC would have been far more helpful in determining how the community felt about Carnildo, and identifying the potential problems with him regaining his bit. While we're on the matter, it might be useful to discuss Guanaco, the only admin to be de-sysoped twice by the Arbitration Committee. I believe he enjoyed "good" percentages both times. Numbers are no guarantee. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Steptrip

12. In your opinion, is a bureaucrat a political position or that of a technical position?

A Bureaucrats are technicians but they must be alive to the fact that their actions have political consequences. It's part of the calculus. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by Mailer Diablo

13. What is your definition of consensus?

A I don't think I'm altering the defintion of consensus at all, but I am changing the question asked. In the context of a request for adminship, that most people agree that a person would not a abuse the tools, would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, and that the user would not, through inexperience, damage in project. In effect all three of these are interrelated and go back to what I said my statement about the qualities of a sysop.

14. Since percentages are nothing to you, are you ready to pass RfAs with literately less than half the support?

A Percentages might be nothing to me but I'm not a fool either (despite the claims of my wife). I suspect that in any situation where someone could not command even a numerical superiority there would be substantive reasons for that person not becoming a sysop (see also my suggestions above about what makes a good sysop). Ultimately it depends on why so many people turned out to oppose; if fully half those in opposition were nationalist pov-pushers (socking no doubt), I think we could all swallow hard and go ahead. However, we're speaking purely hypothetically here. I have difficulty imagining a successful promotion under the circumstances.

Additional question by Ryanpostlethwaite

15. Danny's RfA was a controversial closing. How would you have handled the closure? Are you in favour of a bureaucrat discussion for any RfA which doesn't have a clear consensus?

A I feel as though I've already answered this question in about ten different places over the last week, but let me try and put a fresh spin on it. First of all, the "Bureaucrat chat" is a wonderfully innovative development and completely in line with what I'm suggesting here and elsewhere. I'm heartened by the example of bureaucrats weighing the merits and keeping their eyes firmly on the important questions. That's what consensus looks like. At the risk of making myself unpopular, I would have acted in the same fashion, and although it would have been better if Dan hadn't commented on Danny's RfA, the existence of consensus between the bureaucrats mitigates this. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question by Lar

16. As it stands as of this writing, this RfB regrettably seems to be short of the 90% magic number for promotion. BUT, it has a pretty large number of voices saying that they support the platform, and that they get what you are saying, it's about evaluating among all the 'crats, not that you yourself would be autocratically deciding things... enough voices (and few enough in opposition) that I'd say there was a rough consensus for 'crats to "talk more, evaluate what consensus is a bit more, and count noses a bit less". (and I note that in Danny's recent RfA, there was a fair bit more (visible) discussing and evaluating of consensus than in some past RfAs, which I see as a good thing) If you are not confirmed as a 'crat, would you nevertheless take that consensus of voices supporting more discussion and less nosecounting as a "mandate" to work for change? And do you think others would as well?

A This request, together with Danny's RfA, has jump-started RfA reform proposals everywhere. People are querying the nature of adminship at a level I haven't seen in some time. I think this can only be beneficial for the project. If not confirmed as a bureaucrat, I will continue to push the spirit of these ideas. I haven't commented in an RfA all week so as to avoid any possiblity of a conflict of interest, but I intend to take the spirit of my ideas here and apply them at RfA. I think we have a clear signal from the bureaucrats that they're interesting in taking a more flexible view and we should support them. I take the strong support for the platform (as opposed to my person) that I've seen here a sign that people will be willing to work towards this goal, and I sense that even people who oppose me here are sympathetic to the concept if not the manner. There is great potential here. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Mackensen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I wish the opportunity to engage with participants during this discussion but I recognize that some people view such activity unfavorably. Therefore, I would appreciate if people who disagree with my views indicate the manner in which they are willing to discuss the matter (or, indicate that they are not willing to discuss the matter at all). Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me add one point of clarification, possibly unnecessary. I am not interested in numbers or percentages. That being said, I would not ignore a substantive objection endorsed by multiple editors in good standing. Numbers in this case aren't important though, it's the quality and insightfulness of the objection. Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support. One of the most respected wikicitizens who is already trusted with the project's most important responsibilities. Bucketsofg 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with Mackensen just the other day and we managed to co-author the article Charles Frederick Field in just a few short hours. The attention to detail and hard work which involved visiting a library shows the level of dedication and interest this user has in Wikipedia. There is no question at all regarding the suitability of this user for the role as a bureaucrat, he fulfills all of the unwritten requirements, having spent considerable time (almost 3 years) as an administrator and has time on the ArbCom. To those who think we don't need more 'crats, the project can only benefit from having more 'crats and when we've got people of this caliber offering themselves for the position, we would be crazy to refuse. It seems we are crazy. I thought it was only RFAs that garnered weird and wonderful opposes. Seems not. -- Nick ^t 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. My recent interactions with this user have been nothing but good. Good luck. Viridae^Talk 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support no one I'd trust more. --Doc^g 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support but I doubt very much that enough people will pile on to overcome all the negative votes based on this that or other arbitary factor. Its high time we worked out a less testing way of promoting admins - not least because the arb-com has grasped the nettle of desysopping rouge sorry I mean rogue admins. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per Bucketsofg. This user is already trusted with some of Wikipedia's most sensitive and important responsibilities. Obviously a trusted user and I, for one, have no reason to believe that we couldn't always use a couple more crats.↔NMajdan•talk 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support Another great bureaucrat candidate! He's definitely earned the trust of the community over the past few years, and while I may not agree with everything he does, he certainly endeavours to always act in the best interests of Wikipedia. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong support. Mackensen identifies very well some of the principal reasons I've never been interested in bureaucratship, or frankly, in participating much in RfA. It's a disgrace to the concept of consensus. Counting percentages disregards the merit of particular arguments, and specifically discourages addressing and resolving objections in the manner of consensus-building. I am confident that RfA would be considerably improved with Mackensen contributing to its development. I would not that the fact that Mackensen is already engaged in deciding the acceptable practices of adminship in judging tough cases at the Arbitration Committee indicates he has the judgment necessary for the job. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Great candidate, I kind of expected this RfB to happen. I've yet to here a compelling argument as to why "too many" (not that there would be) bureaucrats would be a bad thing. John Reaves (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support; has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Throwawayhack 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support He lacks the RfA interest I would have liked, but I can definitely trust Mackensen to do the job of promoting admins (changing usernames, flagging bots...) He knows what he's doing, and he'll do it right. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tony Sidaway 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) This is a very welcome proposal.[reply]

    Someone raised the Carnildo 3 RFA. We couldn't ask for a better example of the advantages of having an independent corps of bureaucrats who are prepared to make the right decision in the face of a noisy and fractious minority. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support. That was one of the best statements of principle I have seen in a long while. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. I've seen some of his posts at admin noticeboards, at arbitration pages, and sometimes at some of the user talk pages that I watch, and while I haven't agreed with everything he has said, I have picked up the impression that this is a calm, civil, balanced, and trustworthy administrator. ElinorD (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. I have not crossed paths with Mackensen, but it's hard to believe that someone who served as an arbitrator would be a bad choice as bureaucrat, and I agree with the argument in Durin's RfB, under 'Need for more bureaucrats', that there is a need for more bureaucrats that actually are available when needed. In Majorly's RfB Mackensen did apparently make the comment "I'm also not sure (per Jeffrey) that we need more bureaucrats.".. 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If Mackensen finds a proper forum in which people allow him to respond to questions, e.g. the Talk page of this RfB, perhaps he could say why he changed his mind. EdJohnston 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Of Course! He'd be the perfect person to fill Essjay's void. TML 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong Support-He's a checkuser. If we can trust him with private information, I think we can trust him with sysoping, flagging bots, and renaming users. Also, that part of the speech about RFA promotion was amazing. Now we'll have a(nother?) b'crat that sees that RFA needs to be majorly altered (maybe even changing it into something like an RFC like he said). Lastly, we need more b'crats! Currently. if one like Nichalp go on Wikibreak, we get b'cratic backlog. (It actually looks like this nomination will succeed!)--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs _@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. The candidacy statement suggests that this user would be a valuable addition to Bureaucrat promotion discussions. Jkelly 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support I don't think I've heard of this user before, but from what I've read I am going to support. Acalamari 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Most definitely. – Steel 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support → Even if maybe we don't need more bureaucrats, other buros surely won't damage wikipedia, and this user seems to deserve my support Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, both this editor and the position that he sets forth in his statement. Danny 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Complete with an edit conflict! Your statement addresses many issues that I have contemplated myself regarding administration, and clearly cuts to the heart of the matter: the benefit to Wikipedia.--Xnuala (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Naturally. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Well, yes. Mackensen is a consistent voice of sanity in the midst of craziness. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleared for bureaucratship Has been a prominent editor and I believe he'll be excellent upstairs. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Consider this vote crossed out—Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Yes, I could not agree more with everything you said in your statement. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Perhaps, just perhaps, we may have found a counterexample to my thesis that there is not a single user in the entire project who could pass an RfB right now. There really are two questions here. The first is whether the community trusts Mackensen, the individual, with the bureaucrat tools. For me, that's a "yes": a dedicated content contributor, an excellent and level-headed administrator, and for the past two months a conscientious arbitrator, Mackensen certainly is in the top tier of contributors as to both edit counts in all namespaces and as to experience with virtually all the principal editorial and administrator tasks. I have no hesitation entrusting him to monitor and close RfAs (even less with his changing usernames and flagging bots, tasks that seem to be assigned to bureaucrats mostly through historical accident and technical restrictions). The second question posed by this RfA is the community's reaction to Mackensen's platform of using his 'cratship to revise the RfA process. One could argue that this proactive approach represents an evasion of the need for achieving consensus before "fixing" RfA (if it is indeed "broken"). On the other hand, given that this RfB will no doubt receive wide attention over the next week, its succeeding could represent a meta-consensus that this is a direction in which the !voters feel we should proceed, at least experimentally. I would urge that the experiment proceed cautiously; candidates and !voters may be befuddled at first, and the confusion inherent in having two different systems of running RfAs and evaluating their results may be significant; and it may seem for a little while that borderline RfAs are more likely to pass or fail depending on who is closing them; and the first couple of times the result defies "the numbers" under the traditional standard, there will assuredly be some howling, and the pointing to the meta-consensus of this RfA will not immediately assuage it. Still, if Mackensen is willing to take the heat, it may very well be worth a try: "everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it," and everyone talks about changing RfA but this is the first practical attempt to push the issue to the stage of, potentially, actual change; I'm not convinced the new system is without drawbacks (a defeated candidate might take more comfort in a numerical than an analytical result, and too much heat may be concentrated on one 'crat rather than the !voters as a body), and I have some quibbles, but they are details. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. A voice of reason, with a clear idea of the difference between what RfA is and what RfA should be.--ragesoss 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Not merely qualified; he's got the judgement and experience to do this job well, especially when it gets sticky. It's a good statement he wrote as well. Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Finally, a somewhat successful RfB. Rejoice! {PTO} {speak} 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. There are a few select users who, if they were put on RfB and it failed, I would lose all trust in Wikipedia. Mackensen is one of them, and one of the few who fits perfectly as one. Support.--Wizardman 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per all of the above despite "Has the ability to quip in Latin?" == "no"... do we need more 'crats? Irrelevant. We need THIS user as a 'crat, even if we already had too many, and without any slight intended against any of the current ones... ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Sane, civil, trusted, dedicated. Not interested in endless bickering or pointless debate. Basically agree with his admin standards. An obvious choice. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Impressive position, gutsy move. I'm not convinced the platform is right, but I'm not convinced its not either. Either way Mackensen is imminently trustworthy and with plenty of experience. - Taxman ^Talk 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Simply seeing his name listed under RfB, and I had no hesitation in coming here to lend my support. For as long as I've seen Mackensen edit here, he's been the wisest and most diplomatic professional I've ever seen. On reading his application statement, I cannot lend my support any more strongly. I support his application, I support his views (stated above), and I'm fully confident it will be of benefit to the project. --InkSplotch 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support A little unnerved by his statement of intended rebellion, but frankly, he's dead on. RfA is a joke anymore, and somebody needs to stand up and do something about it. We need to all get it through our thick little skulls that being granted adminship is simply saying "We trust you not to go ape-shit bazerk and delete everything, although even if you did, you'd loose your rights in 5 seconds and all of your actions could be undone in about 30 seconds." It's not this perverse homecoming queen election we've turned it into. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. In all of my interactions and observations, Mackensen has been a model Wikipedian. I trust his judgement, and I think he would make an excellent bureaucrat. Khoikhoi 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. I embrace his stance that he put into words above, and there is absolutely no doubt that I can trust him. Daniel Bryant 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I have read the RfA pages for many moons and never participated because the process has become progressively more dysfunctional. I trust Mackensen in his current roles, and I believe his proposed methods for selecting administrators will be advantageous to Wikipedia. Canadian Caesar has a point about multiple roles; I believe that is better addressed by appointing more people to the Checkuser and Oversight roles rather than missing this opportunity. Risker 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I agree that RfA needs a change, but I'm not sure this is the right one. Nevertheless, I have great trust in Mackensen, so I'll support. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I have great trust in Mackensen's judgement, discretion, and good conduct. I don't know if this proposal is the proper way forward with RfA, but I do trust him to oversee it as an experiment and to stand down on it if it turns out to be harmful. Choess 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, strongest possible. Excellent statement. The fact that the bureaucrats at the moment (appear) do little but count heads is a problem with RfA, and any relief is welcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, in the strongest terms. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Sure. Kusma (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support as one of the most qualified candidates I've seen apply for the position since I started editing. Whether 'crats are needed or not, it certainly doesn't hurt to have more. Mackensen should to an excellent job. - auburnpilot talk 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. One word: Trust. Agathoclea 06:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Per Mackensen, RFA is a means to an end, not the end itself. Thatcher131 06:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per above. MER-C 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Strict adherence to percentages just encourage campaigning and vote stacking while discouraging reasonable discussion. I support the platform. -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. SupportI don't imagine Mackensen would promote someone simply because they like them. Perhaps to end this perception though, two bureaucrats could be required to endorse the decision. Whatever happens, I think this is a step in the right direction to fix RfA, in which too many good candidates, like Moreschi, Ben, Wandalstouring, and Wizardry Dragon, get turned down because they don't tick every single absurdly picky box. I sincerely hope this RfB passes and we can rid the process of fly by voters and the regulars who seem determined to oppose anyone with less that six million edits who doesn't VP night and day while writing FAs in the few moments between proposing new policies. Really, 2000 edits, four months, constant edit summaries and good dose of experience in the main and wikipedia namespaces are all that is needed to prove that someone is not psychotic and likely to go on mad deletion or blocking sprees. I hope Mackensen will move closer to that ideal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Good platform, reminds me of the "outside-of-Washington" camaign platforms of some former U.S. political candidates, except this one is actually genuine. That the burden of proof falls on the opposers is what I was trying to articulate in my RfB, but this user is better armed to judge consensus and, well, has a more eloquent and sensible platform than I ever did. I've been saying for a while that RfA needs a fresh voice as bureaucrat and this seems like an ideal candidate. Grandmasterka 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Strong support Excellent statement. --Mbimmler 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong support a little revolution, now and again, is a good thing. I am much impressed by Mackensen's open-ness and perspective. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support An exceptional wikipedian, who already has the trust of the community in several fundamental roles. He will make a great bureaucrat.--Anthony.bradbury 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Mackensen is not perfect in all ways... apparently he can't even quip in Latin ('O tempora! O humanitas!'), but each of the few times I have seen him 'step over the line' he has 'stepped back' in short order. He is right about our need for more admins, I agree that the steady increase in RFA 'requirements' is a problem, I'm in favour of allowing bureaucrats wider discretion, and I think Mackensen would do a good job of it. Will some of the people he promotes turn out to be 'problem' admins? Undoubtedly, but that's true when bureaucrats go 'by the numbers' too... it is an issue we need to deal with better in general, rather than something which should cause us to limit the number of admins promoted (and thereby cause more pressure for the existing ones to crack). Despite some past 'bad blood' between us I wasn't uncomfortable with Mackensen acting as arbitrator on a recent case where some were pushing for sanctions against me. I trusted him to be fair and consider things carefully there - judging admin candidates isn't half so demanding. --CBD 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - I fully trust Mackensen to be a good crat, my only concerns were that he would jump in and promote users which didn't really have community support, the answer to question 7 relieves me of these concerns, by stating he would discuss with other crats prior to taking action, it seams that this user can be trusted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Suppoty - A great sysop, great at his role as Checkuser/oversight, will do well if he's a bureaucrat! --SunStar Net ^talk 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. A statement of intent, and IMO the right intent. RFA needs to be sorted out, and I have confidence that Mackensen may well be the person to do it! Batmanand | Talk 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. I like what he is saying and respect his judgement. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Takes initiative with respect to obvious problems Fred Bauder 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Good statement. I trust his judgment. My first hand experience with him tells me that he will work collaboratively with other 'crats as needed. FloNight 14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support (strong) — excellent Wikipedian, informative statement and a clear demonstration of the user's ability to be trusted with important tools (CheckUser/Oversight). anthony^[cfc] 15:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I can't see any reason not to support. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Mackensen is an excellent user. Can he be trusted with the tools? Of course! I don't see the harm in his wish to apply more common sense rather than discussing percentage figures. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong medicine, and timely. --Robth^Talk 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support per platform. Fuck the numbers, I want a bureaucrat who I trust to think and make good decisions, and Mackensen is that sort of person. Picaroon 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. I support Mackensen. DS 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Of course. - David Gerard 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. No question in my mind. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support — perfect candidate. He has flawlessly and intelligently resolved every issue I've seen him involved in. — Deckiller 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. DarthVader 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - views on RFA are consistent with mine. Gracenotes^T § 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Like Majorly said, I don't really see much RfA participation, but I've known to trust Mackensen in many of the other things he does on Wikipedia. I have no doubt that the trust for other tools like CheckUser can be carried over to bureacratship. Nishkid64 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support: Will, in my opinion, use the tools well.  ~Steptrip 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Mackensen? Of course! Prodego ^talk 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. My only concern has been dealt with. --Conti|✉ 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Why not? For a user that has been on wiki, for like, 4 years, and a user who is both a checkuser and oversight, should, in my opinion, become a bureaucrat. I mean, very few users are granted adminship, checkuser, and oversight, there's only, like, 15 of those users out there. A lot of oversights and checkusers have become stewards first, and a lot of stewards have become bureaucrats first. More people like this, should, in my poinion, help the encyclopedia. As long as this user is credible, trustworthy, and legitimate overall, I support. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support per strong statement, and answers to questions. Anyone with checkuser/oversight/ArbCom is easily trustworthy enough to be a bureaucrat, and will do what's in the best interests of the project in dealing with RfAs. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Yonatan ^talk 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Mack is someone whose judgement I would trust in performing 'crat actions. The number of existing 'crats is immaterial; Mack would be a valued addition. -- Avi 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support ugen64 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support This has been a very informative discussion. I think Mackensen's approach to RFA may be helpful. YechielMan 07:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - based on the answers given and the discussion throughout this RfB, I feel comfortable giving my full support to Mackensen. I doubt he will implode the Wiki with the extra tools; in fact, I believe he will make it better. I trust his decisions and his judgement. ♠PMC♠ 09:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. "People I trust" and "People who have a chance in hell" form a very small intersection, and you're it. —freak(talk) 10:41, Apr. 8, 2007 (UTC)
87. Support per Statement and Dev920. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 14:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Wait, wait, your entire platform is that you will actually do your job? (as opposed to those bowing to the majoritans, or those hiding in shady corners and not daring to speak up). Wow. You'd be the only bureaucrat to actually determine oucomes based on consensus.. Well well... I guess I have no choice but to support, and wish you lots of strength and good luck. --Kim Bruning 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. RfA is broken, and I believe that this candidate can fix it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. --Rory096 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. I have no qualms about this candidate. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Perhaps RfA is broken because there's nobody at the top who's willing to change it. So let's put someone there who is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. I have been wondering for a long time whether someone would have the guts to put forward a bureaucrat candidacy like this--one with actionable and needed reform proposals built in. I agree with some things in the candidate statement and not others, but I assume that there will be plenty of opporunities for conversation in future if this RFB should pass. In the meantime, there is no better person to carry out the changes that need to be made. One question the opposers should think about: given that reform is necessary, would you rather have the current bureacrats carrying it out, or Mackensen? Nothing against the current crew, but to me the answer is clear. Chick Bowen 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support I don't see any valid reason to not give the tools. A b-crat interested in talking to the rest of the community about RFA issues is welcome. I for one notice its over reliance on numbers. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Very well put. I would suggest changing "confer with other bureaucrats" to "confer with the community" on hard cases -- it should still be the community making the decision. The best bureaucrats would be facilitators of a better decision making process. +sj + 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support as the perfect candidate for B-crat, finally, someone for change and community! Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support — eminently trustworthy and a fine judge of what's good for Wikipedia. I also like the suggestions for RfA reform. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support as WP:100, this place needs a bit of a shake-up and I think we can trust Mackensen to do this effectively. Good luck. The Rambling Man 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - I don't agree with his ideas on RfA reform, but see no reason not to trust his judgment or actions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. I trust him in judging consensus. No further explanation is necessary. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - obviously trustworthy, and if the community won't fix the somewhat dishonest RfA system by either making it an outright vote or by giving the crats more leeway, well, then, I trust Mackensen to do a good job of addressing these issues. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Strong Support - I like Mackensen's statement and answers to questions. RfA is in an extremely bad state, and we do need more bureaucrats who are prepared to fix it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support per the answers to the questions--Dakota 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. You've been around long enough to know this is yet another endless thankless task - if you're still willing to do it, I will support you. I think you might want to consider counseling, however. There is such a thing as giving too much, you know? And I am supporting despite serious concerns about your platform, as covered thoroughly in the oppose section.KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Why not? We need more Bureaucrats and you seem to be an experienced, veteran user fit for the task. Also, you already have got other exclusive administrative roles, and you seem to go fine with them; so... Why not also this one? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. The platform is a good one, and so is the candidate. We must elevate good users and trust them to make good decisions. Coemgenus 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support I don't completely agree with Mackensen's platform, but I certainly respect him for it. He has some great ideas and will certainly do more good than harm. His nomination statement and answers to the questions convinced me of his ability to be a good 'crat. -- Kicking222 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - This is the kind of crat we need! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support -No one I'd trust more. --Christian Mortensen 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Note: User's 3rd edit. --Elonka 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

111. Support - Strong candidate with a clear platform for change. FCYTravis 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Definitely the best bureaucrat candidate in recent memory. I am really impressed that Mackensen actually speaks his mind and is honest, rather than just trying his closest approximation of an automaton, which seems to be what way too many people are looking for. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Has my trust, will undoubtedly do well. – Riana ^ऋ 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support, definitely trustworthy, and he does good work. --Coredesat 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
115. (Edit conflict) While I wish that Mack hadn't used this RFB as a way to bring up a debate about the broken-ness of RFA, this page boils down to one question - "Do I trust Mackensen or not?" The answer to that is yes. While I disagree with him about RFA being broken (I still believe that any system will face the same issues RFA has until DRFA is fixed), I do not believe he would try to ramrod RFA as RFC down our collective throats... I guess this reinforces Splash's comment down below, though... but meh. The issue with Everyking can be rationalized with the "one fuck-up rule" (translation: everyone is allowed to fuck up royally once without later trouble, as long as they understand their mistake), and since he appears to be contrite about the incident, I've got no reason to oppose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     That's indeed the question "in a nutshell", but we might need a little more room than that. Were I being asked if I'd support Mac as a "conventional bureaucrat", and as a bureaucrat only, I'd be at the least inclined to do so. But this isn't just tabling reform for debate, but taking promotion as a mandate for said 'reform': "I would not be a conventional bureaucrat. The "collect the full set of roles" compounds this, since if while acting as a BC, he IARs to such an extent that it goes to RFAr, the rest of the AC are put in the position of hearing a case about one of their "peers" (I'm taking it as read he'd recuse himself, obviously). Alai 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Except that we elected him to ArbCom - that means we believe he is sensible, so a scenario like the one you describe is not very likely. As for the first part of your point - I do not consider this RFB to be that (policy changes aren't made this way, and trying to implement them even in case of a successful RFB would cause DFA round two to occur), and I've said so explictly; that's why I can support Mackensen. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     This is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning: we trusted him to do one thing, ipso facto we should trust him to do everything, regardless of the obvious scope for conflict between the different roles? I don't think creating such "single points of failure" is at all wise (and I've said so in other contexts, so this is no slight at all on this particular candidate). Frankly, such conflicts would seem almost inevitable, if we trust him (as it were) to do what he explicitly says he will (which I'm indeed inclined to do). The first time an RFA were to be closed in an "unconventional" way, and if there were anything short of clear-cut endorsement of that closure from the other BCs, there'd be a huge stink, and the clear prospect of taking the matter to arbitration. The trouble is, it's not a "policy change" as such, as others supporting it have been eager to point out, it's simply notice to behave in a particular way. Alai 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Well, that goes against David Gerard's Law of "one job well done means three more jobs to come", and more above it, by the current situation. We already have several arbitrators who are bureaucrats (Raul654 and UninvitedCompany come to mind) and the vast majority of their promotions are not controversial. I am quite sure that Mackensen will see that while there is some approval of his "agenda" (for lack of a better word), he would not, as I wrote in my initial comment, ram it down our throats. It also boils down to our disagreement whether arbitrators and bureaucrats should be overlapping groups; you see a problem with it, while on the other hand, I don't. If anyone wants to go through a Request for Barbequing, and succeeds, it means he or she has the community's trust, and it doesn't matter whether he is an arbitrator, a steward, a MediaWiki developer, or a benevolent dictator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

116. Support - I don't think it was a good idea to attach a platform to this candidacy, but I have every faith in the person, and I think he's made it clear that he won't perform potentially controversial RfA closes without significant consultation with other B's - and that's good enough for me. - Merzbow 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
117. Strong Support - per platform and of overall trust. RfA has turned into a flamewar (if I may <pov> tag it, your typical slashdot comments) and honestly, numbers don't mean anything about trust. One can easily sock it up, and we'd be none the wiser, people can oppose based on a grudge, or some other non-related issue. RfA needs some change, and I strongly believe Mackensen is someone who can bring that change. -- Tawker 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
118. support for me it's ok :) good work!!! --dario vet (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support I hear you, and I like what I'm hearing. —Anas ^talk? 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. I like the distinction made between consensus and counting votes. I think Mackensen will be a valuable addition as a 'crat. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support. Most sensible voice to be heard in these halls for quite some time. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - We need more Bureaucrats and I believe Mackensen deserves a chance and anywayz we have already lost a couple of good possible candidates already who made the mistake of applying right after the 'Essjay Controversy'..Dont repeat it again...--Cometstyles 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
123. I am left with a bad taste in my mouth in regards to my first and thus far only interaction with Mackensen, but I feel it is a trivial incident and would hold it against myself to judge his entire statement based on that. I support his platform and, since I feel he has what it takes to carry through, support his request for bureaucratship as well. Regards, Iamunknown 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Sounds like a grand idea. - Denny ^(talk) 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. I hope the nom makes it. Agree philosophically and believe in his judgement. — David Remahl 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support, does good work everywhere else. I think each one of us is part of the reason RFA is so broken and change would do us a lot of good. — CharlotteWebb 02:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support I guess the whole "reform proposal" thingy is moot now since we know that the crats do what they want anyway, and Mackensen at least promises to stay away from candidacies he voted on. Let's see if he sticks to it. ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support - I have a great deal of respect for this user. I happen to also agree with his platform. Philippe 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support-nice editings Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
130. Strong Support. I agree ten-thousandfold with this admin's platform. Kntrabssi 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support I've seen him around on different places, including ArbCom, and he always acts for good. No reason to oppose his candidacy. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Good editor with a long history. Arbustoo 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support Good editor with a long history seams thrustworthy, and RfA is broken and needs to be changed in the direction suggested. Stefan 04:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support: I have seen nothing which convinces me that he would be any less than excellent at the job. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support: This editor seems to have done a lot of great work for Wikipedia. I think he will make a great Bureaucrat. Funpika 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Mackensen without reservations and conflicted support for the platform. I share Dragonflight's concern below that this will stir more resentment than it is worth, but given the difficulty of getting any RFA change instituted, I'm willing to try it. I thought it worked well recently for Danny's promotion, and I expect something similar from Mackensen. Cheers!--Chaser - T 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support superb record.-- danntm ^T _C 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support per Tawker. Mike Christie (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. RfA shouldn't be a popularity contest or a hoop jumping show. RfA should be about trust. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, per my long-held RfB standards: no more Bureaucrats are needed with the current amount of tasks and bureaucrats. This is not a judgment of the user, who, if I may ad, is one of our Project's greater assets. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   OK... This is the first time I may not vote oppose on an RfB, and I may still change my mind, but re-reading his statement a couple of times has forced me to reconsider, even if just temporarily. On principle, we do not need more bureaucrats. That will not change for the foreseeable future, and the track record of the majority of the existing 'crats not pulling their weight makes me wary of any RfB candidate no matter the quality. But... But, reading his statement, I cannot help to think that, if he were to follow up with his promises, there would be a measurable benefit to the Project. There is no telling how effective he could be and will likely be thwarted in some of his efforts; other 'crats may beat him to the punch on a RfA, or he may be just too busy with all his other activities — there are very few users with his level of access and responsibility. So for now I am still opposing the concept of the need for more 'crats, but supporting Mackensen's rationale in his nomination statement. Consider this a neutral oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Wether we need more or not, can the project be harmed by having them? Viridae^Talk 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Like the editor, but his statement is problematic. Placing "the burden on the opposers" strikes me as a manner of bypassing a (sometimes large) discontented minority with whom one disagrees. I certainly don't think Mackensen says this in bad-faith, or anything; I just worry that such a philosophy will lead to more and more unprepared admins. I guess one might call this a philosophical disagreement. Also, per CanadianCaesar, concerned about separation of powers among arbcom and b'crats. Xoloz 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There is no way to approach consensus-judging if the people who oppose have no obligation to provide a rationale. That means they cannot be engaged on their ideas, others cannot take their arguments into account, and, frankly, people with crappy arguments not in line with Wikipedia's goals are given equal weight to sensible editors. You'll have to explain what you mean by "separation of powers". Wikipedia does not have a government, and bureaucrats are not a check or balance on any other group, including arbitrators. Are you afraid bureaucrats who are arbitrators could not be held accountable, because that doesn't seem like an issue to me. (And has there ever been any problem with the multiple current bureaucrats on ArbCom?) Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I've never seen an opposer who doesn't comment at all and is left alone. Normally, the opposer is asked to explain, and does so. If he doesn't, he should be ignored, I agree. What worries me are those arguments that the majority might not like (like say, "candidate lack of experience" or -- to judge from Danny's ongoing RfA -- "candidate bites newbies.") These arguments don't win majority support, but often attract a significant minority. I fear that "weighing the stregth of the arguments" might lead to ignoring that significant minority. I'm no fan of percentages, either, but they do have the advantage of protecting minority opinion -- an important feature distinguishing consensus-rule from outright democracy, which WP is not.

   As for your other concern, I think its pretty obvious. One person should not have too much power. I oppose consolidation of powers in any individual. Helps protect against Essjay-like problems, eh? If the current ArbCom members, like Raul, came up to RfB today, I'd oppose on the same principle; and it would not hurt the workload (at RfA anyway) because, historically, dual ArbCommer/b'crats don't close many RfA's. Xoloz

3. Object: dishonest and hypocritical. This user once posted private e-mails from me on Wikipedia, without my permission (in fact, he did so in spite of outraged protest on my part), tried to use them against me, and then later had the gall to complain when somebody else did something similar to him. Even leaving that aside, I disagree with him about just about every position I've seen him take on admin issues. Everyking 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hello James. I'm not going to defend what I did then; I've regretted it ever since and I apologized to you via email. I don't begrudge you disagreeing with me on administrative issues, but I've long hoped that it might be within you, after some two years, to forgive me that terrible lapse of judgement. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Dragonsflight below also articulates very well how I feel about Mackensen's intention to promote according to his own judgment rather than the community's. This is a very, very wrong approach, and I do not believe people would accept it in practice. Everyking 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. As Newyorkbrad says above, this RFB presents us with two questions. Do we trust Mackensen, and are we prepared to embrace his vision of reform. To the first question I would answer with a resounding yes. I have nothing but respect for Mackensen's work and the time he devotes to Wikipedia. I am sure he has nothing but good intentions here. However, I feel the reform package on which he has staked his candidacy is fundamentally flawed and will increase rather than diminish the problems with this process. In many ways Wikipedia is the Community. This project rises or falls on the good will of volunteers. If the controversial closings of the past tell us anything, it is that there are few faster ways to create strife in this community than to create situations where people feel their views are ignored and cast aside by powerful authority figures who appear to be substituting their own judgment for that of the community. Your proposal is in essence to place your own judgment above that of the mob in determining who to promote. While noble in intent, I feel that the troublesome side effects of such decisions and the perception of disenfranchisement will be far worse than any fractional gains achieved by a few more promotions.

   Adminship should be no big deal. And likewise, not being an admin should be no big deal. Even though RFA may make some bloody stupid decisions some times, relatively little harm comes of that. Personally I think the standards should be lower, and I've even made ad hoc proposals for how to increase the promotion rate, but regardless we still promote nearly one candidate per day and Wikipedia continues to function. Even if Mackensen could function as a benevolent and omniscient dictator for RFA, I expect the overall effect of correcting RFA's mistakes and increasing the admin pool would be small. Much less in fact than the negative impact of stirring resentment within the community by creating a situation where people perceive that their opinions don't really matter.

   In my opinion, the community as a whole would be better served by embracing the German model and eliminating Bureaucrat discretion entirely rather than increasing it. A straight vote is clear, concise, and easily understood by all involved. Even though the selection of which admins are promoted might be somewhat worse, I feel that providing the community with a clearly understood outcome is more important than accurately promoting every potentially valuable candidate. (And let's not kid ourselves, in the last year a straight 75% threshold predicted 99% of all RFA outcomes, so the process in its present incarnation is already very vote like.)

   So, in short, I feel Mackensen's proposal is exactly a step in the wrong direction. This is in no way a dispersion on him, as I believe he is certainly deserving of our trust, and he might well improve the selection of candidates. However, by putting himself squarely in the position of deciding whether or not a certain kind of opposition is to be counted, I feel he is asking for trouble. Such an autocratic approach might be able to improve our promotions, but I feel it would inevitably frustrate other valuable contributors and ultimately have unintended consequences that would make things worse for the community overall. Dragons flight 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You say that the straight 75% threshold predicted 99% of all RFA outcomes, but what about excellent candidates that have seen their RFA percentage dragged well below 75% because of frivilous arguments, they're the people we should be finding a way to promote - if they've got the experience and can be trusted, they should be promoted and at the moment, it's simply not happening. What's worse is that so many people have lost faith in the RFA system, they are refusing to put themselves forward for adminship. There are dozens of people on-wiki and on IRC who keep asking for an admin to perform actions they both know how to perform themselves and should be performing themselves, but who are too concerned at how their RFA would go. RFA shouldn't be judged on those it promotes, but rather, those it doesn't, and those who are too terrified to even accept a nomination and go through the whole process. -- Nick ^t 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Which excellent candidates have failed RfA due to frivolous arguments? This claim is made frequently, but few (if any) specific RfAs are ever mentioned. In close cases candidates often aren't as "excellent" as supporters believe and the opposition isn't as "frivolous" either. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen occassionally, but do we overhaul RfA to address a few exceptions? ChazBeckett 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Which excellent candidates? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KyraVixen. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tohru Honda13. If you give me a few minutes, I can look up several more. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, I appreciate seeing specific RfAs being mentioned. I do have to disagree that these are cases of excellent candidate that failed due to frivolous reasoning. In the case of KyraVixen, the opposition was mainly due to having almost no experience with articles. It's a matter of personal opinion how important article writing is, but I don't think it would qualify as frivolous reasoning. The second case is difficult to judge because the candidate withdrew very early. I'm sure there are more examples, but the point is that they're exceptions and RfA does work fine in the majority of cases. Can it be improved? Of course it can! Is it so badly broken that it's simply ceased functioning and we must find a replacement right now? IMO, no. ChazBeckett 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per platform. To ask even less of reasoned argument from supporters, and even more from opposers, seems to me a step in exactly the wrong direction. Mackensen's "I would be willing to promote anyone of whom the above can be said" suggests to me a shift in the bureaucratic role from assessing community consensus to assessing the candidate. I read it as a slide towards less and less need for any community input on RFA. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but I don't want to see it become more of an enlightened despotism than it has to, either. The few instances that we have so far seen of bureaucrat unilateralism haven't beeen encouraging IMO. Bishonen | talk 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

   I hope that we do not wind up in such a place. In encouraging RfC format I hope to see more discussion/ideas and less straight !voting. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but I'm convinced that the existing model is broken. Thanks for your insight as always, Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Would your determination to promote according to your own judgment apply even if a majority vote against a candidate? If 60% oppose the candidacy, but you support it, will you approve it? In the past, bitter controversy has developed as a result of promotions done when the result was under 70% support, which the community seems to have settled upon as the appropriate minimum; I believe the lowest was Carnildo with about 62%. The latter case in particular caused a firestorm of controversy. How do you feel about all this? I think we can presume similar outrage if you were to make a promotion without consensus, so how would you respond to that? Would you tell people to just deal with it, because you're the boss and you make the decisions? Everyking 04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As I indicated above I'm not interested in numbers; I'm interested in reasons. Again, switching to RfC format lessens the importance of percentages. You have the possibility of people endorsing multiple points of view. This changes the terms altogether. I would focus on the particular objections and weigh each in turn, based on whether these objections were grounded in policy. In most cases this isn't a big deal, but in these borderline cases a party is bound to be angry with the outcome. Your last sentence is problematic: I might not be the boss, but I would be called upon to make the decision. It would be my hope that the community would take a similarly benevolent view towards the granting of adminship. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Many common objections to RfAs are well-known to recur. Realizing that firm opinions are impossible without the specific details of an individual case, could you share your feelings on how you would evaluate the objection that a candidate "lacks experience"? I'd just like a general guideline here. You see, as you abhor percentages, you will be a different sort of b'crat: I'd like to have some indication of the standards by which you will weigh arguments that I know will arise every day. Xoloz 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Lack of experience is an important objection, if properly qualified. It's a recurring gag that X doesn't have enough Portal edits, so oppose. The joke has a kernel of truth. I view this as an evolving process; as I've noted above, it's my hope that the change of format will lead to a change of tone and lead people to focus on essential issues. Experience can be measured, in part, by time served. Does the person edit regularly? Has he edited for a couple months, and do these edits show dedication, or a passing fling? Has the person shown some interest beyond the article space? I want, when possible, to take my cues from the community on these questions, but with the proviso that the community change its focus. In particular, I want to re-examine the common objection that a user doesn't know enough about policy. Policy is an ever-changing minefield; less important than experience with policy is an inculcated knowledge of what Wikipedia is about. This innate approach is more valuable than a rules-lawyer knowledge of policy. I suspect this doesn't clarify much, but I freely admit that this is uncertain ground. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If you make the decision, you're the boss. I like having it so the community makes the decision, and the community is the boss. Moving to an RfC format would presumably not be accepted by the community, which has rejected much less radical proposals for change, so we have to assume you'd be operating within context of the existing RfA format. How would you react to the boiling controversies that would erupt if you did things the way you're proposing? This wouldn't just be a matter of a "party" objecting. Everyking 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   On whether the community would accept such a format, I regard this RfB as a test of that willingness. I would consider the success of this RfB as a mandate from the community to at least try this new idea. If it fails, I will of course work within the existing structure. See my response to Xoloz above. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't agree that it would constitute a mandate; to change the system general approval would be required on the RfA talk page or some similar page. But, since you say it would, how would you go about this? Would you rewrite the RfA instructions and rework the formatting, and then present it to the community as if they are supposed to accept it? Everyking 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Opppose per the platform. Dragon's flight put it very well. We should not replace community's (mob's, if you wish) judgment with bureaucrat's one. The 75% threshold has the advantage that there is a clear criterion for passing, independent of the bureaucrat. The biggest problems we had in RfAs were when bureaucrats thought they were smarter than the people. That include's Danny's vote and promote below threshold for Sean Black and Essjay, the recent promotion by Raul654 ('cause Raul liked the guy, even though he was way below promotion theshold), and the Carnildo affair. We need less of this, not more. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   A few points: (1) since RFAs have long since become only attended by a small fraction of regular Wikipedia editors, and indeed largely by a fairly consistent group ("RFA regulars"), voting totals here have long since lost relevance to true consensus; (2) From the start, adminship was meant to be granted to all editors who wanted it and seemed competent; (3) nowhere on Wikipedia are we supposed to be voting, although '!vote' is cynical for a reason; (4) the biggest problems we have had in RFAs are not the occasional controversial bureaucrat decision, which IMO tends to be a big fuss created by a small number of people, but the daily disaster of the RFA process, drip by drip; that it dissuades competent users from serving the project in this capacity, that it makes getting adminship a political and ass-kissing process, and a matter of ticking off all the check-boxes on a bunch of silly requirements, that it gives an impression of what adminship should be about that is not the actual case or the preferences of most of the project; (5) that by putting needless barriers up it actually increases the feeling that admins are 'special' and an elite class, and by reducing the number of admins it encourages an us v. them feeling and increases the chances of rushed work by the admins we have. I could go on, but I think the worst of all likely results is to keep the current way the RFA process works. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You have raised many valid points. I very much agree that the people who vote can be a fickle crowd, opposing on the slightest of mistakes or appearance of lack of experience in a certain area. I also agree that people are discouraged from candidating with the current process. Some kind of reforms are needed indeed. Nevertheless, taking the power from the people and giving it to the bureaucrats is not the way to go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Another reason to oppose is that I believe it is not good for arbitrators to be also bureaucrats and the other way around. If a lot of the bureaucrats are arbitrators, and there is an RfArb against bureaucrats, this may cause conflict of interest. Yes I know that those people can recuse, but there are many good people around to need the power concentrated in just a few hands. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per CanadianCaesar, Xoloz. From the cases quoted by Oleg Alexandrov, how am I supposed to know whether my legitimate concerns be thrown out as WP:IDONTLIKEIT pro crat's WP:ILIKEIT? - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that probably comes down to whether you trust me, or any other bureaucrat, to exercise good judgement and act fairly to all parties--not just opposers, of course. Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per platform. Everybody participating in RfA not only presents the arguments but also evaluates the previous arguments as well as his or her personal arguments. To dismiss all these judgements and use instead Mackensen's personal criteria for the adminship is to strong and to dangerous reform. Alex Bakharev 07:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Looking for the benevolent, judicious decisionmaker in instances when the community gets it wrong is a tempting impulse, but as history has shown, it's almost always the wrong impulse, and I find it worrying that Mackensen tries to sell it as the panacea. He should know better. ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (NB I think Mackensen's experiment is fundamentally flawed and will fail, but I don't disagree with Mackensen as 'crat. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

   Switched to support. ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. There's about 20 active editors that I would strongly support in an RfB. Mackensen is one of them. When I saw that he had an ongoing RfB, I started reading wondering what reasons people would find to oppose. As I read more I realized that this wasn't so much a Request for Bureaucratship, but instead a Request to Change RfA. Perhaps a change is necessary, but it should not be undertaken by bureaucrats. "Reform" has been discussed at great length and nothing resembling consensus has ever been reached. I fully support Mackensen's desire to change RfA, but this is not the way to accomplish it. Sadly, I must oppose. ChazBeckett 12:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I really fail to understand this comment. You (like most) agree that RfA needs changing. Well, what is the other means of changing it you are suggesting? Trying to get consensus on any one proposal is impossible - the only thing we can get consensus on is that the status-quo sucks, yet we are left with the status quo. If Mackensen is successful then he will have a consensus to proceed as he has openly declared - and he's indicated that it it doesn't work, he'll back off. What other practical route do you have in mind to sort RfA?--Doc^g 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I'll try to explain myself better. I think that ...perhaps a change is necessary, though I'm not in the "RfA is broken" camp. It probably needs a few tweaks, but in general RfA works well enough that there isn't consensus to change. Or at least there's no consensus on how to fix it without breaking what's already working. If an overhaul is going to occur, it shouldn't be through a bureaucrat who decided he's going to change it by himself. I don't support Mackensen's one-man approach and therefore I'm opposing him. Also, if Mackensen were a bureaucrat, promotion in an RfA would be based partially on which bureaucrat closed it. I don't want to see a situation in which Mackensen is promoting admins that no other bureaucrat would have promoted. From his nomination statement, I believe this would occur sooner rather than later. ChazBeckett 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose simply on the grounds that we do not need more promotions to this position. Moves to this job should be, and are, quite rare. We need some demonstration that more are needed, and there has been none. Therefore, the default is "no." Geogre 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. RfA may need fixing (although I'm skeptical), but letting Mackensen decide the passes or fails on a whim would be like trying to fix the American electoral system by declaring a king. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm regret if my statements above make it sound as though I'm proposing whimsy as the basis for adminship. See especially my responses to Ryanpostlethwaite's questions. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per the platform, Oleg Alexandrov and Xoloz. Terence 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong oppose per Bishonen. Just no way. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. The opposers above have said what I wanted to say and more elegantly. We need less, not more, bureaucratic fiat. The Wikipedia community is a democratic society of peers. Voting is imperfect but it is the best method we have of selecting new admins. We do need responsible people to manage the voting process but we don't need them to override it in favor of applying their own judgment. Mackensen has suggested that he would do the latter so I cannot support him for the position. I also have misgivings about Mackensen from some of his comments in the past. I remember a weird disproportional haranguing of Xoloz for closing a DRV with a result Mackensen disagreed with. It seemed to me like Mackensen was not interested in entertaining or even informing himself on views different from his own, condemning one of our best admins over something as trivial as a cross-namespace redirect. [1] [2] [3] [4] Haukur 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I'm aware Xoloz bears me no ill-will over the matter; I certainly hold no grudge. I do not believe that upholding policy is a vice. You should have quoted the most important thing I said from that debate [5]. I'll quote it in full here: "Let's put the buzzwords down and back away from them and have a serious discussion. What we've got here is a classic conflict between process and policy. That is, an approved process came up with a result which violated policy. In that case, the best thing is for the closing administrator to exercise good judgement (as I said above), and close the discussion in favor of policy over process. It's that simple." I stand by that remark and I'm surprised that this stance is controversial. Deliberately violating policy is no trivial matter. If Wikipedia is a democratic society of our peers then ought to grant adminship freely, not place it out of reach. I propose to do just that. Do you disagree? Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree that Xoloz "deliberately violated policy" or that he violated policy at all. I would be fine with granting adminship more liberally but the right way to do that would be to lower the support needed for passing, not by electing a bureaucrat who plays by his own book. Thanks for replying, though. Haukur 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's have a different playbook then (if you like), but I do not believe that fiddling with numbers is the answer. Every RFA needs to articulate clearly why someone should or should not be an admin, and how the encyclopedia benefits. Simply adjusting these arbitary numbers downward doesn't address the actual question, and will in my view simply lead to more knee-jerk opposing. Thank you as well for the discussion, Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line is that I believe RFA should be a vote and you believe it should not be. While this is the case I am not likely to vote for you. Haukur 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose: For three reasons. First, I agree with a number of the sentiments voiced above regarding the platform. However, I wish to draw a distinction that I do not find above. Bureaucrats are put in place to exercise the will of the community. They are not leaders. The power to change RfA is not vested with them. This isn't just about changing the RfA process. This RfB asks us to completely change the model of what a bureaucrat is. Should this RfB succeed, the model then becomes that bureaucrats can implement whatever they see fit to achieve RfA's goals. We have had a tremendous amount of fallout within the last year from bureaucrats acting distinctly in opposition to community consensus. We do not need more of this. Second: I wholeheartedly agree, with every fiber of my wiki-being, that RfA is horribly broken and that what RfA has become is fully against the purposes of the project. We have seen a zillion reform proposals come and go. Very few of them ever take the time and effort to analyze what the goals of RfA are, what the problems in the current system are, and how a given proposal will solve the problems while fulfilling the goals. This proposal is no different; there's nothing to suggest this is the right way forward. It's just a way forward suggested by a long time editor here. We've had dozens of those. Third, I feel Mackensen has shown a willingness to be hopelessly shackled to process. A reading of his comments at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_6#Other_clerk_areas shows him to be heavily combative and unwilling to seriously consider another method of doing things. I don't care that he opposed my stance in that exchange. It matters not to me (I actually found his insults amusing, if wholly unconstructive, such as calling me a martyr). What I found shocking was his attitude and behavior in that thread. In the end, the exlusionary status of clerks at WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U and WP:RFCU has been removed, and amazingly enough those processes are still working well. In sum; This RfB suggests a complete revamp not just of RfA, but of the role of bureaucrats in a way I find wholly unacceptable. Further, the proposed change has been made without doing any evaluative work to even begin to suggest this is the right way forward. Lastly, even if this is the right way forward, Mackensen is most emphatically not the person to be leading us into the next era of RfA. --Durin 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the first time I've even been accused of being shackled to process; I urge you not to make generalizations from a debate that I fully admit I took personally, and which I regret (after the fact, but still). Frankly that mess reflected poorly on all concerned, and I like to think that I've been gentlemanly and civil in 99% of my interactions. I'll also point out that I stood aside when you idea (version thereof) gained support. In any event, I'm not terribly surprised by this opposition, but I hope you're prepared to active engage the question of RFA reform. We need not be shackled to the idea that such reform is impossible just because everyone so far has failed. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to suggest that I am opposing you because you opposed me and the removal of exclusionary status of clerks. I am not. As I noted above, I do not care that you opposed what I was advocating. What I am gravely concerned about the manner in which you acquitted yourself, which is most emphatically completely unbecoming of a person who is asking us to vest more power in him than any bureaucrat in the last few years. I am not shackled to the idea that RfA reform is impossible. I am very convinced by a number of factors (including this essay) that the regulars at WT:RFA are now, as a group, incapable of this reform. --Durin 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I simply don't blame you for having an unfavorable view of me. I'm also not asking for more power for me personally; I'm asking for a change in process and greater latitude to bureaucrats as a group. I agree completely that the RFA regulars are incapable of reform, hence here we are. Thanks for your response; I hope I've clarified matters. Peace, Mackensen (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose per comments made by dragons flight, bishonen, chaz, durin. Too many issues raised that make me uncomfortable supporting mackensen.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. It bothers me to oppose this nomination, because I agree with Mackensen's sentiment, but I don't think his method is the right way to handle RFA issues. I agree that even now, it should not be done merely as head-counting, but that at least some form of discretion should be used (such as discounting votes reminiscent of Boothy443). But to put the onus on opposing voters even more so than it is now should be a community decision. While I'm sure WT:RFA comments to this effect have made up many megabytes of text, no one has actually put forth a competent effort to change the qualifications for passing adminship. Until this happens, and passes or fails, I cannot support someone who would radically change the status quo without community support. Ral315 » 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may, the success of this RfB would surely indicate community support for making such a change. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But what if I think that you are a good candidate for the role and your proposal is flawed, as per NewYorkBrad? How then do I decide to cast my opinion? (aeropagitica) 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have to ask whether the concept is worth a try or not. If you aren't in favor of RfA reform than for heaven's sake don't support me. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose: This candidate attracts far to much controversy. A bureaucrat has to be like Caesar's wife - Mackensen is not. Among his faults are double standards (per Everyking) if he was to be permitted to make important decisions and choices, no one on this site would ever know where they stood. I don't trust him. Giano 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyking refers to an incident from two years ago, in which I erred greatly in publishing private correspondence. I later apologized and recanted. Bringing matters to the present, I never lied to you, never blocked you, never spoke ill of you behind your back, always answered your questions honestly and always strove to keep the lines of communication open, even when under great pressure. I can't imagine what more I could have done, but you're welcome to think what you will of me. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't frequent IRC, so I have no idea what you do or do not say behind my back but this is not about me and you, as I said "This candidate attracts far to much controversy. A bureaucrat has to be like Caesar's wife - Mackensen is not" - Sorry. Giano 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackensen is not 'beyond suspicion'? Anyway, whilst doubtless irreproachable, Mrs. C was also equally ineffectual in changing the fates.--Doc^g 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure you are right, but did she not at least have the sense to fall on her asp and avoid an unseemly debate on her dodgy reputation? Giano 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, Cleopatra was never married to Caesar. He was married to Calpurnia Pisonis, who dreamed he would be murdered but failed miserably in getting him to stay away from public affairs that day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the term refers to Caesar's declaration in divorcing Pompeia. There is something about this in the article and in the Publius Clodius Pulcher article. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Tony, but at the end of the day an asp is just an asp, and a sword is just a sword - my meaning is quite clear, falling on either produces the same result. Giano 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. No way. I strongly oppose any candidate who would put their judgement above the community's. (Although I agree that an RfA structured as an RfC would be a much better idea, I do not agree that there should be "kingmakers".) As things stand, that is not acceptable. I do not consider your judgement to be superior to the average in any case, so even if it were acceptable, I wouldn't accept you in the role. Furthermore, I would not support anyone who would have promoted Ryulong, or any other candidate who garnered widespread opposition. Whereas I think that it's reasonable to say that we should not count votes and should not turn down candidates because they don't meet arbitrary, ever shifting criteria, I do think that candidates who meet serious, heartfelt opposition from a significant number of editors should not be promoted, regardless how many supports they receive. You seem to agree, yet clearly you mean to say that you would disregard opposition you personally did not agree with. If a more objective-minded candidate stood on the same platform, I would maybe support them. But not this one. Grace Note 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose: per all above. Great admin, but the platform really bothers me. Adminship is a big deal as we want admins we can trust, that's why we have RFAs and don't give it to everyone.Rlevse 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose This candidate appears to wish to take bureaucratic discretion far too greatly for my liking. Also, the calls for RfA reform by the candidate worry me as they are (in my opinion) quite unwarranted. Giano's comment expresses my view of disliking bureaucrats that make controversial calls quite nicely. You are a great candidate editor, but I cannot believe that your gaining of adminship will benefit Wikipedia. Captain panda 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permit me an observation. You might say that Giano and I have a history, although I bear him no grudge and on the whole feel that he blames for the wrong-doings of others. Sometimes these breaches can't be healed. You've associated youself with his remarks, although I note from your edit history that they predate your joining the project. I'm concerned that I've forfeited someone's trust so easily. You seem to agree with these remarks as you believe that my becoming a bureaucrat would be damaging to the project. At the same time you call me a great candidate. I confess that I find this apparent contradiction confusing, and would appreciate it if you could explain in greater detail. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry if I confused you with the contradiction. The word "candidate" should have been "editor". That was an error on my part and I apologize for confusing you. I will fix it so that it will not confuse others. I am also sorry if I do not have the right to reference comments that predated my time on Wikipedia. I will remove them if you would like me to. Captain panda 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not questioning your right to do anything. What I'm say is that Giano has strong reasons, based on our past history, for not trusting me. I'm simply noting my sadness for someone agreeing that I'm untrustworthy (or controversial, it's all the same) without knowing why someone thinks so, or, as far as I know, without ever having interacted with me in any way. Peace, Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose. Although I have gained great respect for Mackensen as an editor by reviewing his statement, (a part of) his contributions history, and comments about him here, I must oppose his candidacy based on his platform. RFA is fundamentally about trust: trust that a candidate will use the tools appropriately, that she has an understanding of Wikipedia's fundamental workings, and that she will not cause unnecessary harm to the project. And, although adminship is not that big a deal, it is of sufficient importance that admin tools aren't given to anyone who registers a username. Quite frankly, I view the notion of discounting oppose votes to be dangerously tyrannical. RFA votes are expressions of trust or lack of trust in a candidate. If I oppose a candidate for any reason, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect that my expression of distrust will be respected and not discounted. -- Black Falcon 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To further clarify my position, I should note that my concern is not the welfare of one or more editors who are overruled. Rather, it is to avoid turning the RFA process into the ArbCom process. Despite its problems, RFA is currently a consensus-based process. Mackensen's proposal would change the format to be more like ArbCom, where evidence is presented by editors in favour of or against an editor and a small group makes the final decision. Only in this case, one person makes the final call instead or a group. -- Black Falcon 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as an arbitrator, that's not quite how ArbCom works. First, ArbCom votes. Period. We've never claimed otherwise. The format I propose looks nothing like ArbCom and everything like Wikipedia:Requests for Comment! (There's a reason I keep repeating that acronym) ArbCom is about dispute resolution, not necessarily finding for or against any one editor. You cannot argue that RfA currently works on consensus when every bureaucrat previously says he'll promote at X%. You can't have a percentage of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, no, I wasn't referring to the arbitrators themselves, but to the regular editors involved in a case, who clearly do not vote. Although I realise the strangeness of disagreeing on this matter with an arbitrator, I still see similarities between the two processes. Your proposal would entail the following: (1) an RFA is brought to the community's attention; (2) arguments are made by editors in support or opposition of a candidate; and (3) a bureaucrat makes a binding decision based on the evidence presented. ArbCom entails (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the following: (1) a case is brought to the committee's attention; (2) evidence is presented by editors involved in the case; and (3) arbitrators make a binding decision based on the evidence presented. One difference between your proposal and RFC is that the latter is essentially non-binding. As for your last point, I do think RFA operates on consensus. Although "consensus" and "supermajority" are not equivalent concepts, a supermajority is a good indicator of consensus. We can't have percentages of consensus but an 80% or 90% supermajority is close enough to consensus. -- Black Falcon 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for one, ArbCom is free to ignore evidence that it finds daft or worthless. No bureaucrat would have that kind of flexibility, and I'm not suggesting that. ArbCom's decision is binding only as long as administrators are willing to carry it out. I can think of two cases in which administrator rebellions caused revision of arbitration cases. Promotion is different, but then promotion is not a big deal. We're talking about giving people the ability to delete pages, block users, and protect pages. We're also placing a gigantic bulls-eye on their backs. ArbCom is under no obligation to pay the evidence page or the workshop heed, though it generally does. A bureaucrat would have to watch the RfA very carefully to see what the community though. The two situations simply aren't comparable. Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your clarifications, but I'm now somewhat confused as to the nature of your proposal. In your response above you write, "No bureaucrat would have that kind of flexibility, and I'm not suggesting that." Yet my impression of your proposal is that you wish to change RFA so that bureaucrats would review arguments presented and ignore arguments that they (but not necessarily others) perceive to be invalid. The two statements seem to contradict each other. Could you please explain? -- Black Falcon 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to. Part of it is simply a question of scale, part of it is that I've had words put in my mouth. I never said in my statement that a bureaucrat would ignore arguments; what I did say is that a bureaucrat would be looking to see certain criteria substantiated. This is a different proposition. I'm talking about changing the question. RfA would continue to function on consensus as it always should have. Arbitration is a different kettle of fish. Arbitrators are free to ignore whatever they like (and often do, sometimes to their detriment). Arbitration does not function on consensus; arbitrators do not have to weigh arguments and may rely entirely on their own judgement. If anyone thinks I'm suggesting the latter course for bureaucrats then they've gravely misunderstood my object. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I apologise then as I seem to have partly misunderstood your proposal. However, there is still the issue that the "certain criteria" which you propose (I assume they're the ones starting with "A candidate has hopefully edited the encyclopedia ...") are subject to genuine, good-faith disagreement. If there is disagreement regarding whether a candidate satisfies those criteria (as there is sure to be), what is a bureaucrat to do? Weigh the arguments to decide which she considers more convincing? If that's the case, I still oppose the proposed change. I do not think that bureaucrats should make controversial judgments on the substance of arguments in RFA; that is just too elitist for me. -- Black Falcon 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's where discertion comes in to play. In response to previous queries on that point, I noted the possibility and likelihood of multiple bureaucrats conferring during controversial nominations. But by all means, if you can't swallow that then you need to oppose me. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I think I could support User:ChazBeckett's proposal (I assume that's what you're referring to), but would need some time to consider it. I suppose the fundamental issue is that I don't see view the RFA process to be as horribly flawed as you. Most RFAs are either clearly unsupported (<50%) or clearly supported (>90%). Of the 15 that are currently active, only 2 fall in the controversial range of 70-80%. Again, I will need some time to consider everything that's been said. Thanks, Black Falcon 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've thought about it and have come to the conclusion that your proposal (including the revised form) is something that I could but would not want to swallow. So, I must regretfully oppose your bundled candidacy and RFA reform proposal. Best of luck, Black Falcon 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose. After carefully considering both sides, followed by asking myself What Would V do? and approximately 2 seconds of deliberation I say hell no. A b-crat must be trustworthy and impartial, as opposed to a toolus cabalium. Or as Elaragirl once so eloquently put it HAHAHA...no.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it must be observed that Elaragirl trusted my judgement. Thanks for your kind words, Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anytime, my dear Mack:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24. Candidate appears to want to unilaterally remake RfA in his own image. Which runs counter to the loving words reserved for consensus. Listed above are the criteria the candidate would support in a candidate. That's fine, he can join in RfAs on the basis of them, without needing an additional bit. No doubt RfB is broken too because it has at times given an answer some have disagreed with. What would the reform of that be? Splash - tk 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beg pardon, but if ninety other people agree with the suggestions I'm making then that fits no definition of unilateralism that I'm familiar with. I have indicated how I would see RfA function, and I have suggest the manner in which I believe the community ought to approach the question of adminship. Apparently I'm not alone in viewing the question in this manner. May I assume that you have a substantive disagreement beyond the accusation of unilateralism? Thanks for participating, Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They're supporting your candidacy for buraucratship. There's surely a lot of supporting you personally involved. (No?) It conflates many, many things to view this is as solely a pseudo-poll (hm, you didn't just count a number did you?) when a long-serving editor, admin and Arbitrator returns to the community for support of something he will hold personal responsibility for. A substantive disagreement is that unilaterl reform of policy is not what I want bureaucrats to do; they have demonstrated only an ability to cause the rivers to run red when they have tried to do so in the past. It's not what they're for. Splash - tk 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, btw. Whilst I'm concerned that this is not actually a request for bureaucratship so much as a request to beat a drum, I'm wondering what will prevent the suggestion from becoming a 'vote' when people say <paragraph>....word</paragraph>. All we'll have is a much harder to work out conversation. I mean, it would like an RfC! Splash - tk 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear me, we're skating awfully close to the 20th to quote Virgil, aren't we? Trivialities aside, there's substantial agreement above that the idea I'm proposing--RfC-style RfA--is worth trying. I maintain that accusing someone of unilateralism when he has submitted his concept to a referendum is bending a word to the breaking point. I'm not aware of bureaucrats trying to implement reform in the past; I am aware of bureaucrats making decisions within the existing framework that caused great anger and resentment, especially as there was no warning that they were going to do so. This is in the open. I have answered all questions and discussed with all takers. Let me renew my question: do you have an opinion on the package of ideas therein beyond process-based concerns? (Post script from the edit conflict: this is indeed a request for bureaucratship, but I grant that there are overtones) Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The package of ideas appears to be "a process that promotes admins that meets my criteria, to be supported by derivation from the obvious support the community has in general toward an editor such as myself". You seem to be asking me to support the package more than the RfB. That is a misuse of RfB for the reasons I have described and I will not endorse it. Give me an opportunity to separate the question of whether you should be a bureaucrat from the question of whether I support a particular RfA reform proposal and there might be more progress. Splash - tk 23:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When bureaucrats run they are asked to explain their views on adminship-granting. Most of them quote a specified number, although that number does not exist in policy any more than the RfA process itself does. I have said I will promote on consensus. Note that I said I would be willing to promote anyone who met X, Y, and Z. If I saw consensus that a person met X, Y, and Z, then I would promote. This is neither radical nor revolutionary. That it is being treated as such is striking. It would be odd indeed for a bureaucrat to run without giving his views--we might as well have a bot! Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your statement above starts with these words: "This is not a conventional statement, but then this is not a conventional candidacy, and if chosen I would not be a conventional bureaucrat." Fair enough. But now you're playing down the radical aspects of your candidacy. Haukur 23:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not in the least. I start by noting my opposition to the present conventions. However, I also indicate my belief that these conventions are antithetical to the way Wikipedia operates. In the context of Wikipedia, there should be nothing radical or revolutionary about stating that you'll promote according to consensus. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It still seems to me that you want it both ways. You claim you "[believe] that these conventions are antithetical to the way Wikipedia operates." Yet, clearly, this is part of Wikipedia. This is part of the way Wikipedia works, and it has worked in this fomat for years. Johntex\^talk 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. I claim that RfA is broken. Just because something exists on Wikipedia does not guarantee that it hews to the Wikipedia way. I'm thinking along the lines of core policies (Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Consensus). Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no guarantees in life, or on Wikipedia. Anything that currently exists on Wikipedia could be changed next week or next month. Interestingly that in itself still would not be proof that the new way is better than the old. It would only be proof that we changed things. RfA is not fundamentally broken, but its biggest problem is that too much of the burden is on the Opposers to a nomination. You want to move things in exactly the wrong direction in that regard. Johntex\^talk 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You take the position then that we have too many administrators, or the wrong kind of administrators? I would tentatively agree on the latter point, and it is my contention that the change in format would lower the bar and make it easier for content editors (as oppose to say, vandal-fighters), gain access to the tools. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither. I take the position that current RfA is tilted too much in favor of the Support statements and too far against the Oppose statements.

    I take the position that a crat should not under any circumstances pass an RfA if 30% or more of the people who have commented have stated good faith reasons to Oppose the nomination. (This is after discounting obvious sock-puppets and the like, of course).

    I take the position that the crat should evaluate the comments given by the Supporters and Opposers, and should not place their own personal evaluation of the candidate in front of their evaluation of the discussion.

    I also take the position that "adminship is no big deal" can be taken to illogical extremes. Admins are hard to get rid of. We should interpret "adminship is no big deal" to mean that admins should not suddenly feel they have been blessed with some special power to ignore all rules and act like they know best. We should not interpret it to mean that we should give out the powers of adminship so lightly as to badger every oppose vote to the point of pariahship or acting like someone's editting career has been ended because they didn't pass their RfA.

    It is far easier for a marginal candidate to reapply and pass in a few months than it is too give that candidate the tools and then try to take them away if they did not use them well. Johntex\^talk 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't disagree substantially with your third point and I suspect I've been misunderstood. Oh well. On the fourth point, the Arbitration Committee has demonstrated a willingness to define the acceptable limits of administrative behavior, and I'm proud of the work I've done there in that regard. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose. I think Bisonhoven, Dragsons flight and others have already said this fairly well, but I will note my 3 main reasons for opposing:

    1. The candidate speaks too much of placing "the burden on the opposers". If anything, we have the opposite problem on RfA. Too many people Support without explaining why they are supporting. Too many people use their their Support statement to make a witty but irrelevant statement as to why they like the candidate. Good faith Oppose statements are often attacked to the point where it is legiitmate to wonder if other people who would like to Oppose have been scared off by the process.

    2. The candidate also speaks too much of "reasons vs numbers". Ignoring obvious trolls and sock-puppets is one thing, inserting the opinion of the crat over the top of a significant number of Oppose statements is quite another. I think it is too likely that this candidate will close RfA's by saying "Hmmm. a lot of people Opposed this candidate but I don't think their reasons were valid and so I am going to promote them."

    3. The candidate improperly mixes RfB with a question of changing RfA. I think it is likely that many Supporters of this candidate choose to Support because they like the candidate's work in other areas of the project. We can't really know for sure, of course, because as usual the Support comments are not coming under any argument or calls for justification. (Please see my number 1 above where I point out that the Oppose statements are already held to a much higher standard than the Oppose statements.) Therefore, I find it highly problematic that the candidate has stated "On whether the community would accept such a format, I regard this RfB as a test of that willingness. I would consider the success of this RfB as a mandate from the community to at least try this new idea." There is no evidence that even if this RfB passes that it should be considered a mandate to change RfA. An RfB should not be considered a straw poll on RfA and it is improper for the candidate to have inserted this into their candidacy. Johntex\^talk 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The present organization of RfA is not grounded in policy and bureaucrats are not obliged to organize a request in that fashion. Bureaucrats are obliged to promote people with consensus. I've stated that I'll do that, but that I'd like to organize RfA differently. By all means, if we're going to replace bureaucrats with bots then let's do it. It would not materially affect the outcome except to make the process a good deal more cynical. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The present organiztion of RfA Is grounded in policy in 2 ways: (1) it does not contradict policy (2) it enjoys long-standing use in this format. Much of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have grown organically through use. It is not correct to say that a format that has been used daily for years is not grounded on policy.

    It is also not accurate to imply that holding crats accountable to watching the number of Oppose statements is anything akin to suggesting that they be replaced by bots. If someone can create an AI bot that ignores duplicate votes, ignores sockpuppets, accounts for possible campaigning, spots statements erroneously placed in the wrong position, ignores people making ironic Oppose statements on April Fool's Day, etc. - then maybe we could think about it. But saying that a bot can't do the job is not the same as saying that the Crat is free to simply insert their own opinions about which arguments they will listen to and which they won't.

    Furthermore, if a bot could do the job, it would make the process less cynical, not more. At least no one could accuse the bot of acting in bad faith. Johntex\^talk 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll bet you £5 that somebody would accuse CratBot of acting in bad faith, or being a tool of the cabal (I bet I hope never to collect on!) I'll reiterate that RfA is a process, a means to an end, and that it is the end that is grounded in policy, not the means. This comes down to a matter of principle though, and I'm quite to content to disagree. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I suppose someone could accuse anyone/anything of any behavior. My point is that I did not suggest a bot. You brought it up. I am pointing out all the reasons why asking a crat to consider large NUMBERS of good faith Oppose statements is not the same as saying that we could have a bot. I will reiterate that the means is a part of the process and the current means of promoting admins is supported in policy and practice. There is nothing at all about this format that is anti-policy. Johntex\^talk 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose, per the rest. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose Canadian Caesar put it well before striking it out and as well as several others. This smells fishy. Just H 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per Dragons flight and ChazBeckett.-gadfium 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose. I trust Mackensen's judgement more than most people's, but disapprove of his RfA reform and the way he promises to derive its results. In addition to Alex Bakharev, Bishonen, and others' concerns above, I worry that he talks almost exclusively about increasing the scrutiny of opposers, and that this will discourage people from taking up the already difficult task. More than the specifics, though, I strongly object to deciding such an important change to the project with a clocked, 7-day, vote-structured discussion that is muddied with the election of this very popular editor. ×Meegs 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I must disagree that I would make opposing in an RfA difficult (moreso). If someone is truly not fit to be an administrator then the proof of that should be easy to provide. If you're talk about the deplorable hounding of "oppose voters" that we've all observed then the insititution of an RfC could go a long way towards mending that (so would a little kindness all around, but I digress). On your second point, I've noted elsewhere that this doesn't constitute a change in policy, although there's some good-natured disagreement on that question. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose. Per most of the others above, I think the editor is a good administrator in genral, but I think the platform puts too little emphasis on consensus and gives the bureaucrat's discretion too much leeway. RFA decisions should be made by the community, not a bureaucrat advised by the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case, let's be honest make RfA a straight vote with a fixed percentage to pass. You can't have it both ways. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, that's how the German Wikipedia's adminship process works. ChazBeckett 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. We've often had to take our cues from the German Wikipedia when our own processes proved utterly inadequate. The userbox situation is another example. I don't see why we should abdicate our ability to make decisions. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31. Strong administrator; but I can't trust him [to make nonpartisan use of the promotion tools and the authority that comes with being a bureaucrat]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarified my stand. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

32. Oppose. --JJay 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey JJay, is there any chance you can elaborate on your reasons for opposing? Mackensen's proposals for how he would act as a 'crat is quite different from the norm, so it would be very helpful to get everyones opinions on the matter, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perceived hypocrisy. --JJay 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy, which is a very strong charge indeed, I think you owe it to everyone else who comments here why you think so. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry that bothers you. My original naked vote stands. Just like the roughly 15 support votes above that haven't given any reasons nor been questioned by anyone. Just like most of your RFA voting that I looked at. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I guess I place the burden on everyone to help achieve consensus. And someone who leaves naked votes while simultaneously decrying the process and purposefully denying the responsibility to help forge that consensus is not going to get my support as a reform candidate anytime soon. --JJay 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it does bother me, because the charge of hypocrisy implies that I engage in a practice that I condemn others for. As I noted elsewhere, it is reasonable to suppose that any who supports without comment agrees with the facts as stated in the nomination statement, concurs that the candidate's answers are adequate, and most importantly does not have a problem with the person becoming an administrator. You're free to disagree about placing the burden on opposers, but calling me a hypocrite strikes me as quite unfair, especially since I tend to leave long and detailed opposes ([11]). Yours, Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically the same can be said for opposes. Just like a simple "support" means "support per one or more arguments above", a simple "oppose" can also be taken to mean "oppose per one or more arguments above". -- Black Falcon 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

33. On grounds of multiple roles, and the bundling of a "platform". Not just multiple roles, in fact, but getting on for 'the whole set'; I realize that's not without precedent -- which is partly what convinces me it's a poor idea. Principally, however, this is completely the wrong means of achieving systemic reform, as were earlier greater-or-lesser-extent such RFBs (like Kelly Martin's (not that that didn't have other things going on)). Well, one of the completely wrong means, among such traditional alternatives such as helpfully observing that the opposers are all eejits. We'd be left wondering if we'd just changed the system, or merely promoted a BC on their intrinsic merits, and have one BC "mandated" to do one thing, and remainder either still doing whatever-it-is-they've-been-doing-exactly, or being implicitly co-opted. Instead, we need to either change the system explicitly and separately, and then (re)appoint BCs for that new purpose; or at least, to have all the BCs agree to a decision-making system that they can all sign up to, and make at least somewhat consistent determinations among themselves (including whether, when and how they might confer on such); or some combination of the two. Having said all that, and despite my traditional reservation about the lack of numeric need for more BCs, I'd be prepared to consider supporting a more "conventional candidacy" from this quarter, especially if there were a willingness to "resign his seat" on the AC (in particular) if successful. Alai 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - let me say that I fully support and trust Mackensen as a bureaucrat and would not hesitate to support him if not for the unconventional nomination and ... er ... campaign statement. RFA is broken, but it's a battle of hearts and minds, not a deus ex machina fix. You can't just use your standards for what matters and what doesn't. Every single person who supports or opposes a candidacy believes that their reasons are important. Now, you and I might disagree with some of the reasons. To me, "namespace balance", "doesn't need the tools", and "doesn't write enough articles" are all silly reasons to oppose someone. Who cares how they contribute to the encyclopedia - we're trying to determine if they can be trusted with the tools. But as silly as I find those reasons to oppose someone, I cannot through fiat declare those reasons irrelevant. If we establish the idea that a bureaucrat can choose of their own volition what opinions are important and what ones aren't, then what happens when the next bureaucrat comes along who things that only article writing is important and it doesn't matter whether if you know what a speedy delete is as long as you have 15 featured articles? Or what about the bureaucrat that decides to promote an obnoxious, incivil candidate and disregard those opposes because they don't affect his ability to press the delete button? I'm sorry, but your proposal would discount the opinions of every editor and that is something I cannot support, even though I fully support and trust you. --BigDT 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I read it, Mackensen would close based on consensus, rather than based on majority. (This is the original bureaucrat requirement, and also still the requirement at *FD). When this works well, this boosts the signal to noise ratio in a favorable direction, so that people are actually heard much better than otherwise. He wouldn't use his own discretion so much as actually read what people are saying. Extreme examples: If there are 40 supporters saying the candidate is fine, and 1 opposer who can prove that the candidate has harmed wikipedia, and may do so in future, the bureaucrat would close as denied. At the same time, if there are 40 opposers who say the candidate doesn't have enough edits, and one supporter who points out that the candidate's name is "Jimbo Wales", (stranger things have really happened on some wikis, go figure), well that would be a promote. --Kim Bruning 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If that is an accurate statement of the candidates intent, then it is a perfect reason why we should be opposing the candidate. In the example given where "...there are 40 supporters saying the candidate is fine, and 1 opposer who can prove that the candidate has harmed wikipedia, and may do so in future, the bureaucrat would close as denied." that is a complete abuse of power by the closing crat. The crat should never ever ever put themselves in the position of saying "I know better than the majority". For all the crat knows, the 40 supporters have already considered that risk. It would be folly for the crat to think their intellect and wisdom is greater than that of 40 people. Similarly, in the Jimbo base, if a 40:1 majority think Jimbo should be denied adminship then his RfA should fail and he should come back later. Johntex\^talk 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are making additional assumptions past those of the original example. I provided no reason to believe the majority were actually factoring in everything knowable about the candidate (and in fact, these days, in reality, people often don't bother to look that far). If someone comes with very strong arguments, it can often be taken as read that the others will not object to the consequences of that statement (until and unless they actually do so, perhaps). Perhaps we should write some guidelines/descriptions on how to read consensus (there's a very objective way to test if such a guideline works, btw... if no one shouts at you when you use it, you did it right ;-) ) . For instance IIRC on Articles For Deletion, if you can show that a page is a copyvio, it will get deleted, no matter what the majority was before (and you can be pretty sure that no one will complain ;-) ). --Kim Bruning 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That may be prudent, it may be using your head, it may be many things, but it's not consensus. Denying a promotion with 40-1 support may be a really, really good idea if the 1 oppose comes with 30 seconds left in the RFA and it is an oppose from a checkuser who is proving that the user is Willy on Wheels. It would be a really, really good idea to deny that promotion, but that doesn't make it into a consensus. In such a case, we WANT the bureaucrat to use some good judgment. However, barring that extreme case, we don't want the crat to say, "well, I don't like this reason to oppose so I'll ignore it." Even if we trust Mackensen and know that he would make the "right" choices, once you grant Mackensen the authority to pick and choose the arguments that he wants to ignore, what is to stop the next bureaucrat that comes along from picking different arguments to ignore? Maybe he will decide that anyone opposes for something silly like an incivil comment or two or three or fifty don't really matter that much. Or this candidate explained to me in personal email that he was going through a rough time in his personal life when he was biting newbies. So anyone opposing for that reason doesn't know the whole story and their votes should be discounted. When you grant the bureaucrats the moral authority to discount any !vote for any reason, there is no reason to pretend to have community participation - if you want to be an admin, just email a bureaucrat and let him decide - it would save time. --BigDT 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I also answered JohnTex. There's 2 answers to that. First up, if someone says "hey! This dude is actually willy on wheels!", well, do you seriously think there is still a consensus to promote after that? Sending an e-mail to a bureaucrat does not work, since a bureaucrat still needs to work by consensus, not by their judgement. If the text of the letter is placed on the RFA itself, one might take a risk and assume it affects consensus in a particular way. (And you rightly identify timing as one such factor on deciding the level of risk of making a misread). Personally, in the example you mention, I'd simply extend the duration of the RFA to see how consensus changes. There are ways to figure out which opionions to take into account and which not to, and how to read opinions, but that won't quite fit in this margin. Suffice to say you're supposed to do it in a way so that everyone agrees on the outcome. There is an objective test to see if you got it perfectly: No one must yell at you afterwards. ;-) (In cases with many participants, it is almost inevitable that one or two people will yell at you anyway. In that case one just has to live with merely having done a *good* job ^^;; that's also why we accept "rough consensus" at times, else we'd have to keep extending duration forever). Note that you can still discern consensus even at the closing of a majority vote by this method. You will note that at times the majority opinion and the consensus opinion differ considerably. This is because majority is supposed to be an approximation of consensus in the first place, and sometimes this approximation can deviate from the actual "value" :-) --Kim Bruning 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose. I support Mackensen personally and would love to support his RfB, but I'm just not at all comfortable with this platform and I find myself agreeing with most of the opposers. Sarah 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose. I've indicated in the past that I feel the position of bureaucrat has too much sway and requires us to place too much trust in humans, and this candidate's emphasis on bureaucrat discretion leads me to believe he will use such sway. Heimstern Läufer 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose. --Ligulem 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Per the above. Also, I believe that given our large userbase, spreading the "power" among multiple people is preferable to centralizing it. >Radiant< 09:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If several people run on the same platform, so that the "power" indeed gets spread, would you support all of them as a group? --Kim Bruning 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

39. Candidate in effect pledges to continue the promotion of insiders who barely reach a 2:1 ratio of support whilst rejecting lesser-known candidates who don't quite reach 4:1. —Cryptic 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually that's not what I'm pledging in the least. As I've discussed with numerous other users, the overall effect ought to be greater promotion across the board, particularly of users with less experience. See also my comments at WT:RFA, where I bemoan editcountitis. By all means, oppose me if you disagree with me, but at the moment you're not even disagreeing with me. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40. Oppose, per other opposes. -Lapinmies 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All of them? Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

41. Oppose Someone with limited RfA experience is not yet ready to close RfAs.--Runcorn 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Limited is a relative term. I suspect I've participated in quite a few over the last few years (including my own). Are you interesting in discussing how !voting in an RfA is adequate preparation for being a bureaucrat, who closes but does not !vote? Thanks,Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly academic point here, but I do think some RfA !voting experience is necessary. There are customs at RfA which one can learn best from participating in them. For example (although yours is definitely an unusual case, so I don't hold it against you at all), you have colloquied your opposers here much more often than is normal. If a less-established editor behaved that way in his/her own RfA, it might be an indication of his/her "lack of cluefulness", to paraphase User:David Gerard, and a negative indicator likely to be mentioned by other opposers. Xoloz 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    True, and I think that's unfortunate. These requests should encourage discussion. Note if you didn't see it my comment in the general discussion area, which I added before anyone else had commented: "I wish the opportunity to engage with participants during this discussion but I recognize that some people view such activity unfavorably. Therefore, I would appreciate if people who disagree with my views indicate the manner in which they are willing to discuss the matter (or, indicate that they are not willing to discuss the matter at all). Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)" So far not one person has taken me up on that offer. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You may think it unfortunate; but, if you become a b'crat, would you consider that sort of objection "valid"? The trouble with your candidacy, running as reformer, is that you are plainly "partisan" is some ways. I'm not really sure if you'll interpret your "mandate" to permit you to ignore criticisms like mine (if I may be so bold, I'd say that my points are generally thought-out, at least), with which you disagree. Ideally, a b'crat should weigh the arguments without the bias of having already endorsed one position in the debate, you know. Xoloz 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To reply to Mackensen's point to me, if someone on RfA had little experience of AfD, and someone else opposed on those grounds, would you expect the candidate to reply "Are you interesting in discussing how !voting in an AfD is adequate preparation for being an admin, who closes but does not !vote?"--Runcorn 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

42. Oppose Per platform. Edivorce 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose sadly. Mackensen is an excellent use whom I trust but I cannot support his proposed reforms to RfA. While numbers are a poor proxy for consensus, they are a better one than bureaucratic discretion. See the well reasoned statement by BigDT above. Eluchil404 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I responded to BigDT above. Care to discuss? --Kim Bruning 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view consensus means the aggregate opinion of the community and doesn't have any direct relationship with what is best for the wiki. Thus 40 good faith votes from real users (i.e. not SPA's) should not be ignored even if the reasoning is (in the beaurocrats' opinion) frivolous. I don't want Mackensen, or anyone else, promoting someone over substantial oposition even if they are sure that they would make a good admin. They are probably right, but I believe that the role of functionaries should be to implement the will of the community as expessed in policy or process not to make their own independent judgements. Eluchil404 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

44. Oppose, I feel the candidate is running this RfB more on a platform to change a process then for the merits of being a 'crat. It is up to crats to determine the consensus of the commnuity, not instill it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad we agree; shame you feel the need to oppose. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

45. Oppose. I would support this candidate, but I can't support his platform. I just can't get the nightmare out of my head of an RFA with 100 support comments and one oppose, which mackensen (or some later bureaucrat) defines as 'valid' and refuses sysadminship. I'm aware that mackensen himself would probably use the 'discretion' to promote candidates who would otherwise not be promoted, but I'm unhappy with the precedent. That said, I support the need for more bureaucrats, especially with regard to the bureaucrat discussion pages, and I would support mackensen as a 'no big deal' bureaucratship if he decided to reapply without the platform (and he should feel free to drop me a note on my user page if that is the case). AKAF 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose. I do not agree with this candidate's views on the role of Bureaucrats. Singopo 10:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose. RfB is not the place to change the RfA process, and I oppose his ideas for RfA reform. Αργυριου (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose, per his answer to question #15. If Mack's not willing to aggressively avoid even the appearance of bias, and recuse from closing RFAs in which he's commented, I can't support him. Too bad, since I generally think he does good work. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That rfa was closed after the consensus of several bureaucrats. The bureaucrat that closed it was mearly ating as a proxy for the bureaucrats that participated in the discussion. This oppose doesn't really have any merit. John Reaves (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is why I said the "appearance" of bias, rather than actual bias itself. Administrators should take pains to distance themselves from administrative actions of any sort toward situations in which they are involved, be that blocks or page protections or yes, RFA/RFB nominations. When they don't, it throws a lot of FUD into the air, tainting everything they and other administrators do and making it harder for everyone to get things done. If you aren't committed to being purer than Caesar's wife in administrative matters, then I question whether you've got your priorities in the right order. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may interject myself into this thread, I wish to note that the statement that "this oppose doesn't really have any merit" is just your personal opinion (and exactly the kind of thing that I believe Mackensen's proposal would encourage). We're not discussing an argument's conformance with policy here, but rather the presence or lack of (in absence of a better word) trust. Trust exists (or doesn't) irrespective of others' evaluations of whether it has "merit". -- Black Falcon 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, that comment was out of line. I just think that this is superficial reasoning. So what if it looks bad? If there is consensus established in a transparent environment to promote, than it is irrelevant who actually promotes. The only reason that a promotion of this nature would be a big deal is because people would/do choose to make it a big deal. I don't think the issue here is a lack of trust, I think it is an overabundance of suspicion.John Reaves (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you've got a situation like that one, where there's going to be all kinds of cross-talk after the fact no matter what, it seems to me like there's a lot of added value in not providing any more grounds for skeptics to object than absolutely necessary. Why poke the bear, if you can walk past without waking him up? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Not everything is equally transparent to everyone. When I first "discovered" Wikipedia in 2005 I was amazed at how thousands of individuals lacking centralised hierarchical governance were able to produce anything other than chaos. At the time, even (what I now consider) the basic processes of speedy deletion or AFD seemed mysterious to me. Articles were deleted not by regular users with an extra mop and bucket, but by a secretive and selective elite of mercenary technicians who could make people disappear on a whim. Alright, I may be embellishing just a little, but my point is that Wikipedia's processes were most definitely not transparent to me. That's one of the key reasons I consider it important to generally keep separate administrative/bureaucratic actions from potential vested interests (e.g., don't close any AFDs in which you expressed an opinion to "keep" or "delete", don't block users with whom you are engaged in a content dispute, don't unilaterally protect a page as part of a content dispute in which you are involved), even if the action is made in good faith or justified by policy. I most strongly oppose any effort to turn Wikipedia into a bureaucracy, but conformance with the points I've noted requires minimal effort (just wait for or request that someone else do it). -- Black Falcon 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

49. Oppose per JJay. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Respectful but firm oppose, after reading all nearly all of this discussion. I would echo what Sarah said. Jonathunder 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. Do I trust Mackensen? Of course. Do I agree with his platform? Only about 2/3 of it; RfAs have become too picky but the answer is not to cede the decision to bureaucrats. Do I believe this RfB is the right place to establish a revised community consensus on RfAs? No. Do I want to support a candidate who won't adhere to the current consensus among us hoi polloi editors concerning RfAs? No. While I supported Danny's RfA, I was dismayed by the decision-making process at the end. Editors are servants of the readers, admins are servants of the editors and bureaucrats serve all. Bureaucrats should elevate new admins based on clear community consensus, not their own opinions of the candidate. If there's not clear consensus, they should not elevate a candidate. Am I sorry I have to oppose? Yes. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose A.B. states it pretty well for me. I'm uncomfortable about this method for making change to RfA. I'm also concerned about the detail of the proposal; if RfA as a consensus-seeking tool is flawed, I'm not sure that what's proposed is an enhancement. And this isn't the forum for hammering it out. --Dweller 11:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose The platform is unacceptable, and requires opposition. We would be better off with a straight vote than with giving the bureaucrats more opening to do whatever the heck they want instead of listening to the community, which they should be doing. GRBerry 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, we should be seeking to spread the roles of extra responsibility around, not giving more such roles to people who already have them. Mackensen is already both an Arbitrator and a Checkuser. Holding either position is a sufficient reason to deny bureaucrat status. GRBerry 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

54. Oppose Sorry, I seem to share some of the concerns above. And this doesn't look good.--Húsönd 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose. This edit shows he is not ready for cratship. Errabee 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose, particularly per comments by Oleg Alexandrov and Grace Note, and this edit cited above by Husond, which is all too reminiscent of behaviour shown in the case mentioned by Oleg Alexandrov and Grace Note.FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose Absolutely not a judgement on Mackensens work overall, which has been very good. Not convinced I agree with the platform, but more importantly, I prefer to see "power" of the higher elected positions in Wikipedia spread out more among a maximum number of people rather than having a few occupy so many different posts on Wikipedia.--MONGO 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Oppose current arbitrator; need a separation of powers. Sorry. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Conflicted. I don't agree RfA is broken, which seems to be this candidate's platform. But a lot of people clearly do, so it might be worth a try. I am worried that it will be impossible to differentiate between "Mackensen used his experience and judgment" and "the cabal likes this person". I am worried that Mack will get in, and actually promote someone against without consensus, who will do something controversial, at which point we will all want to burn Mackensen at the stake. I am worried that when that happens, I may be bringing some of the matches. But Mack is a big boy, and should be aware of what he is getting into. In short, I can't support something that I suspect will end badly, and I don't feel is absolutely required, but it's Mack's head, if he wants to stake it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As I've stated elsewhere I'm quite willing to take the heat. As I've argued elsewhere, I'm not anti-consensus I'm anti-vote counting. We would do well to recognize the distinction. Thanks for your comment, Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Slight rephrasing. I still worry about it, your comment in more detail leads me to believe we don't agree on what "Wikipedia:Consensus" means. But you may be right and I may be wrong; note I'm not opposing, just stating my issues. I hope we won't lose your good work elsewhere should you get in and things explode, as I fear they will. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmmm, You think consensus means vote counting? --Kim Bruning 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, was that for me? No, personally I think Wikipedia:Consensus means discussion until those people who are genuinely trying to agree, do agree at least to some extent. However, in an email, Mack specified his view of what consensus was by pointing to one specific controversial situation and writing that in his opinion there was consensus there, and that situation didn't meet my reading of our definition. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, fair deal. --Kim Bruning 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. I am perfectly willing to support adding new bureaucrats, but I am not open to the stated intent to be involved in a top-down process change. Process changes affect the whole community, and should involve the whole community. At the same time, I understand that a high level of support in this vote would represent a statement in kind by a significant segment of the community. Therefore, I remain respectfully neutral. Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, Mackensen is mostly proposing to just go back to following the process as written. :-) --Kim Bruning 12:49, 13 April 2007 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.