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

Ral315[edit]

(123/27/6) Final. Ended on 13 July, 2007.

Ral315 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I have been interested in running for bureaucratship for a while now, but with a sudden focus on RfB, and four other users up for bureaucratship, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring as well.

I've been an editor since October 2004, a regular editor since about December 2004, and an administrator since September 2005. I am also a former mediator. Since August 2005, I've served as editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a community newspaper founded by Michael Snow. If promoted, I would continue to serve as editor-in-chief of the Signpost.

As a bureaucrat, my interpretation of consensus would be fairly straight-forward. I do not see myself as being a straight by-the-numbers person, nor do I believe that the numbers are completely useless. Everyone seems to agree that almost all cases of over 80% support would constitute a "passing" RFA. In the not insignificant number of RFAs that fall within bureaucrat discretion (i.e. RFAs where numbers do not indicate an overwhelming decision either way, or where well-reasoned arguments can be made on both sides of the coin), I would weigh the arguments carefully, and render what I felt was an appropriate decision. In a case like that, I think the form of bureaucrat chat used on Danny's RFA, where bureaucrats all agree to meet and attempt to declare consensus within a short amount of time (24 hours or less, say) would be a good strategy to ensure that all aspects of an RFA, and the opinions of multiple bureaucrats are considered.

I would, of course, be willing to perform username changes and bot flagging, and I expect that all three tasks would be part of my work as a bureaucrat.

Ral315 » 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ral315 » 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: At least one user has misinterpreted or misunderstood my situation, so I'll clarify it quickly: If this RFB passes, I would continue to serve as Signpost editor-in-chief, but would not be involved in writing any stories on bureaucratic actions, by myself or by other bureaucrats. Moreover, were it to be determined that I had acted inappropriately in this way, I would immediately resign my status as bureaucrat. Ral315 » 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional 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 absolutely hate numbers, but I consider somewhere around 70-80% within the community's preferred zone. Anything above 80% results in an almost certain promotion, and anything under 70% would probably lead to "no consensus". That ~70-80% zone is where bureaucrats are trusted to interpret the results, examine and weigh arguments against each other, and come to a fair, rational decision, with the hope that most users involved will respect their decision, even if they don't necessarily agree with it.

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

A. As a bureaucrat, the only criticism that should matter is criticism that you have not upheld your duties, by making a biased, or grossly incorrect decision. With any close decision, some naysayers will clearly, vocally disagree, but I do not see this as a major issue, again, so long as the decision is respected, if not liked.

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 believe that I have a well-grounded knowledge of policy, having acted upon it as an administrator for a while. As for fairness, I believe that I am fairly unbiased, and I can assure you that on any RFA where I feel any sort of bias, I will recuse myself from participating in the decision.

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 do. The Signpost takes up a lot of time on Sundays and Mondays, but the rest of the week I would be willing to handle these duties, as I have plenty of free time.

5. (Self-question) You haven't really participated in that many RFAs. Isn't that a key part of being a bureaucrat?

A. Yes, and no. I follow RFA on a regular basis, but I don't feel that adding my name to runaway nominations really makes sense, unless I personally know the candidate. My policy on RFAs is usually "Why the hell not" promote a user; however, I emphasize that my personal opinions on RFAs will have no bearing on how I close them.

6. (Self-question) What is your opinion on discussing promotions on IRC?

A. I'm answering this because it came up on another RFB, and I feel it's an important question. I fully oppose discussing any promotions on IRC. While I do participate in Wikimedia IRC channels, and am a channel op in a few of them, it is fundamental to the process that all activity be fully transparent. Bureaucrat chats on-wiki are perhaps one of the best ways that I've seen to handle promotions publicly; however, I'm not opposed to any other ways that allow bureaucrats to discuss a candidacy that are fully open to the public.

Question from Walton:

7. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Danny's RFA was a case where I personally agreed with the result, but the way they got there was kind of questionable. One of the complicating factors for me personally is that a small, though not insignificant number of the opposing arguments may have been handled unilaterally due to his work with the Foundation, and whether he was making those actions as an editor or as an employee is not entirely clear. Honestly, I think going into the bureaucrat chat, I'd be on the fence like Raul654 was, but would have probably been convinced by Rdsmith4 (Dan)'s argument for promotion, and UninvitedCompany's comment after the promotion was enacted. It's hard to judge things like that after the fact, though; when following Danny's case last time, I was thinking more as a reporter (as I wrote the Signpost story immediately after he was promoted), and less as a bureaucrat.

Question from daveh4h:

8. You state that you liked the bureaucrat chat for Danny's RfA. A 'crat chat was also used in Gracenotes' RfA. The 'crat chat for Gracenotes' RfA went on much longer, spilled heavily onto the talk page (perhaps other places), and was generally seen as less helpful in determining the outcome. This suggests to me that it is not the be all and end all for controversial decisions and new procedures should be applied in future controversial RfAs. Do you acknowledge that the crat chat worked well in one instance and not so much in the other? Are there certain requirements that make a "helpful" 'crat chat? Do you have any ideas of some other "outside the box" procedures that may be useful in determining future controversial RfAs?

A. In watching both chats closely as they developed, I think that the mindset is important. In Danny's chat, 6 or 7 bureaucrats were involved, and made it a point to make the decision relatively quickly. In Gracenotes' chat, it took nearly a week to handle, and no real decision was even made (the official closure was "withdrawal by candidate", with consensus either way not yet determined.) While speed of decision is not the most important facet, it's important because as controversial issues are brought up, they can often get heated as time goes on. As you said, Gracenotes' chat led to much discussion on the talk page and even on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and much of that discussion did little but stoke the flames. For the record, I would have probably closed the Gracenotes RFA as "no consensus", as it was clear there that bureaucrats could not come to a consensus. If I were to participate on a bureaucrat chat, I would make it a point to confirm with other bureaucrats that the chat would last no more than 24 hours, and I think that would handle most of the problems that ensued on Gracenotes' RFA.

I don't have any particular "outside the box" ideas, but I'm perfectly willing to try a few ideas. One idea I've considered would have bureaucrats ask users on both sides (those who made persuasive, possibly controversial arguments) to elaborate on their opinions, either by providing additional information or by asking the users questions to help clarify their points. I'm not positive that this would have a positive impact; in reality, it could quite possibly raise some questions about biases, based on the wordings of questions, or worries about what would happen if users on one side replied to their questions but others were not able to in time. I'm merely providing this as an example of what I might consider, not what might be the best way to handle things. Ral315 » 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving selected partisans the opportunity effectively to develop arguments after the closure of an RfA would both change and extend the process, and encourage those that feel they could game the process with rhetoric. The RfA is a week; if bureaucrats (rarely) decide to extend the RfA to help make consensus clear, it must be done openly and for all on the RfA itself, just as I'm posting questions on RfBs here (and this being done within the time limits of the RfB). -- Cecropia 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that in, say, the last day of an RFA that's known to be close, some users might be asked on-wiki to defend their position for the bureaucrats. Like I said, I'm not convinced that it's a good idea, but it's an example for the purposes of answering the question. Ral315 » 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from JayHenry:

9. Ral315, I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia Signpost and believe it has become a critical part of the Wiki's operation. This question is as much for WT:POST as here. An independent press is essential to the function of all societies, including ours. Do you think your role as a bureaucrat and a newspaper editor would conflict? If so, how would you handle that conflicts? Is it good for the Wikipedia community to have one person in both of these important roles? --JayHenry 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. In most cases, I don't believe that these roles would conflict. The only real issue would be controversial RFAs (which I'll admit are quite an important story). However, multiple editors already contribute to the Signpost; in fact, the stories on Gracenotes' RFA (first and second) were written by another user, Sr13. Sr13 stepped forward specifically to report on this story, and I think that I'd have no problem finding other users to write future RFA stories. As long as I'm not the one writing the story, my only duties as editor would be to check for spelling errors and publish, and I don't think that'd be a problem. Ral315 » 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC):[reply]

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere (here) about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the community thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. In the first case, I'd probably be inclined to promote, providing that there weren't any serious issues coming from the opposing users. Standards are guidelines, in my opinion; if a user trusts another user enough to make them an administrator, I see no reason to discount their vote merely because they're more familiar with this user than with other users, and are willing to waive usual requirements in order to support. In the second case, I think it'd depend on the circumstances. Clearly, users change standards all the time, but if I felt that there was a concerted effort to mask bad-faith opinions with standards that the users did not normally use, I would probably give their arguments a lot less weight. Whether they would be promoted or not is another story - it would depend on the proportion of opposing users who were involved, and any other issues raised by opposing users. I should hope that the latter case would never happen, of course. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Voice-of-All

11. What do you think of User:Voice of All/Consensus? Voice-of-All 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting essay, to say the least. I agree that number strength is a part of consensus, as is last-minute information that may affect the discussion (in which case extending the RFA may be a good idea). The "whole community" v. "part of the community" is also a good point, although it can't be easily applied to RFA, since a significant part of the community participate there, and most who don't are aware of it. The one part I'm not sure about is homogeneity - I'm not convinced that it can be applied in most cases. Which is the better argument for declaring a "no consensus" in a close decision - one reason for opposing that everyone supports, or ten reasons for opposing that some users support? Clearly, the ten reasons may indicate serious flaws, but they may also indicate that oppose voters disagree on whether their own opinions are even valid. In the Gracenotes RFA, for example, (which, for the record, I opposed on), most users cited one reason for opposing. That means that they all agree that it's a big issue, but clearly much of the community disagreed. So homogeneity is one thing that is very subjective. I do agree that community membership, rationality and foundation issues are all very important, with the caveat that a relatively low bar should be set for membership and rationality. All in all, it's a very interesting essay, and much of it (not all) is in line with what I would call consensus. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from TwoOars

12. In the context of the Gracenotes RfA: My impression is that a significant number of opposes in that particular RfA were based on a difference of opinion, perceived or actual. a) Do you agree with this assessment? b) If yes, what weight would you give to such oppose comments that are based solely on a difference of opinion, especially if they are worded such that they cast no doubt on the judgment of the candidate nor do they convey a concern that the candidate has a tendency to act against consensus whatever his/her personal beliefs may be? (provided the RfA falls in the discretionary range of course)

Actually, Q.12b is valid even if you don't entirely agree with my take on Gracenotes RfA. You can answer that one independently from 12a if you want to. :) - TwoOars 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: To your first question, I do agree that it was a difference of opinion, on many fronts. It was a difference of opinion on whether attack sites should be linked to or not. It was a difference of opinion on whether banning links is censorship. I think to some extent it might have been a difference of opinion on Gracenotes' opinion, although that's hardly something that can be remedied. To your second question, I think that in a request for adminship, a difference of opinion on a potentially serious issue (or, at the very least, an issue that is serious to the opposing user) is something that can be considered. I think the opinion of many oppose voters was that as an administrator, Gracenotes would campaign against the removal of links to attack sites. Whether that's true or not, or whether he would add them back, is a question that probably won't be answered. But it's a serious objection on behalf of the oppose voter, and should be considered as part of an attempt to judge consensus. And, clearly, a significant minority of the population had that opinion. I think in Gracenotes' case, there was a belief that his judgment might be clouded, due to the wording and tone of his replies. In a case where I was under the impression that the user did not distrust the candidate's judgment or ability to follow consensus, I would probably give the argument less weight when factoring my decision. Ral315 » 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up questions:12c) "an issue that is serious to the opposing user" - I presume all users oppose someone for what they consider serious issues, whether the oppose is based on user page design or civility or whatever. Is that not so? How then do you determine which issues are really serious and which are not? Does your personal opinion come into play here?

I think common sense is the key here. What I meant particularly were opposes where it was pretty clear that the user was trolling, or similar situations. I think most opposition reasons are valid to some extent; civility can be important, as can, to some extent, edit counts (although I personally do not use them as a marker, they're usually valid reasons for opposing). I would argue that "user page design" is not a serious issue in most cases. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12d) In a hypothetical RfA where the candidate has done good work overall and has ~1800 edits, there is 72% support with almost all opposes being "edit count too low". Do you consider this a serious issue? What helps you in deciding whether this issue is to be considered serious or not? Do you think your personal opinion will have absolutely no bearing on how you close this?

Personally? No. In the context of the RFA? Yes. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider promoting, or not promoting. It would depend on the situation. My personal opinion would have no bearing; as I said, I wouldn't consider the edit count a problem as a voter, but I would have to consider it as a bureaucrat. Discounting opinions can be done only on the merit of those opinions, and not on personal beliefs. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12e) In determining the consensus at an RfA, would you also go through the candidate's contributions or would you base your decision entirely on what transpires on the RfA page?

I think it's a bit dangerous to go through a candidate's contributions unless necessary, because it's another situation that would, instead of giving bureaucrats the ability to judge consensus, it would give them the ability to alter consensus. I can think of situations where it would be useful, however; for example, (and an extreme example at that), in a close case where a low edit count had been cited, but the user had written 5 or 6 featured articles essentially from scratch, then I would probably give mainspace edit count-based opposes less weight in my mind, because the user's clearly shown a dedication to article-writing that an edit count might not show. Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12f) Is TwoOars asking too many questions?

I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds that it might incriminate me :) Ral315 » 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

13. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A: This question is a bit vague, and I think that it would depend on the situation. In no instances would I let my personal beliefs about the candidate interfere with my decision; the community's decision is what is imperative, otherwise it would essentially give bureaucrats a highly-weighted vote in close situations, rather than the ability to judge whether consensus has been reached. If I felt that my opinions would cloud the matter, I would recuse myself from the decision; otherwise, I would judge the situation, look at the arguments on both sides, and determine the result. I can't say what that result would be without more information. Ral315 » 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The question was deliberately vague, by the way, to increase the actual 'likelyhood' of the situation - ie: this is something that you would probably encounter as a crat, and if I had gone into too much depth it would have been superfluously complicated. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from S

14. Ral315, you have expressed an interest in helping out at WP:CHU. May I ask you to please review this usurpation request and to give your opinion on the matter? Thank you. --S ^up? 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I'm kind of conflicted; I don't believe that non-Latin usernames should be banned, but I understand the potential issues with transliteration. My personal opinion is so long as the user uses a Latin signature, and has a link from the Latin name to their main account (i.e. a signature that includes "Betacommand", and User:Betacommand redirects to his name), that's fine with me. However, I think the community needs to make a fair decision about non-Latin usernames that avoids inconveniencing users while still allowing non-Latin usernames, for the benefit of users from other wikis, once Single User Login is enabled. Ral315 » 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Ral315's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Jeez, one more? Well, the issue here is whether the community trusts you to be a bureaucrat, and I personally do, due primarily to the Signpost work you've done. Before it comes up, though: do you consider the 70-80% range to be the only range in which 'crats have discretion to decide either way? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   A complex question in itself. I believe that the community has indicated its general desire that 70-80% be the discretionary range; however, I believe that over time, that could change (as at one point, the range was generally considered 75-80%), and frankly, I believe, in general, that arguments are much more important than numbers. Ral315 » 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support High-profile editor who has still managed to remain relative controversy-free. A good bureaucrat type. AKAF 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per ridiculous oppose. That user got banned for a year, FFS. Good fellow, should do well. Knows how the wiki works. Moreschi ^Talk 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ral's dedication, longevity and Clue would make him an excellent B'crat, in my opinion. Daniel 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Daniel. Clearly dedicated into improving the project, and will make a good 'crat... --Dark Falls ^talk 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Very good editor, will be a good 'crat (good work on the signpost!) GDonato (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Seems fine, like most of the current RFBs. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong support. Will make an excellent bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Definitely a good choice for a bureaucrat. Captain panda 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support WJBscribe and I were discussing who'd make good bureaucrat candidates - I do believe your name came up! Majorly (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support - Will make an excellent Bureaucrat ..--Cometstyles 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Has a good head on his shoulders. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, Ral315 does great work for the community and is trustworthy. · jersyko talk 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - With your editor-in-chief position you have shown yourself to be trustworthy and a good contributer. I am happy with your interpretation of the meanings of RFA/RFB and think you would make a good bureaucrat. Camaron1 | Chris 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Ral315 has exceptional judgment.--ragesoss 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Ral315 is one of the most senior and well-respected admins on the project. I see nothing to worry about. Shalom ^Hello 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per most of the above. Neil ╦ 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Too nice ;-). ~ Wikihermit 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, I see absolutely no reason to not give you the bureaucratic tools. Wizardman 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. You've been an admin for a long time, an editor for even longer, and we need more bureaucrats. Obviously a good candidate. --Deskana (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Reasonable, reliable and trustworthy—all what bureaucratship is about. —Anas ^talk? 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong Support- Great admin, been here for a long time, excellent work with the Signpost. That's enough for me. He'll make a great bureaucrat. Eddie 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong support. Excellent candidate. ElinorD (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Top notch editor, excellent choice. I trust Ral being a crat'. KOS | talk 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - excellent admin with a reputation for neutrality and good judgement. New bureaucrats are always welcome. Warofdreams talk 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support no concerns. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. No concerns, and I hope they will continue to reduce the backlog. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Very strong support again. Acalamari 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support this user. Oppose all these RFB nominations happening almost simultaneously. —« ANIMUM » 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support per above opinions. Will be a great addition to the bureaucrat corps. Eluchil404 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. A long-standing volunteer to the project, I am rather pleased to see Ral315's willingness to accept a bit of additional responsibility. He's been active in all facets of the English Wikipedia and I can think of few others that are as well-equipped to determine consensus as this fellow gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. 100% Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Bureaucracy for everyone! (Seriously, this candidate seems to me to be highly qualified and completely dedicated.) Bucketsofg 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per the above no-need-to-state-ad-nauseam rationales. —Kurykh 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. All said :) Phaedriel - 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Trustworthy, a good contributer, dedicated, an admin's admin. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats, and turning away a volunteer (who's willing to sacrifice his spare time for the project) for rather constructed and far-fetched reasons is exactly the kind of wikilawyering that we've got too much of already. That being said, I also think he's a fine choice. -- Schneelocke 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Very experienced user who has been here on Wikipedia more than long enough. ♠TomasBat 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Good admin; should be a good 'crat. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Has Clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support A good user. --Banana 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Agree with Riana...Clue is indeed in possession here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. I'm not seeing any red flags in Ral315's judgment. It seems he is absolutely qualified for the position. - auburnpilot talk 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. 100% Support - Absolutely. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Ral315 is a very active user whom I trust immeasurably with the 'crat tools. Cbrown1023 talk 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Reasonable and trustworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Mainly because he shares my enthusiasm for 'crat chat. Bureaucrat discussion=good, transparency=good. Borisblue 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Per nom statement and answers to questions. The Signpost question doesn't concern me at all. Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Switched to neutral.[reply]

49. Support. "Why the hell not"? Mostly kidding, but I do like the tone of that essay. No worries about Signpost issues COI, the work shows dedication, and frankly I like the Signpost's attempt at neutrality, I think they're as successful as could be expected. Danny decision comments as good as can be expected, Gracenotes decision comments quite good. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I would however like to stress that I don't feel the 'crat chat is the magic bullet for controversial decisions. Some believe it worked (or was helpful) with Danny's RfA. I'd say it was helpful in the way of transparency. I do feel it was a fluke that it appeared helpful at all. The same decision would have been made without it. I do like that Ral315 is willing to think outside of the box. Daveh4h say: A bold decision to act is better than no decision to act, even if the bold decision is wrong. daveh4h 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - mostly based on overall trustedness, but comments about need for transparency really endear the candidate to me. Cheers, WilyD 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Candidate is dedicated and able. Majoreditor 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Jon Harald Søby 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support wholeheartedly. the wub "?!" 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do. I don't object to him being Signpost editor at the same time, provided he recuses from articles about RfAs. EdJohnston 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Mature user, will do a good job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Looks like a good candidate for that spot. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. With respect to the oppose votes, the idea of Ral as a bcrat doesn't faze me in the least. In fact, I believe I'm actually quite comfortable with the idea, and I'd readily trust him to make these sorts of calls. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Good user, good admin, will be a good bureaucrat. Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I respect Ral's judgment and believe he would promote people when there is a consensus to do so and not promote when such a consensus is absent. I am happy with his question answers and unpersuaded that his role for the Signpost is in any way problematic as a conflict of interest. I think Ral would be a fine addition to the crat team. WjBscribe 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned by the Signpost article, which I do not believe covered the elections neutrally and by the effect Cecropia has shown it had. That being said, the article was not written by Ral315 and I feel that the problem having been well flagged up, the lesson has been learned. My support may be slightly more cautious, but I believe Ral will be capable of working through these issues. WjBscribe 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61. Support Good, trustworthy editor. Prodego ^talk 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Weak Support per answers to questions. The fact that he is on the Signpost seems pretty irrelevant. Voice-of-All 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Dedicated and fair user. The "Signpost"-related opposes are simply from left field; seriously, a conflict of interest because a guy is editor of some online newsletter? Puh-leeze... - Merzbow 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support A good, sensible admin. I do not see any conflict of interest in the Signpost issue, given that neutrality is required in both roles. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support -- Slade (TheJoker) 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Observing and taking part - I think that as long as these are kept separate and neutral, Ral can edit the signpost and cratify. ck lostsword•T•C 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support per the answers above, and hopefully no WP:COI concerning Signpost issues. Modernist 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support per all above. I foresee no problems with COI regarding the Signpost; Ral315 can get both jobs done effectively and independently. --Coredesat 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support mmmm ~ Infrangible 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support, answers to questions seem clear, writing style is unquestionable, and the concerns below about concentration of power seem particularly unconvincing to me. -- nae'blis 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support good answers, good history of contributions to the project.-- danntm ^T _C 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I honestly like what I see...good answers to questions, good overall abilities demonstrated, and I like the "open to recall" bit. Jmlk17 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - highly trustworthy, amiable chap. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. Rebecca 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. I've found him to be a fair person who is open to discussion and criticism, and I like that he does not intend to treat bureaucratship as a bot task. Support. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support good editor, good answers should make good bureaucrat. Davewild 07:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Should make an excellent bureaucrat. Cla68 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Sensible, smart, and trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. For some reason, i've always thought of you as a crat :p This was a bit of a surprise. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support per Slimvirgin. --Quiddity 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Kusma (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Ral is a terrific user who I think has well earned the community's trust. As for the consolidation of power concerns, I don't understand the bad faith assumptions. If he abuses power, it can be taken away. And I don't think he will. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support Ral is a wonderful user, who I believe has earned everyone's trust. In fact, I am surprised he has not ran beforehand Brian | (Talk) 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support (Switching to neutral, see comments over there Carcharoth 10:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)) - From what I've seen of Ral315, he would make a good bureaucrat. I would advise great care in areas of potential conflict of interest between bureaucrats and Signpost stories. Clear recusal from such situations is needed. Also, Ral's statement above "were it to be determined that I had acted inappropriately in this way, I would immediately resign my status as bureaucrat" does not go far enough. If such a thing happened (and I have no reason to think it will), then it would reflect badly on both the Signpost and bureaucrats, and resignation from both posts might be called for. Carcharoth 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84. Support One would think that the experience of working within the community at the Signpost would be a benefit rather than a hindrance. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support John254 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support, trustworthy and experienced admin. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - Ral has proven himself to be a responsible user, and I am unconvinced by the COI arguments.--Danaman5 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. support I have some concern about the signpost+crat consolidation especially since many users do seem to get their news about controversial closures based on the signpost. However, the signpost doesn't have that much effect when the drama really blows up and such events are rare. In many ways, the signpost position if one of responsibility but not much actual power. In any event, I doubt Ral would be inclined to do anything that would constitute an abuse of power. JoshuaZ 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support I trust Ral with these extra buttons. I know that he'll do a good job as a 'crat. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support - considering the activities of a bureaucrat, I can't see a situation in which the use of the "editor-in-chief" "position" would really cross over with the other duties. Someone below mentions that a good reporter will support their editor; sure, that happens, but a good reporter also remains neutral and should know not to be part of it if the editor is abusing power. I don't see Ral doing that - I think he'd make a good bureaucrat. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support per answers above. Not concerned about COI. --Kbdank71 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Strong Support Politics rule 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. The COI doesn't worry me; the Signpost is not an official publication.-gadfium 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support.  Grue  20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support per questionable rationale in the oppose votes, which actually enhance your good traits. — Deckiller 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Is a good editor, wouldn't do anything bad with extra buttons. -Lemonflash^talk 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support we need more crats and you seem to be ready for more tools. DarthGriz98 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support I think I can trust this user to promote other users to administrator or even bureaucrat. :) FunPika 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. And with all due respect to the people concerned about the "conflict of interest" stuff, you're taking Wikipedia too seriously. This is an online encyclopedia project, not the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Picaroon (Talk) 02:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Beat the buzzer support make it #3 :P Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. 'Support Will make a good 'crat. Ready for the tools. Signpost COI is a non-issue.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - I trust this user, based on my observations. - Philippe | Talk 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support I respect the candidate's well-reasoned judgement. Any concerns I have had have been addressed and I'm not too worried about the mere appearance of a conflict of interest. --S ^up? 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support, I just don't see any reason to do otherwise. The Signpost, while sometimes flawed, is a decent way to keep track of the goings-on around here. As to conflict of interest, if there should be abuse of the Signpost to self-support or cover up wrongdoing, we can always ask him to resign one position or the other. I see the likelihood of that actually happening as very, very remote, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. Give 'em the bit!, I really don't see a reason not to. The signpost, to me, is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think Ral315 will abuse the bit, and, that he would close RFA's properly, etc. That's all that matters, anyhow, IMHO. --SXT40 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. I will assume good faith. I trust that if the dual roles ever caused an issue the user would do the right thing. Don't let me down. ;) Hiding Talk 10:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. I do trust Ral, and the arguments related with Signpost and "double power" didn't persuade me to change my opinion. Sorry, I find them overly politicizing. Skimming through the debate below, I think that apparent comparisons with Silvio Berlusconi are overblown. Duja► 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Nice joke, Wikihermit. --Ancheta Wis 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Per Luna Santin at WT:RFA: "I can imagine a few ways holding both positions might present a minor conflict of interest, but every time I try and type them out, here, I feel incredibly silly and remember that I actually trust Ral quite a bit. While I don't expect this would seriously impact his ability to run the Signpost, I have little doubt that the problem would be solved easily enough, if it did. If anything, I might actually venture it seems more likely that this would increase the stature of the Signpost, all things considered." Dekimasuよ! 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support per Picaroon. (geez) Smokizzy (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - He's done good work in the past, and I am utterly not convinced that any work on the project should be a roadblock to... well... more work. - RedWordSmith 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support, a nice, trustworthy user; I am convinced he would make a good bureaucrat. Tim^{speak} 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
114. Tony Sidaway 01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) One of the best of us. I support his promotion wholeheartedly.[reply]
115. The conflict of interest concerns are valid but I trust Ral to make sure he's doing the Blind trust thing properly to avoid even the appearance of same. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support, good admin, an asset to WP KnightLago 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support, Based on my observation, he will be great bureaucrat. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
118. Ral says he would avoid COI's, and evidently keep away from admin- bureaucrat- and similar topics. That enough for me. I don't believe there's a COI between the Signpost and being a 'crat. Putting aside the 'Post, I trust Ral with extra tools, as as an admin, he has done very well. Therefore, I strongly support the promotion of Ral315 to a bureaucrat. Maxim 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Good answers, knows consensus. My feeling is the Signpost worries are smoke without fire. Believe it or not, it is possible to go for years on here without ever reading the "newspaper" as I have. I fail to see any more conflict of interest that Ral would have there than any other run-of-the-mill community involvement may hypothetically cause in futuretimes. Let's promote this one, and RfB will be dormant for six more months. Keegan^talk 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - I look at this administrator's past history and answers to his questions and feel nothing but enthusism with the idea of him being a crat. And although I certainly understand the concerns with Signpost, I think it's much ado about nothing. There are plenty of important issues to debate without creating new ones. Trusilver 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support After reading the responses to the questions and the oppose votes, I decided to support. I do not have an issue with mixing the duties of Signpost editor especially since Ral has feedback from the community on this issue. I'm confident that he will keep his word and separate these positions. FloNight 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support. Trusted by many (or, really, most) of us, no? His commitment to avoid any conflicts of interest seems sincere, workable, and convincing. And, I think there is a real need for a larger team of bureaucrats.   user:justen    talk   21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - Ral is one of the best admins we have, I trust him to be fair when judging consensus. I've read the opposes and strongly disagree that Ral315 being editor in chief of the signpost will have any effect on him being a bureaucrat, not sure where anyone gets that from, sorry guys.... Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Also, as a point of protest, I strongly disagree with Cecropia using an informal 'crat chat with Raul to get this extended[1], it's not really on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Did you even look at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Ral's RFB? It is pretty clear that 1) Raul654 asked for input publicly, 2) the suggestion of extension was made transparently visible before it was decided on, and 3) Ral315 said that he would not object to an extension. You imply that this was done non-transparently, which is just false. Additionally, other discussion has shown that the initial Singpost article could be seen as inappropriate canvassing, prior to Michael Snow's adding an "additional quote to balance story", and extending a discussion is an excellent method of offsetting the impact of biased canvassing. GRBerry 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Don't worry, I read everything at BN. What annoyed me is that Cecropia wasn't speaking as a regular user when he was talking to Raul about extension - he was talking as a bureaucrat, on an RfB that he had just opposed - he used his biased opinion, to state that he was "strongly opposed" to promote Yeah, he said he wouldn't close it, but the point is, he shouldn't have been talking like that to another 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Excuse me, Bureaucrats may communicate with each other wherever, though IMO it should only be in project space and it was. That Raul decided to open the discussion to all does not change that fact. Any single bureaucrat could have extended the nomination; I didn't because I had expressed my opinion and recused myself. I suggested it when Raul was looking for opinions and he did it. -- Cecropia 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I will further state that it is one thing for me to close a candidacy under dispute when I have opposed (or supported) it; it is another thing to say that, as a bureaucrat, I can't express my opinion to other bureaucrats considered how to close a nomination, especially when it involves the bureaucracy and an issue intimate to the running of RfA. To see some "voters" continuing to say that COI is a non-issue when it has already been demonstrated that the Signpost has impacted this RfB astounds me. -- Cecropia 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I don't really care where you discussed it - my point is, you shouldn't have done, simple as that. Bureaucrats shouldn't be discussing any nomination they have commented in, especially stating there opinion on closing it - you should have recussed yourself. Apparently you're strongly opposed to promotion from a bureacratic point of view - that's what I find out of line when you yourself encorouage other 'crats to stay away from these promotion discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Oh, and regards to the signpost - the only reason it's been effected is because of the pile on opposes because of it. Enlighten me how it stops Ral deciding a consensus or renaming a user? He doesn't have to write anything on 'crat actions, and I'm sure he won't from now on. come on, do you really expect him to write an article on himself? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     This is not about Ral's honesty or ability, as I've gone to some pains to express. It is about cross-responsibility between two areas of Wikipedia that should be separate. As I said earlier, publication of The Signpost added 31 supports and only 1 oppose to what was a failing RfB. The opposes seem to be in response to the revelation of this fact, not "pile on." Also, to your earlier point, I find your line of reasoning rather strange. A bureaucratic POV is exactly the perspective from which I should be opposing it. This is an issue that impacts RfA and RfB and I would be derelict if I didn't express my point of view on something of importance to this page. This is not just about a potential COI for Ral, it it a potential conflict of intenters for The Signpost, to have a staff member (the editor-in-chief, no less) inside the decision making process at RfA. Haven't you ever heard of journalistic independence? My position in this is not a conflict of a bureaucrat's interest, it is a bureaucrat's interest, -- Cecropia 00:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     We aren't going to agree on the COI aspect of this - Nothing anyone can say will make me think any different - Ral didn't even write the bloody artle! I am happy for you to oppose this RfB - you are more than entitled to do so for any reason you wish. What I strongly disagree with is your action after you opposed - you should not have discussed this RfB with another 'crat, all your discussion should have been done here, regarding the suitability of the candidate for bureaucratship - not on the actual closure to Raul. The Bureacrats are supposed to be neutral when closing nominations, I'm sorry Cecropia, but in my honest opinion you stepped over the line the minute you said to Raul you were strongly opposed to Ral's request, then preceeded to dicuss the intricacies of closure. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I'm sure that this is your honest, good-faith opinion, but I am really surprised that you think there is no COI involved in the interaction between The Signpost and RfA (not Ral and RfA) but you think there is COI between my stating my opinion (which I could have stated my opinion as a comment, since it deals with factual material, but I honestly stated it as an oppose) and my restating my opinion to a fellow Bureaucrat (who, as it happens, was asking for input). As a Bureaucrat, I needed to expose this issue as quickly as possible since it was an emergent situation, in which an RfB was impacted by an outside issue barely more than a day before closing. Raul asked for a number of opinions on a difficult closing, and he decided that mine was best. -- Cecropia 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Bureaucrats are supposed to be neutral as to the candidate and determine community consensus; bureaucrats are not supposed to, and should not ignore factual information impacting an RfA or RfB. If you could demonstrate that I bore a grudge against Ral, had an acrimonious article dispute with him, or disliked his work at The Signpost, I could agree with you. This is not about any of that. -- Cecropia 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Support There are various controversial items mentioned in this RfB. Having studied them I would be happy with this admin as a bureaucrat. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Duplicate vote. AGK 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose — No thanks, you call yourself "editor-in-chief" of this newspaper thing you go on about... if I even recall you had a hissy fit when somebody tried to start up a rival "newspaper" (because you wouldn't let it join your team?). Wikipedia works on consensus, not your likes and dislikes. Matthew 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the issue was more about the other editor complaining about an article stub not being accepted, then trying to start a rival newspaper. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn oppose per Ral315's PM. Matthew 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting for you. As a user who was involved in that whole incident, let me just say that what Ral did was exactly the right thing, as evidenced by the community ban that the user in question is now "serving" (and has been reset a couple of times); see this. Daniel 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I am concerned about his ability to accept critique by those who might question him if he promotes a borderline Rfa. My personal experience with this editor is that he is not mature enough for this role. I am also concerned about his editoral work on the Signpost, where quotes and facts are sometimes cherry picked to alter the tone of the transpired event.--MONGO 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose for two reasons. First, I concur with Mongo: I think Ral exhibits mostly good judgment, but I have not always been satisfied with the thoroughness and clarity of the explanations he's provided. Secondly, I feel JayHenry has a valid point: I think it is not in the community's interest to have the SIGNPOST run by a b'crat -- too much consolidation of formal and informal "power." As the candidate's statement specifically said he would remain at the SIGNPOST, I must oppose. Xoloz 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Xoloz, you have a good point actually. 'crats are supposed to be er... "neutral" in almost all aspects, very formal, but the Signpost often does not exhibit these features. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To your point, Anonymous Dissident, I believe I can be neutral on RFBs even though my writing for the Signpost, by definition, would require a little original research and potentially a point of view. I have no intention on reporting on bureaucratic actions if this request passes; other Signpost writers would pick up the stories (as happened last month on Gracenotes' RFA). Ral315 » 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you mean RFAs? Ok, thats good then. I am on the support side Ral. It was just a comment. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I did indeed mean RFAs, though since bureaucrats decide RFBs, I suppose that could be a much less likely situation :) Ral315 » 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Xoloz, what's the scenario here? Raul654, UninvitedCompany and Essjay all are/were both bureaucrats and arbitrators, but this has never been a problem.(Essjay left because of trust issues, not concentration of power.)--Chaser - T 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed. No offense intended to Raul or UC, but I oppose that concentration of power as well. I have opposed other ArbCom members who sought b'cratship after being elected (K. Martin, Mackensen.) Essjay, appointed to ArbCom for one week before his deceptions caught up with him, is -- in fact -- a great example of why concentration of power is bad. Raul and UC's good records are a credit to themselves, but I would say they are the exception, rather than the rule. For most people, at a minimum, the two high offices would cause a conflict of interest, leaving aside the possibility of outright malfeasance. As the Carnildo case demonstrated, it is at least possible for ArbCom to review b'cratic actions, which now (in controversial cases) are actions they tend to take as a group.

   Of course, Ral is different. His potential conflict-of-interest lies in reporting on controversial promotions, an informal -- but significant -- community influence. Even if he doesn't do reporting himself, his position as "editor-in-chief" creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, something b'crats -- as calm, neutral pillars of the community -- should always seek to avoid. Xoloz 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll try not to be offended by your comments ;) Raul654 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am wondering just what "editor-in-chief" creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest works out to; speaking as someone who has started writing for the signpost, so far 'editor-in-chief' has acted like an editor does on all the other thousands of pages we have here; he fixed some grammar in my post, and rearranged a couple sentences. I think he changed my headline to something to fit the tenor of the Signpost, too. That's it. I don't think you can pre-emptively assume there will be a COI, when the COI is entirely in perception of his influence, and not necessarily based on actual influence (which seems unlikely since reporting on promos comes after the promotion). I think its more important that we have bureaucrats involved in all aspects of the community (you should not lose an opportunity to contribute more because you already contribute) and while he has (as mentioned) not participated manymany RfAs, what you have here is a more interesting resource; someone who has, at the end of the week, read about the success or failure of every RfA since he started editing the Signpost. --Thespian 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per Xoloz, and per answer to my optional question. Although the Signpost thing doesn't really worry me, I am extremely unhappy with the fact that this candidate states he would have been "persuaded" by the arguments for promoting Danny. Bureaucrats should not be "persuaded" by any arguments, nor should they make decisions. They should promote based on the opinions of the community. Otherwise the problem of concentration of power, which Xoloz highlights above, will only get worse and worse. See m:wikidemocratism and m:wikithoritarianism. Walton^talk 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose As "editor in chief" of the Signpost, Ral315 is the boss of a small handful of Wikipedians. This position as a boss of Wikipedians is irreconcilable with the neutrality needed in a bureaucrat. Ral, this is not personal. I strongly support you as editor, and I would strongly support you as bureaucrat, but I cannot support you as both. It compromises the neutrality of the bureaucrats -- and of equal concern to me, it transforms the Signpost from an independent newspaper to something more akin to a corporate newsletter. From a media ethics standpoint, it's not even a close call. And I find it troubling that you don't see the potential for COI here. --JayHenry 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That's interesting- why is it OK for an admin to be editor in chief but not a bureaucrat? I've always seen the signpost as more as a "church bulletin" than our equivelent of the new york times. Cratship is, after all a technical post, not a political position. Frankly, since 'crats have been Arbcom members without any problem, I really find it hard to see why an editor-bureaucrat would be any worse. Borisblue 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I would also be rather opposed to crat/arbcom members. What can I say? I guess I got bit hard by the "separation of powers is a good thing" bug when I was in 8th grade social studies. I really think it applies to organizations and societies both large and small. For anyone interested, I did offer a more detailed explanation at WT:RFA#Conflict_of_interest? but won't clutter the discussion here with it. --JayHenry 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. I am not comfortable with Ral being a bureaucrat and editor-in-chief of the Signpost at the same time. Even if he will not personally write stories about controversial bureaucrat decisions I still think there is a potential conflict of interest. I am also generally in favour of distributing responsibility as much as possible. As a side note, I think his Signpost work has been mostly good but I felt Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-09/Danny was not a neutral treatment. It is fairly long, yet, despite having the word 'controversial' in the title, it nowhere mentions any reason why more than a hundred people felt Danny should not be trusted with adminship. Near the end there are some 50 words from Everyking, he is the only one quoted of those who opposed Danny's adminship. Maybe this is what MONGO means when he says: "quotes and facts are sometimes cherry picked to alter the tone of the transpired event". Haukur 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps I should have explained the opposition to Danny's promotion better, but the reason I only quoted Everyking, if I recall correctly, is because I wrote the article literally a few hours after the decision was made, and there were very few quotes to pick from at that time. I picked one supporting user, one opposing user, and one user who, interestingly enough, argued that there was no consensus, and yet he supported the promotion. I respect your opposition, however. Ral315 » 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for replying. As I said this was more of a side note - I wouldn't oppose over it. It did, however, annoy me at the time. Everyking (someone I respect a lot) is introduced in the article as someone with a record number of opposes on an RFA attempt of his own and then is the only one quoted of those opposing Danny's RFA. I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to discredit the opposition but I felt it was an unfortunate factor in unbalancing the article. Haukur 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Respectfully oppose per Xoloz, JayHenry and Hakur. Let's leave holding more than one high position as a grandfather clause. The potential conflict of interest might possibly mean that the Signpost becomes a mouthpiece of crat decisions, whether unwittingly (influence) or otherwise. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. oppose based on inconsistency in answers to Q1 and Q7, and dislike of answer to Q7. User:Argyriou (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, per Xoloz, JayHenry, Hakur, Walton and Mailer diablo. If he is both a 'crat and a Signpost editor, there may be a conflict of interest and publications may have some problems in the neutrality of the articles. Its an either...or situation here. Terence 06:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi, may I ask how bureaucratship + Signpost editor-in-chiefdom presents a conflict of interest? To me it sounds like a non-sequitur. MessedRocker (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The danger is that he may be able to influence what other Wikipedians see in a situation through the signpost. And as a crat, he may be able to influence what people see in his decisions. That's what people are saying, anyway (withdrawn my vote) G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Opposing per my response to Messedrocker's response to Terence's oppose (if that makes sense). G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Oops, withdrawn G1ggy - t|c|p 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose, per MONGO and Xoloz. --Duk 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per my long standing reasoning and per some of the concerns above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is: [2]. Icemuon 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That there's no need for more bureaucrats (case in point). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose per answer to question 1, and question 5 (self-question); the fact that the candidate states "my personal opinions on RFAs will have no bearing on how I close them" concerns me, since I consider that to be impossible. While a bureaucrat may successfully keep their like/dislike of a candidate aside, in controversial RFAs they will almost certainly take personal opinions of the discussion into account; and the "Why-the-hell-not" idea is not one I'd like held by a bureaucrat. I should note, that while I have decided to oppose, I believe Ral315 is a good editor and this was a difficult decision. -- Renesis (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose sorry but based on your answers to the questions, I simply cannot support your run for bcrat.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak oppose mostly per Mongo and Xoloz. I haven't exactly made an academic study of it but I just get the feeling from various things I've observed that Ral315 wouldn't be the most impartial b'crat. And that's okay, closing RFAs is difficult. Note that I consider changing user's names a meta task that isn't very important, so I don't factor that into my vote here. --W.marsh 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose -- Regretfully, I must oppose. I am not comfortable with cross-pollination between a news medium (even a quasi-news medium) and an important core community concern like RfA. Up until today (July 10) I had thought this would be all right. I believe Ral315 and trust his ethics when he says that he means it that he would not allow his roles to clash, but the possibility of unconscious bias when the editor-of-chief of a medium is also a person who will probably have to make unpopular decisions in a different part of the project.

    At midnight last the candidate stood at 71,12,0, or (for the bean-counters, 85.54%). A few minutes later the Signpost went live. It included an article telling about the large number of ‘crat nominations and listed the people running; but just before publication, the list of candidates for RfB was expanded to include a few lines about how each candidate’s RfB was proceeding. Could this be considered canvassing, considering that their editor in chief was one of the candidates? But that aspect is not what bothered me the most. Anyone who has done any journalistic work knows that even a completely truthful news article can be tainted by conscious or unconscious bias (which I think has become too common in much of the mainstream press in the last two decades or so, but that is another story). You can select which facts to mention, which to omit. You can choose which to emphasize, which to minimize. You can direct the substance of the story to one or another conclusion.

    Just before “publication,” User:Luna Santin wrote the copy for the RfB summaries. Here is the entry for Ral315:

    This is Ral315's first bureaucrat nomination. A primary point of contention in this discussion seems to be Ral's position as the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, leading several users' concerns regarding possible consolidation of power. In discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, EVula (herself a recent candidate for bureaucratship) found the concerns a, "Non-issue. The two don't conflict at all, and there's no "separation of powers" issue here; the Signpost is just a community-run 'newspaper', not a position of authority interprets and enforces Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." On the nomination page itself, Mailer diablo said, "Let's leave holding more than one high position as a grandfather clause. The potential conflict of interest might possibly mean that the Signpost becomes a mouthpiece of crat decisions, whether unwittingly (influence) or otherwise." In response to some of these concerns, Ral315 added an addendum to his self nomination statement and commented on the requests for adminship talk page, suggesting that he would avoid participating in articles related to bureaucrat activities, and that he would resign as a bureaucrat if he "crossed the line." Currently, Ral315's nomination has a tally of 76/12/0 (86% support), and is scheduled to close 11 July.

    Now we open with the main issue of contention. Next we have Evula’s comment dismissive of the concern, followed by a statement of opposition concerns by Mailer Diablo, followed by Ral315’s statement of non-influence, in essence a rebuttal, to close the piece.

    If we look at the other evaluation of the RfBs, we have a balanced ending to Majorly’s piece, a positive for RyanGerbil10’s, but all others end on a negative note:

    A Man in Black: notes that “several former supporters had struck out or amended their initial comments.”

    Andrevan: quotes the comment “, "In the opening to this RfB, you say 'It's been a while'. Indeed it has. You've been utterly absent from WT:RFA since November of 2005 up until a couple of days ago."

    Deskana: “Many opposing users have cited Durin's post in the discussion, which brings up concerns regarding demeanor and temperament.”

    Husond: “we don't need another vote-counting bureaucrat (we have too many as it is). Asked above for the criteria for promotion, the word 'consensus,' or any reasonable synonyms are completely absent."

    From the time of the Signpost’s publication, Ral315 picked up an impressive 31 support votes, 1 oppose and 1 neutral, to put him at (102,13,1) or 88.7%, within sniffing range of bureaucratship. I fear not only that the Signpost will have a problem transparently covering bureaucrat decisions, and especially their editor-in-chief’s bureaucrat decisions. But that trust in ‘’’both’’’ the RfA process ‘’’and’’’ the Signpost may be compromised.

    I would ask the RfA participants to consider that “Conflict of Interest” does not connote wrongdoing. A lawyer may be perfectly capable of honestly representing a husband in a divorce case, or the wife in the same divorce case but he would not possibly try both, even if he were as wise and honest as Solomon. In this case, I accuse no one of bad faith, of conscious partisanship, or of any attempt to do anything but the right thing, but in real life you wouldn’t want to know that a decision-making functionary in the government was also the editor of the local newspaper, and I’m not sure we should have that at Wikipedia either. As I have expressed my opinion on this nomination, I will not close it. Respectfully, I oppose -- Cecropia 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Query - have you calculated the change in vote tally on at least a few, if not all the other b'crat noms, to make sure that this isn't just a general attention bump from coverage in the Signpost? Mentioning the increased attention to Ral's nom is all well and good, but it doesn't actually prove anything except....that something he is involved in gets people to pay attention to administrative tasks. Unless one of the summaries that you interpret as negative also brought a large number of negatives, or you can show that there was a huge bump for Ral and virtually no change for others (and I'm not really sure 3% is a huge bump), this doesn't yet prove undue influence. It needs comparative data for context. --Thespian 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should say that Luna Santin took this story because Luna was the only user who offered to finish the article. I did not ask Luna to add such summaries; that was of his accord. All I wanted Luna to do was update the information on the article; however, he decided to write the summaries as well. I can't speak for Luna's selection of quotes, but I can say that Luna has never written a Signpost article, ever - he just happened to be the only user who offered to update the article. Ral315 » 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ral, I never had any idea that you wrote the story, or directed the writing of the story, or even suggested what should be in the story. I have no fear that you, personally, would take some kind of improper advantage of being both 'crat and Signpost editor. This situation illustrated for me how those on staff might consciously, subconsciously or even subliminally alter their reportage of RfA and RfB if you became a 'crat. -- Cecropia 05:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually just running those numbers myself. I'm not sure if I calculated this exactly right, and there are of course, different ways to calculate (lies, damn lies and statistics: also please take into account that I already opposed quite vociferously) but I got:

    • RyanGerbil received 4 supports and 1 oppose. (Or if you prefer 80% of new votes to support)
    • A Man In Black received 1 support and 7 oppose. (12.5%)
    • Ral received 31 support, 1 oppose (97%)
    • Andrevan received 19 support and 3 oppose. (86%)
    • Husond received 9 support and 2 oppose. (80%)
    • Deskana received 11 support, 2 oppose. (85%)

    So, for what it's worth, Cecropia is right that Ral saw the most dramatic upswing. But I still think the philosophy behind the opposition is more compelling than the actual numbers here. I mean, both of the writers of this article voted to support Ral's RfB, and nevertheless nobody seemed to see any potential conflict of interest anywhere in them writing this? --JayHenry 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And per my own neutral, I'm in agreement with you. While I believe Ral can do a good job as a b'crat, and not let it influence his work with the Signpost, I strongly believe that those of us who may be seen as being 'under' him at the newsletter should not be voting. But that's an issue with the underlings, not with Ral; it would have been just as much of an issue if he'd asked it of us. That's an issue with any place where you have citizen reporters; I spend a lot of my time explaining to people that when I review computer equipment and books, I'm not allowed to keep them after; there should be no perception that you get value as part of the work. That can/should be clarified with a Signpost policy, but shouldn't impact the editor. I guess I'd consider it different if we didn't all have the same opportunities in this context; but here, if I really wanted to make myself known, I'd go to 5 high traffic, high visibility pages, and spend a few weeks being fair and just in my edits, bringing them up to featured level, helping mete out justice and vanquish vandals, and I'd probably be seen by as many people as Ral is in the same period at the Signpost. --Thespian 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't consider it a reason to oppose Ral for bureaucrat, but I do agree that the Signpost article was biased in his favor as per Cecropia, and found the descriptions of the other RfBs (including my own) to be lacking in neutral, evenhanded coverage. However, I see this as a problem with the Signpost, and not with Ral or his ability to serve as bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Andre, I have been going to some pains to say this is not about Ral's fitness to be a bureaucrat. It is about the ability of the writers on the signpost to be objective about issues at RfA and RfB when their editor-in-chief is part of the decision-making process here. That is the active COI; the possibility that Ral might intentionally affect reportage of RfA/RfB as bureaucrat is secondary. -- Cecropia 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I guess I sort of feel like this conflict of interest is being handled backwards. The Signpost, as part of the press so to speak, tries to be objective, but as we know well on Wikipedia, truly objective statements are difficult to come by on contentious issues, thus our NPOV practice of covering all differing viewpoints equally. The Signpost does a good job, but it's still no more and no less than a newspaper. Therefore the Signpost should be taken as critically as any press outlet would be in the real world, be it The New York Times or FOX News. Organizations like the Times make an effort to be impartial, which is why they are respected. If Ral become a bureaucrat -- evaluated on his merits, as he should be -- then people who are concerned about the conflict of interest would start treating the Signpost less like the Times and more like FOX. This is the wrong way to go about handling the COI. When Mike Bloomberg ran for mayor of the New York City, nobody said, "I won't vote for this man because, as leader of a financial news service, now my financial news will be biased, and will influence viewpoints regarding the Mayor's economic policy." To use a more hypothetical example, if Frank Rich ran for President, people wouldn't complain about how the Times would become more biased, they would vote for or against him based on his merits as a leader. If the Times' editorial neutrality suffered, Rich would be fired. Basically what I'm saying is, if anything should happen as a result of this perceived conflict of interest, Ral should be evaluated on his merits, and if made bureaucrat, be made to step down by the other Signpost editors/community at large, or alternately people would just trust the Signpost less (if its neutrality did in fact suffer). Nature abhors a void, and probably we'd end up with a competing newspaper. But I don't understand a reason in all of that to oppose his bid for bureaucratship. Andre (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this is closed, I am responding on Andre's talk page. -- Cecropia 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose- I'm just not comfortable with this editor being a b'crat. This is partially based on answers to questions, and partially on what Xoloz said and I might agree with Cecropia too, except it will be 3 days before I finish reading that. pschemp | talk 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Per Xoloz, Cecropia, etc. RFA is one of the engines of Wikipedia that can consistently stir up conflict every few months. Ideally the Signpost (and its editors) should stand apart from that. If you are involved in RFA controversies then there will be an appearance of conflict, or as Cecropia suggests, the possiblity that Signpost editors who are your freinds will carry conscious or unconscious biases with them. As there is no great need for more crats, I'd prefer to keep the roles seperate. Dragons flight 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. Consolidation of power, or at least perception of consolidation of power, is already an issue. I was ready to oppose per Xoloz; when I hit Cecropia's post, my concerns about these issues were only confirmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. I concur with the above objections. >Radiant< 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Weak oppose. Switching to oppose based on issue brought up by Cecropia and others. Chaz ^Beckett 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support. The Signpost issues are quite minor for me, though Ral315 should take care to avoid any appearance of a COI. I thought the answer regarding Danny was rather weak, which is why my support is also weak. I'd consider Ral315 to be the best out of the current bureaucrat candidates. Chaz ^Beckett 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose While editor in chief of the signpost is not a formal power position in the same fashion that ArbComm is, it is in fact a position of great influence and effective power over the community. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia that such positions be held by different people. More 'crats would be a good thing, but there is no special reason to believe that we need this particular individual as a 'crat. The concentration of power issue is a special reason not to make this particular individual a 'crat, and consistency with my prior standards requires opposition. GRBerry 13:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Reluctant Oppose I trust Ral's judgement, but Wikipedia should avoid Conflict of Interest (or the appearance of Conflict of Interest) whenever possible. The other signpost editors have grown to respect Ral's work (and with good reason), and I feel there's a potential for biased reporting. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per conflict of interest concerns, which I don't find "just hypothetical". –Outriggr § 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose, sorry, per Cecropia. I was too surprised to see the Signpost headlines that day, and my first thought was that the report on the seven RfBs should've waited until they were all closed. I may assume good faith, but nevertheless I think that such report does qualify as canvass. It definitely influenced the outcome of the RfBs taking place, and as editor-in-chief of the Signpost Ral should have expected this inevitable consequence after any mention to them on a widely distributed newsletter. Personally I could not avoid to oppose you on these grounds, especially after your incongruent oppose in my RfB where it reads, "I'm very vocal about the potential benefits of IRC, but bureaucrat decisions are not one of them". How can you be so peremptorily against any bureaucrat decisions mingling with IRC (which by the way is a combination that I never said I approved), while at the same time allowing the very object of a bureaucrat's decision to mingle with the Signpost? Again, sorry, but at this time I just cannot support.--Húsönd 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the Signpost's job to report on ongoing events in the Wikipedia community. Requests for bureaucratship about to close are an ongoing event. I understand your opposition, but we've covered articles for deletion debates, elections to ArbCom and the Board of Trustees, and even controversial ongoing RFAs. If we can't report on RFBs, what's the point of having the Signpost? Ral315 » 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree absolutely that the Signpost should have reported on the RfBs. However, your prominent association with the Signpost suggests that a prudent approach once you realised that there would be a story on this, would have been to withdraw while the story was running, and then reapply at a later date. Unlike real-world elections, you can halt the process, and chose the timing of your RfB to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. I would certainly support at a later date, and I think some others would as well. Carcharoth 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ral, I think you have a journalistic blind spot here, which concerns me about Signpost policy. RfA/RfB is an open process and, unlike conventional elections, the running results are openly visible. This opens up certain problems, including bandwagon effects. Canvassing used to be permitted; now it is frowned upon. Many countries maintain systems where the press does not have access to any of the results until the polls are closed. The fact that U.S. voting is state-based creates problems in presidential elections where different poll closing times (and reporting of results) creates distortions in the areas in which polls are still open. Think 2000 U.S. Presidential election, but it was also true other years, including 1960 Kennedy-Nixon. Mentioning that RfB has seven candidates while the polling is going on seems fair; mentioning that one of the candidates is the editor-in-chief of the Signpost seems like canvassing, even if unintended; giving a characterization of the different "races" while they are still open crosses a line. It implies poor journalist judgment to write it, and poor editorial judgment to run it. Perhaps you feel I am suggesting a limit on free speech; not at all, I don't dispute your right to "publish" this material. But the "press," like anyone and anything else in Wikipedia is open to criticism. Most agree that a free press is supposed to fearlessly report the story; but another core principle of journalism is that the medium is not supposed to be a participant in the story. I think it would be appropriate not to characterize the candidates and arguments in RfA and RfB until the participants have spoken. -- Cecropia 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't the same thing had happened if there had been a mention of 7 concurrent RFB's? After all, it is a very uncommon occurrence, and all the Signpost readers would have seen that Ral was undergoing a Request For Barbequing once they clicked on WP:RFB. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It might have, though the fact that Ral's participation and his connection to the Signpost certainly didn't hurt his chances. The very fact that The Signpost can impact an open consensus process illustrates how inherently problematic it is to have a high functionary of a Wikipedia process that can move opinion also be a decision-maker in a process reported on. -- Cecropia 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Although you could argue as well that the Signpost affected the process from the beginning, as that's where most people come in contact with Ral, to start with, so it becomes kind of a catch-22. The reason many of the supporters express their support for this request is that a they have seen Ral perform a good job as the grunt-worker of the Signpost. The reason others oppose is due to the Signpost's previous influence. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24. Very reluctant oppose per Cecropia. I would hate to be the reason this didn't pass but I have to agree with him. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose, sorry, the COI raised above concerns me. Furthermore there's alot of talk about consensus but surely a measured look (in an RfA) at whether the candidate being an admin will be ultimately beneficial or harmful to the process of 'pedia building is the crucial point in these grey areas and I see no mention of this in any answers you've provided. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose with sadness. The candidate has a strong record as administrator, and Signpost editor, but I concur with Cecropia's concerns regarding the ability to keep the two things separate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose Although Cecropia's analysis of an interesting Signpost-related issue, for the clarity and meticulousness of which he is, I think, to be commended, leads me to conclude that an issue that I thought, pace Xoloz, et al., to be entirely insignificant ought perhaps not be dismissed straightaway; because, though, I oppose on separate, broader grounds and need not to reach the Signpost issue, I will not here, lest I should consume the rest of Pschemp's week, recite the arguments in consideration of which I continue to think the issue to be one on which one's !vote ought not to turn (although they are probably not dissimilar from those of Messedrocker, infra. In view of my general admiration for Ral and my complete willingness to repose in him my trust to perform, consistent with policy and the consensus of the community as borne out in any discussions that might transpire, the relatively uncontroversial and oftentimes pro forma tasks associated with CHU and RfBA, I have reviewed this RfB with some carefulness over the past few days toward my perhaps moving beyond my reflexive oppose in view of my concerns about Ral's closing RfAs, with stem from the apparent distinction between his sense of the nature of RfA and understanding of the role of bureaucrats in the closure of RfAs and mine (to-wit, that a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions—except, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought [there are, to be sure, no such policies or general understandings relative to requests for adminship, and I can't imagine that ever there will be]—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large); with regret I must say that my concerns are not unallayed, and because, as W.marsh notes here and I note much less eloquently tangentinally here, it has become necessary that, except in close or extreme cases, one base his/her RfB !vote principally on RfA promotion-related issues, I must oppose. Joe 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral In the real world, you would never want the editor of the newspaper in a position of authority, even a bureaucratic one. If the editor of the New York Times were elected the comptroller of the Port Authority, he would be asked to resign as editor. But is this a valid analogy on Wikipedia? No, it's flawed, but I'm not sure precisely why. And shouldn't this be discussed at the Signpost after the election? Maybe. I certainly have trusted Ral as editor of the Signpost. And I am inclined to trust him as a bureaucrat. But do I think it's healthy for the community to have one person in both roles? I need more time to ponder this. --JayHenry 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Shalom is doing most of that story this week instead of Ral315. [3]--Chaser - T 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Shalom voted support in this RfA. You inadvertently helped me realize why I feel that I must oppose. Any good reporter will support his editor/boss and this is a giant conflict. --JayHenry 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would believe that if the editor actually paid anything to his subordinate, which is not the case here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect JayHenry's opinion, but I will say, for the record, that Shalom's never written for the Signpost until this week, I honestly had no idea who Shalom was until this week, and as far as I know, Shalom has no debt to me, as editor or otherwise. Any writer who would vote for me to "keep their job" is nuts, because I have no real authority to "fire" anyone, and my status as "editor" is at the community's will anyway. Ral315 » 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here -- the title of "editor in chief" of the Signpost seems really bloated -- if there was actually any power, then he would've had to jump through about ninety-four hoops to get it. MessedRocker (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Q8 worries me; I'll try to come to a decision before closure.--Chaser - T 06:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - I like Ral, and would vote for him, but I believe that those of us who currently write for the Signpost (even if I'm just starting work on my second article) should recuse ourselves from voting in this. --Thespian 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - switching from support to neutral. I hadn't fully considered the implications of the Signpost story on a (relatively) large number of people running at Requests for Bureaucratship (RfB). When I realised that the only reason I came here and voted was because of the Signpost story, I stoppped to think about this some more. I have no problems with the story in the Signpost, as this number of people running is indeed a news story. The problem I have is that the story may have drawn large numbers of Signpost readers to vote. This is fair enough, but the trouble is that many of them may have recognised Ral's name and voted on that basis. To me, that is troubling enough that I can no longer support. I believe the correct action would have been for Ral to withdraw his candidacy and run again at another time. Indeed, I would have no problems supporting if he ran again in the near future, preferably not at a time when there was a Signpost story drawing Signpost readers to RfB. Carcharoth 10:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Switched from support. Cecropia's post makes some good points, though not enough for me to oppose. However, I think that since the conflict of interest issue had been raised, it ought to be the case that Ral315 understood that the way the article was handled would be examined by commentators at this RfB. I gather from Cecropia's post that it wasn't Ral315 who wrote the article himself -- that would certainly have caused me to switch to oppose. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he "commissioned" the story and did not substantially edit it. But the appearance of conflict has to be avoided too, and I think that if the Signpost were to run an article on RfB at this time, it would be necessary for Ral315 to completely dissociate himself from that issue at least. I would have preferred to see him delay the story until the RfB was complete, specifically because of the risk of apparent COI. I would support Ral315 for 'crat if he ran again, so long as he stated clearly how he would handle this kind of situation: I think he would make a good bureaucrat, but this is a slight mistake in judgement in the middle of the RfB and I think that warrants a "wait and try again in three months" response. I trust him to get it right next time, so I can't quite bring myself to oppose, but I can't support either. Mike Christie (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. I don't think Ral meant for any canvassing to occur via the Signpost article. However bureaucrats are some of our most trusted community members, and as such must be beyond reproach. Therefore I cannot support at this time, but might in a few months. I also think the community should have a fuller discussion of what exactly the editor-in-chief of the Signpost does, and what authority the position has. This would help clear up any WP:COI concerns, if any really exist. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral per COI of the Signpost discussion. IMHO, this could have waited until after the votes closed. Miranda 01:03, 13 July 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.