Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversightship/The Rambling Man

I can't get the numbers working correctly, am I missing something? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I remove an overdue space. Barras ^talk 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad :) Thanks NonvocalScream (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Extension

• I don't know about that, 80% and 25 votes is needed, he is only barely over 80% at the moment and nowhere near 25 votes. -DJSasso (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Which is why I've extended it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Right, which is what I am disagreeing with, if he was close to passing ie. one vote away from the required votes then extended would be ok. But when they are so far away from the requirements I don't think its right. ie in the case of CU and OS, not voting is as much a vote as actually saying support or not support. Rules shouldn't be changed mid run. -DJSasso (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's not changing any rules. Deciding whether to close or extend the request is up to bureaucrat discretion, and some wikis let CU/OS requests drag on for weeks or even well over a month. Since TRM has consensus (and the required 80%) to pass, don't you think it would be unfair to fail him for lack of votes? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  No I think its completely fair, the required number of votes is there for a reason. If a wiki cant get the required number of votes then it either doesn't have the community size for the position, or more likely in our case, they don't see the need for more or they would have voted. I do think its unfair to keep extending it to just try and get more votes. Rediculously unfair actually. I would actually call it a bias to extend a vote just for that reason. Especially when the person extending voted to support. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  I did it once. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  "I'm hoping we get there in three days, but if not, and consensus still exists, we can extend it for another four days to reach the two week mark some wikis have." <--- This indicates you intend to keep extending till you get your desired result. -DJSasso (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Where the desired result is the obtainment of consensus regardless of the outcome? If so, yes, exactly right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus to not give the flag already exists when the time limit ran out and there were not the required votes. -DJSasso (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  If consensus to promote is present, but the 25 votes have not been achieved, standard practice is to extend the discussion at least once. It's been done in the past. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  And I disagreed then as well. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree with lots of things, but I have to accept them sometimes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Actually it doesn't. I probably wouldn't have said anything if an uninvolved crat had extended it. But you have a clear COI. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  How do I have a "clear" COI? I supported, but I'm a bureaucrat because my judgment is supposedly good enough to let me see beyond personal opinions. I would assume the same for you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  No crat should close/extend a discussion they were involved in. I wouldn't expect anyone to be ok with me doing it, nor am I ok with any other crat doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Says who? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Its been de facto policy for a long time. There was even a huge debate about this the last time it happened which I believe suggested it would be smart to avoid it if possible, but if it was necessary it was ok. I dont see it as having been necessary in this case since there are a number of crats who havent commented. -DJSasso (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Honestly, this is silly. You already said you're not objecting to the result, but rather who implemented said result. That's rulecruft. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's the lack of following such things that has the wiki in a mess half the time. We need to stop fiddling things to get our desired result mid stream. I don't have a problem with the proposal you just made to always have them open 2 weeks. But I don't like extending things when they are going. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's the obsession with bureaucratic minutiae that's the issue, I think. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I just think it's silly to debate this when it'll do no good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  If you dont state your problem no one knows that one exists. Maybe it won't change something this time, but maybe it will next time. Discussion is always good. -DJSasso (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  While this discourse is interesting, it has become somewhat generalist with relation to extensions of requests due to minimal contibutorship. The discussion is useful but perhaps should be addressed to a wider forum than just here. I would suggest it's taken to Simple talk or somewhere similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)