Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat

Further discussion of relevant issues can be taken to user talk, WP:BN, or WT:RFA. –xeno^talk 15:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

actual counts

At "official time of closing" it was 190 supports, 90 opposes. (not "191 to 95" as most people do not expect their !votes after official closing time to be valid)

At "time of outside site posting very negative material" the count was 131 supports, 29 opposes.

From "time of outside site negative post" to end, the count is 59 supports, 61 opposes.

I fear that a significant number of those "late opposes" might possibly have been based on the negative outside site, muddying this RfA quite substantially, and noting that the negative material included personal identification and other material which could possibly be grounds for banning of an editor if it were posted on Wikipedia proper. Collect (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, close times are fluid, and we tend to count all opinions until such time as the discussion is closed. There are times when we deliberately let a discussion proceed for a number of hours. This one is more likely due to timing (it was slated to close at 3AM EST), but that does not matter. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not that my !vote of "Neutral" made a difference anyway, but I for one have not frequented an "outside site" that has posted very negative material, and while I don't doubt that some of the opposition may be based upon that, I suspect that a good deal came from people who simply wanted to sit back and consider their opinion for a bit longer before posting. In this case I think there were a few people waiting to see if sufficient reassurances could be given that past actions would not be repeated. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The chart posted by Pldx1 shows a significant step change in the support/oppose ratio on day four, which is when the outside posting was made. I do think the crats will need to consider this outside canvassing to some extent. Thparkth (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

      Wow. Not a lot to say, other than "wow." I predicted this kind of thing would happen, as far as trying to discount the opposition, but it's still disappointing to see in action. For the record, Pldx1 also attempted to shut down discussion before Avi actually closed the RFA. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't really know what you're getting at here. Thparkth (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• In reply to: For the record, Pldx1 also attempted to shut down discussion before Avi actually closed the RFA. Anyone is allowed to his opinion. For myself, I would summarize this specific event as: Pldx1 was thinking that "a listed closing time is mandatory for each and every one and don't require any superpower for being enforced'. When one proceeds to an experiment, the protocol must be set before proceeding, and not decided ex post from seeing the results... This the best practice, because this is how good practice can be proven: is there any need to create a sideline controversy? Pldx1 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In any event, the close was undone, and a burecrat eventually closed the discussion. As there was no harm done, I think we can put this to bed. -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not certain what "outside sites" are being referred to here, but I think this comment from Collect is unfair and impugns dozens of fine editors who expressed opposition to this candidate who was deadminned for misusing the block button. Hawkeye7's answers regarding that sitation, and other, more recent issue was more than enough justification to move me from "neutral" to "strong oppose." Attempting to write off the opposes as other than good-faith is quite unfair, in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I intended no attack on any individual editors, but the "site" is very well-known to most of those here. The post on that site can not be quoted, as it includes personal and identifying material about editors which would be grounds for banning anyone posting it here. Collect (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Although I supported this RfA, I'm of the opinion that it should be closed as having no consensus to promote. The opposing points regarding his temperament are entirely valid, well-substantiated, and backed up by several recent examples. I wish Hawkeye7 the best, and I hope he fares better next time around. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: RfAs remain live until closed or placed on hold by a bureaucrat. If this needs to be made more clear somewhere, please do so. –xeno^talk 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) [x-post from parent page]
  • Meh – we are currently have a discussion as to whether "7 days" = "168 hours" as it concerns AfD closings. Considering the overwhelming consensus was that "7 days" DOES = "168 hours" in that discussion, I would suggest that the same thinking be applied to RfA's. RfA voting should = "168 hours" and no more, unless the Crats specifically announce that they have decided to hold the voting open for a specific "official additional" period (probably an additional 24 hours). Otherwise we're into a "moving goal posts" situation, and we saw that potentially with Liz's RfA, and have seen in here in Hawkeye7's. If there aren't enough Crats to close RfA's on time at the 24 hour period, then they may need to "empower" others to put the closing template on the page for them at the 24 hour mark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • • Okay, as the closer of that discussion I will state a few things that I feel are obvious. 1) That close only applies to the discussion about AfD, 2) AfD goes for a minimum of 7 days, not exactly 7 days so it is again not relevant, 3) Nobody in that discussion was thinking of RfA when they gave their opinions. So basically that discussion and its findings have nothing at all to do with this discussion. HighInBC 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Bureaucrat note: That the close times are fluid was considered "longstanding consensus" about eight years ago (an eternity in wikiyears 8-) ), and there is no reason to change. -- Avi (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • If necessary, then, we need to hold an RfC about this. It makes little sense to hold AfD's to exactly 168 hours, but to hold RfA's open for an indefinite time period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

        No, we really don't. AFDs routinely last longer than 168 hours, as they get relisted over and over again. That 168 is just looked at as a bare minimum of sorts, since there had been a problem with an editor performing non-admin closures before the 7 days were up. This is not, however, considered the maximum time an AFD can run. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• For RfA's in the discretionary range, it matters. And for something with a large number of votes, like RfA's, it matters. (AfD's generally get so few votes, that closing a few hours late will not change the result.) There needs to be a discussion about this – if the consensus is that no one cares if an RfA is closed up to 24 hours late, then so be it (though good luck using that little factoid to encourage people to run!...). But the community needs to decide whether "7 days" = "168 hours" for RfA's or not (and I know what I think it should be...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's the other way around - the marginal impact of an extra vote is much smaller in a discussion with 300 participants than in one with just 3. To make your case, you'd have to show that additional votes are so much more likely in the RfA context that they would actually have a numerical impact. Historically, that has not been true. Also, RfAs closing when the crat gets to it rather than at the exact 10,080th minute has been the practice since forever, so you're going to have a steep uphill battle arguing that that has anything to do with candidacy rates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• All I can tell you is that Collect showed above that when this discussion closed had an effect on the result, and I believe the same thing was shown with Liz's RfA. A close time of "when anyone feels like it" only adds to the feelings of "arbitrariness" that already pervades RfA in particular, and Adminship in general. Allowing that to persist isn't helping anybody IMO. (But you may also be right that the community simply doesn't care – but it would be good to have that proposition either confirmed or denied...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1.1% is not going to be decisive here. Leaky Caldron 18:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Which is fine, until the day we have an RfA at 66% at Hour #168 but which is down to 64.9% at close at, say, Hour #176, or even an RfA at 76% at Hour #168 but which is down to 74.9% at close at Hour #175. Then there's going to be an actual problem... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Which is also fine, as it is well known that the tally isn't counted until the fat bureaucrat groans . -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would not call it "arbitrary." Rather, we know that RfXs last at least, and usually just about a week. It isn't "when anyone feels like it." There are only 23 burecrats, and this closed at 3AM EST. Forgive me for going to bed at 2:00 AM last night; I do have to work for a living . The fact that discussions close a few hours later usually does not matter overall, and in the cases it does, we have (at times) allowed the discussion to remain open an extra 12 - 24 hours specifically to allow any tectonic shifts to properly manifest. I view the fluid nature as a feature, not a shortcoming, but I am partial, obviously. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Dear User:Avraham. The Network Time Protocol (as described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5905) runs smoothly whatever any specific person is awake or asleep. Therefore no one was saying that you should have stay firm on your feet, armed with a coffee pot and a sandglass, watching for the precise moment when to post the hold on comment. Time stamps can be trusted (in the present context). In the same vein, I would have no objection to a decision to keep the discussion open until a further, precisely written, date. In fact, I am not trying to explain this kind of fuzzy clocks by a conspiracy of any kind. Rather by not taking care of what could be proven good practices. Pldx1 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whether it be RFA or AfD, the standard has always been a minimal of 7 full days, not exactly 7 full days. I'm afraid those arguing for the latter is the one moving the goalposts. -- KTC (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  I think what outcry there has been in this regard has as much to do with the fact that there was more opposition than support in the latter stages of the RFA. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• That is actually common. My thesis is that people who know and like the candidate tend to react first. Later on it is more those who did not know the candidate or needed more time. So assuming that the latter group is 50-50 (uninformative prior, as it were), the original "push" will have more supports than opposes, the later additions will be more even, making it look as if the oppose-to-support ratio increases as the RfX proceeds. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I also had not heard of the "outside site" in question until a Google search just then. I do believe there is sufficient rationale in the oppose section, rather than mere canvassing !votes, to justify a no consensus to promote closure. Discounting opinions as they may have come from this external source would lead to a pointless guessing game, and it's not right to discount valid opposing arguments because of it. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 16:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• I see how the influence of, ahem, these outside sites has made upon the RfA, particularly knowing that it seems to be the only RfA in a very long time to make the 300 mark for participation, exactly in this case. It was interesting to see an editor come straight out of retirement from 2009 to make his/her oppose (I won't mention names, see for yourself). ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly nothing to do with outside sites. MOre likely to do with our own site advertising the RfA on Watchlist attracting new contributors to the RFA. Leaky Caldron 16:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgot about that point -- regardless of circumstances however, it's good see such a large turnout. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was actually surprised at how many people participated in it. I mean, I've obviously seen Hawkeye7 around plenty over the years, but I didn't think he was prolific enough to garner that kind of attention at his RfA. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be surprising that candidacies which are sitting in the "discretionary range" draw more attention and votes. Had this one sunk to 60% or below, I probably would have sat it out rather than pile on. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes we want to extend the time, especially if there is a late change in voting, sometimes not if the voting is running par for the course. Regardless, for near on a decade now we have allowed the close time to be a guideline and not a guillotine, and the onus is on the one who wants demonstrate that the consensus has changed to do so. By all means, if you want to start an RfC, go for it, but my prediction would be that most people are content with how we handle it now (as human beings and not robots). -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC) -- This comment has probably been inserted/moved from where it was intended, i.e. earlier bullet point on exactly or minimal 7 days. KTC (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• The idea that RfA !voters are like a jury that should be sequestered from "outside influences" is ridiculous. This is more like an election, where the candidate and other editors have no direct influence or control over what third parties do on outside sites. This kind of thing cannot be controlled. FWIW, I was reading such an outside site, and read "personal and identifying material" which had no influence on my vote. I have no means of confirming the veracity of such material. My decision was based on edits that the candidate made on Wikipedia, and my gut feeling based on what others with more direct experience working with the candidate said. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is that it's not fair that people may be voting based on critical outside comments which may not be accurate or fair, and where the candidate has no right of reply (and may not be aware of the criticism at all). Anyway I think this has been flagged up to the point where the crats will consider it as a factor, with as much or little weight as they consider appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I also read "critical outside comments which may not be accurate or fair", which had no more influence on me than some "critical inside comments (i.e. comments made in the RfA itself) which may not be accurate or fair". There was a lot of smoke, and a judgement call is made whether to go into in-depth research of all the smoke, or make a gut call based on a somewhat random examination of it. Candidates who want to improve their chances should be on the lookout for smoke, and make their best efforts to contain it before it gets out of control. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked at the discussion on the site mentioned by Collect. Interestingly from what is said there a number of participants in that discussion voted support as part of a Hasten The Day philosophy, and one of them at least has put "HTD" as his support reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wondered what "HTD" meant. I figured it was some Milhist thing, given Hawkeye7's affiliation with those topics, but I guess not. What does "Hasten the day" mean in this context? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Hasten the day that Wikipedia dies and disappears as an influential and widely read website. The idea is that by encouraging promotion of more of what they feel are bad or abusive admins, the day of WIkipedia's demise will be here sooner. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • So the "HTD" vote is basically admitting the person is voting in bad faith? Good grief. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • But of course, that shouldn't influence the outcome here, because we are smarter than that, and don't blindly count !votes to determine outcomes, but rather we deeply examine the rationales behind votes and weight each !vote appropriately based on the support for the rationale in Wikipedia policies and guidelines ;| Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Wbm1058, that sounds nice, but I don't believe it corresponds to the actual. (For example, in Liz's RfA, there was huge divide re admin qualification or no based on level of content contribution history of the candidate. But you'll find no policy or guideline on that topic, there is no qualification standard relating to that, there is just one side that wants a sizable contribution history and another side which discounts any relevance to it re adminship. So rationales then were basically expressions of want and desire for admin background, and those competing rationales couldn't/can't be judged by any policy or guideline since there are none that apply.) IHTS (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Seriously? That's fucking awful, and not to say at least a crazy idea. Wikipedia is not just an encylopedia, but a grand experiment of organised chaos. Somehow, we continue to survive under such conditions. I recommend that the 'crats do not take that vote into account, and, in future, ensure that such votes are stricken out. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• For the record of someone who apparently opposed just after the *outside site* post was made. Without checking I have a good idea which site we are talking about. For my sanity, I tries not to pay attention to said site, and I had not and still have not looked at the posts in question. As someone whose own RFA was to an extent negatively affected by such outside site post, I am sympathetic to complaints about outside canvassing. I would also point out that suggestion that a candidate should "contain it before it gets out of control" doesn't actually work as its been the case that editors have been known in previous RFA to oppose for the sole rationale that a candidate or their supporters have pointed out "outside site negative canvassing". Having said that, just because there has been outside canvassing isn't sufficient grounds on its own for any !votes to be ignored. If the !voter had given remotely reasonable rationale for their !vote, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt (whether positively or negatively). -- KTC (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As an aside: the three level drops I discern in the plotted data could also correspond with the weekend days--presumably at some widely used log on timezone. Be careful of confusing correlation, coincidence, and causation. 132.3.53.79 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty obvious which site we're talking about. The moment I heard the phrases "outside site" and "canvassing", one name immediately sprang to mind. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Can someone enlighten the rest of us in this regard? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Hallward's Ghost: Email sent to you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I was feeling a bit "out of the loop" as to what everyone was talking about. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Just out of curiosity, can I get in on the party too? I mean, with whatever site it is, etc. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Congratulations — you have now been acquainted with perhaps the oldest and most nonsensical of all Wiki-taboos. To celebrate this momentous occasion, I would like to present you with your obligatory facepalm image. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Will someone just name the actual "outside site"? What is the point of talking in shadows about things? I'm not asking for a link to the "negative material which included personal identification and other material which could possibly be grounds for banning of an editor if it were posted on Wikipedia proper", just the name. I have a good idea what it may be, but transparency should always be a priority. Rcsprinter¹²³ (pronounce) 16:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The site they're talking about is Wikipediocracy. Have fun at the future knowledge engine that some potentially qualified people can edit, kids!Dan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Informing other bureaucrats

Let's see if this works: To editors 28bytes, Acalamari, Andrevan, Addshore, Bibliomaniac15 and Worm That Turned: and To editors Cecropia, Deskana, Dweller, EVula, Kingturtle and X!: and To editors Maxim, MBisanz, Nihonjoe, Pakaran, UninvitedCompany and Xeno: and To editors Useight's Public Sock, Warofdreams, Wizardman, WJBscribe, Useight and Avraham:. Can probably be handled better with a MassMessage, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already sent an e-mail to the crat list and posted on WP:BN, but thanks. Overkill is never enough . -- Avi (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I supported so I have to recuse myself. Andrevan@ 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto :) Worm^TT(talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: FYI, I believe there's a limit to how many people can be pinged in one post, though I'm not sure exactly how many it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad and Jo-Jo Eumerus: See this diff for Module:Mass notification. Unless I'm mistaken, the limit is 20 users per each ping template. at WT:TAFI, we used to use ping notifications, and got around this by using multiple ping templates in a section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are limits to pinging, hence I split up my mass ping into three batches.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Help:Echo, the limit are 50 pings per post.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I recalled it as being less (fewer) than that, but maybe it's been changed recently. Anyway, looks like the 'crats are aware of this discussion as you had intended. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That's really odd – it used to be 20, but a quick poke around and I couldn't find when it changed from 20 to 50... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I supported so I shall not be participating in the bureaucrat chat. Acalamari 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that the community adopted 65% threshold, and specifically why that was done, of course, there is "consensus to promote"

Link to RfC: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC#C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%

In light of that decision, there is no substantive procedural difference between this RfA and the 2015 successful, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC

• Er, that is the bottom treshold of the discreationary range. I do think RfAs that close to the bottom can still be closed as unsuccessful. In fact, since it's far closer to bottom than to top I'd more expect a "no consensus" closure rather than "successful", going purely by numbers. And the concerns stated by opponents are not so disclaimed or questionable that I'd call this a consensus in favour of promotion, here. Not a bureaucrat, of course.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict):Actually, the new threshold means it is too close to call, and that the Bureaucrats need to decide. If there were consensus, that would not be necessary. Liz's numbers were higher, and Liz did not have major blots in their record (admonishment, desysoping, COI blocking) - so the comparison is not an apt one. Scr★pIron^IV 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (e/c)Yes, it's the threshold specifically because the people who supported that, basically argued successfully, as a matter of consensus, that it is was stupid, to demand higher. The opposes are obviously disclaimed by the overwhelming support, here. The difference of opinion, which is all we are talking about in these opposes, was soundly rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • To clarify, when I used "disclaimed" I was referring to oppose votes saying "weak oppose", "regretful oppose" and the like; two bureaucrats (I think) in Liz's RfA bureaucrat discussion cited the number of such disclaimed votes as part of their reasons to endorse a "successful" closure.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • When I said oppose "with regret", the regret was in finding myself voting against a valued content editor. It was in no sense "disclaiming" my vote. Actually, after I found last October's ArbCom posting and considering that this RfA looked like a stepping stone to a future ArbCom bid, it could well have become a strong oppose. And another point (not directed at you, Jo-Jo), there's altogether too much wikilawyering going on here. We're in the discretionary range. Just let the crats do the cratting we elected them for! --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, the consensus was to lower the discretionary range - not to dispense with it. Leaky Caldron 20:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • • (e/c, multiple) Did you read what I wrote? The things that were said about consensus in that RfC that successfully demanded the crats lower the threshold are the guiding principles of consensus, here. Of course, if there was well founded oppose based on breach of child protection, copyright, etc. and not mere difference of opinion, like we have here (oppose opinion that was soundly rejected), it would be a different story. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • No, didn't read any of it. I just made up a random response to provoke you. :) Seems the 'crats are of the same opinion as me however. Leaky Caldron 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Well, in that case never mind. :) Are you referring to @Maxim:? They do not mention it at all, in their comments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Also, Asw's claim that there is "overwhelming support" for Hawkeye7 to be granted access to the admin toolset again is ludicrous on its face. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is overwhelming by 2:1. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is a subjective term to be sure, but it's not a ratio of 2:1 regardless. Out of 300 people who commented on the RfA, ~65% supported. That's a majority in the technical sense, but not overwhelming, nor is it 2:1.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 22:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't you mean 67%, but regardless for every 2+ there is 1, and that's exactly what the Wikipedians who adopted this threshold argued for - this supermajority is enough for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the title of this very thread and the unqualified analogy to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz completely fly in the face of why we have Bureaucrats and discretionary ranges to begin with.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not in the least, but Crats are not here to ignore what the community has done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in the least. My comment was intended to show that you are assuming greater than 65% in favor of support demonstrates clear consensus in light of the recent RfC, and that simply comparing this number to another RfA (without accounting for any additional variables) somehow bolsters your argument.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No - I am not assuming. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Very true, you are flat out asserting that consensus has been reached, which is silly considering we have elected personnel to do precisely what you've already concluded.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? We have "personnel", who serve the community and we talk to, even argue with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I don't think you're at all following the relevant points. I'm not sure if you have your head in the sand or if we're simply talking past one another. Cheers.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I supported the candidate, and don't regret doing so. This is a difficult call for the 'crats, but opposes resulting from the outside website seem to be the result of a rehashing of issues predating Hawkeye's desysop four years ago. I'm sorry to say that increased publicity for ongoing RfAs will probably result in more uninformed voting by editors with no knowledge of the candidates, and I don't think that's a road we should travel; RfA is rough enough as it is. Miniapolis 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the consensus to lower the discretionary threshold equates to automatic promote. I agree with Leaky caldron and others supporting that view. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think Asw understands how these discussions work. My understanding is that, basically, anything over 75% is almost automatically promoted. Anything between 65-75% is examined by the crats, with the lower ranges being much less likely to be promoted. (I would hope this would especially be the case with an editor who was deadminned for cause upon misusing the block button previously.) Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not my first time on this page, I know exactly how this is done, and I know exactly what the community said when they adopted the new threshold. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, given how very wrong you are about this being some sort of clear case of consensus, I have my doubts about whether you "know exactly how this is done." Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose opinion was overwhelmingly rejected. Your surprise that someone would rely on that here is the only evidence of someone not knowing what is going on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your persistence in this line is quickly venturing into the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Please stop. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I've heard, just nothing that would be reason to reject the overwhelming opinion of Wikipedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Automatic? It's consensus that occurred; it's not automatic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that this is a close case. This cannot be seen as an obvious outcome one way or the other. We choose 'crats to settle difficult cases, how about we let them do the job? HighInBC 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ASW - I suppose it could be considered a clever argument, but I don't find it convincing. The key word here is "threshold", and I'm a bit surprised by your sticking to your guns on this particular point. Perhaps I should offer a counter-argument that:

Most of the supports are based in "give him another chance", and "he does good content work". The opposes however have offered diffs which support their views. Therefore, by our consensus driven model, policy and diffs must outweigh the unsubstantiated supports. Note also, as there was a time when they had the bits, there should be diffs available to support that he would make good use of the tools. I'm not seeing many of those. — Ched :  ?  21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The oppose offered diff's which the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians (often due to age) found unconvincing to not "give him another chance", etc, etc., policy does not prevent the pedia from giving him another chance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Age? Leaky Caldron 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Old. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with HighInBC, it's a close case and should be decided by the crats through discussion. But I would just like to point out to the crats that the community did change the discretionary range, by an overwhelming majority, from 70-75% to 65-75% for a reason. And they should not dismiss an RfA so quickly that falls below the old range. I've seen some crats make up their minds very fast in the crat chat, and I think that is unwise here. Or any RfA that has the support of over 2/3 of the !voters. Two-thirds of the US House and Senate can override a Veto by the President. A 67% vote in ACE2015 gets you a two-year term. One last thought, there were more than several !voters who came in out of nowhere with very low edit counts. There were a few on the Support side(one of which I marked a SPA myself), but there were at least nine Opposers. It takes 3 Support votes to every Oppose vote to reach 75%, so that is no small thing. Thanks and good luck. Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• What's the top threshold? As in when do the crats have to unequivocally hand over a mop. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Roughly, used to be about 80, now more like 75. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. -- Avi (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The RfC did not make all RfAs with a support percentage above 65% automatically successful. If that's what some members of the community wanted, they should have proposed a new discretionary range of 60-65% or 55-65%. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kinda correct. Before that, though, you'd have to get rid of the "it's not a numerical vote" thing, and remove bureaucrat judgement of "consensus". That would then be voting. Which it mostly is already. Depends how important this "consensus" veneer is to you, I guess. Clue: You're still trying to use the numbers ahead of the arguments, so be honest and call it a numerical vote where impartial arbiters determine close outcomes. Then define the ranges. Begoon ^talk 11:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The other argument in previous crat chats was the sheer number of supports. 200 for Liz seemed to pass some boundary of SuperMario support regardless of ratios. 191 for Hawkeye is nearly identical. How many nominations with 191 supporters have failed (even without the new boundary)? --DHeyward (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tsk. It's not a vote. Fair point, though, well made. This needs to get better. Begoon ^talk 13:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Hawkeye7

I would like to say how overwhelmed I am by the support I have received. 191 !votes may not be the record, but it is a lot. I am particularly heartened by the support received from people I have collaborated with over the years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though I opposed, I must say I am impressed. Promote or not, you have every reason to hold your head high. Not just in the numbers alone, but there were many VERY highly respected editors supporting you. I congratulate you, and wish you well regardless of the outcome. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you can do better. 333-blue 02:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I also voted oppose because I felt you had not sufficiently addressed the past concerns. However I'd like to re-emphasise my willingness to vote !Support in future if these concerns were addressed and my respect for the quality and volume of work you do, far in excess of my own contributions. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the concerns raised were very old, and there is nothing I can do to redress them. If anyone has some ideas about something practical that can be done, I would like to hear them, but at the moment I am out of ideas, and pretty depressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What I have observed is that you have a tendency to sometimes not see things from others' point of view, and will sometimes read into a comment what you think is there rather than what is actually there. Such as you thinking there was a consensus to reblock Eric. And such as, as has been pointed out, your misreading of my comments in your RfA. You think that I and other opposes were harking back to something that happened four years ago, but mostly we were feeling that the attitude you showed back then hasn't changed. And your misreading of my comments are an example of that. Look back at what I said, and look at what you thought I said. You'll see a slight but important difference. Perhaps if you put a little more thought and care into your actions outside of article creation, you might find that many of those who opposed you in this RfA will support you in the next. I think To Kill a Mockingbird has much to offer all of us. Atticus's philosophy of seeing things from the other person's point of view is well worth thinking about. I tend to think of Atticus as NewYorkBrad. It appears to me that NYB looks at things from the other person's point of view. He tends to look at why somebody said or did something, and that seems to help him to understand what happened. It is noticed that he tends to have a more unique perspective on things - perhaps because he doesn't jump to conclusions, perhaps because he doesn't look at incidents from his point of view, perhaps because he's not coming from any particular angle other than an attempt to understand what is going on. Just food for thought. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

SilkTork You are eloquent. I wish I could write as fast and with such confidence in forums like this. Your suggestion of seeing others from their own perspective is sound. Nobody can deny it. However, I think that applies to everyone. I read in Hawkeye7, for example, something you did not. I read his heartfelt apologies, some after I had written my comments. Look at his contrition outlined with the lessons he had learned in the neutral section. Moreover, I take issue with your comments about separating a person's capacity to write articles as Hawkeye7 and to deal with people, as if they were irreconcilable aspects of a good scholar. Here, again you touch on the issue as implying you have to be less of one to be better at the other (at least, that is how I see what you wrote). Keep in mind, I have no history here. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would hope the irony of NYB Supporting the RfA is not lost in the mirror of criticism. --DHeyward (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, @SilkTork:, Hawkeye's not the only one who saw your comments as grudging from years ago. That comment, arguing in defense of your dyssopping decision, which was being strongly criticized over and over again, was lame. Perhaps, you did not read what other arbitrators wrote in support, but then perhaps you did not try to see it from anyone else's point-of-view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't irony, it is that different people have different thresholds, different standards. No single person is "right", but as a group we generally make the best decision. Like SilkTork, my opposition was based on activity this past year or so, with no consideration to the desysopping, as I don't think Arb always gets it right anyway. For me, it was a blank slate and based only on what I've seen recently. I admire Hawkeye's talents as editor but that doesn't mean I think he is a good choice to hold the tools. It isn't a judgement on his character, it's an observation of his judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Late

I have been and still am rather unwell, so I missed this thing. I'm not a regular at RfA but would have opposed this based on my own experience of interactions etc, almost entirely devoid of personal interactions with me. There are plenty of people who have enunciated the reasons I would have given. I've no doubt that Hawkeye7 is a good content contributor but, like me, they're simply not suited temperamentally to hold the bits. Nor am I even sure that they need them. I realise that my comments may be out of process - feel free to ignore. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on this RFA

I see that Hawkeye7 said he has changed since then and provided a good amount of work to this. It seems that the temperament is an issue and might flair up again if needed. But really 4 years is really long time in the internet. Maybe we could give him a really tough "trial" period as an administrator. If the temperament flairs up again, he gets desysopped again. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not the right venue to be floating alternative closure options, and community consensus allowing such an outcome would have needed to be in place for us to even consider this. In any case, 'probationary' adminship has been rejected numerous times, I believe. –xeno^talk 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand. To be honest, im all for second chances. He messed up once and definitely appear he wants to do it. I mean, editing Wikipedia is a hobby by any account, and not his career. By this, he should not be completely de-railed by the civility enforcement. Also, he didn't quit but wanted to continue on contributing. That is why i support a second chance. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No forgiveness?

There is an issue I do not see clearly defined in the Crat’s chat. Though some even recommend another run, they are not addressing how to deal with ancient antipathies. Saying that it was not that bad will not hide them. The plurality talked about forgiveness; even among the opposes. But the impression left by this RfA is that Wikipedia does not forget and can’t forgive that easily. And I fear that the trend is already present in at least one of the other RfAs. I have encountered userpages of great veterans expressing how “jaded” they are already, and Wikipedia is still a teenager. What are we leaving behind? It is hard not to ask about the repercussions of an RfA, which wins by a clear hard majority, but it is turned down because the language of resentment pitched over the crowd. To redress this unbalance, I think we should talk more about forgiveness, about reconciliation, about accepting different types of personalities while also clearly demarcating the limits of tolerance, about the meaning of respect and about defusing cliques. We should raise our voices over those of antagonism and disappointment. We can indeed learn something through old-time time solutions. The path we walk is not totally uncharted. Technology and globalization may have given us new tools and a fresh context, but we are not the only ones to have attempted meritocracy and open participation. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the concerns expressed were not "ancient." My own mind was made up by how Hawkeye7 answered the questions. Others had concerns dating to only weeks or months ago. And "forgiveness" is one thing--forgetting how the bit was misused (and how questions surrounding that were answered) is quite another. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 03:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am not reviewing what just happened with pique. I would prefer a response to the primary concerns I expressed for the future rather than offering an apologia for the past. What should we do now? We make this place. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• To expand on my comment below; accept one's faults, admit and take genuine responsibility for past mistakes and errors in judgment, and address them in an up-front manner and one will find a greater capacity for forgiveness. –xeno^talk 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: I appreciate your words and your diff is reassuring. I think we need to talk more about this type of things. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that the community does indeed have capacity for forgiveness, else I would not have been able to opine overleaf. –xeno^talk 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Five years ago, this was a different community. Even adminships were a bit easier to pass back then! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Forgiveness is an element but we can only weigh up our decision based on what they have done in the past against what they promise to do in the future. Obviously a demonstrated misuse of tools that saw the person lose the tools is going to weigh heavier on peoples considerations. Forgiveness has elements that can help heal past issues they are time, acknowledgement of the error along with lesson learnt, the purpose of the request and more recent actions. 90 odd reasoned opposes and dozen or so neutrals is not something that should be ignored because it shows a significant portion of the community does still have concerns about Hawkeye with the tools. Gnangarra 08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discounting the poor 19

@Xeno: you discount 19 fellow Wikipedian's supports because they agree with the nomination. That makes no sense. Agreement is another name for consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In the discretionary zone, we are tasked with weighing the strength of the arguments raised for and against. Bare supports add no additional strength to the case for promotion and thus do not tip the scales in a strength-based analysis of arguments. –xeno^talk 04:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course they do. Nineteen agree with the strength of the argument, against an apparent single supervote, discounting them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

They simply do not add any strength to the argument to promote provided by the nomination statement. At best, they can be read as weak supports. –xeno^talk 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Because they agree, they do not add? Again that makes no sense, unless you are replacing your judgement with all of theirs, which is not consensus finding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA is not a vote, we do not decide the outcome numerically based upon numbers alone. If we did, bureaucrats would not be needed, bots or stewards could close based on the strict tally. No, simply typing 5 characters does nothing to advance or strengthen the argument for promotion. No additional argument is presented beyond the nomination statement in such cases. Participants should be mindful of this in close cases where the strength of the arguments on each side will be weighed. –xeno^talk 04:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No one said base it on numbers alone, but you entirely disrespected 19 opinions, for no reason other than, in their judgement, the nomination is compelling - that is plainly wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that a genuine support agrees with the nomination statement. A bare support does nothing to advance the argument beyond that. Accordingly, these bare supports carry less weight in a strength-based weighing of arguments and are not very helpful to bureaucrats in a discretionary situation. Sorry, that's simply their nature. The participants are not being 'disrespected', they simply did not add additional strength to the argument for promotion much beyond their 'me too'. –xeno^talk 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Beyond their me too? Their "me", is what you disrespected. And you discounted them entirely. They have a genuine opinion that the nomination is compelling - 19 Wikipedians, which is 18 more than you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not totally convincing since you leave out the much discussed question of the number vs. the Crats' judgements, but it is certainly better than the silence argument. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I though we were using the 'Liz' standard. If not, I would have added a substantive support argument. How is this less of a consensus than previous RfA's? --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain the 'Liz' standard? Participants at RfX should strive to present well-reasoned arguments if they wish them to carry weight in a discretionary situation. –xeno^talk 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker. I cannot discount those students who only show up to class. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

But you can give them a 0 in class participation. –xeno^talk 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

*That might work when the class is small, attendance is enforced, and if I count participation as talking. When they choose to come, I can't ignore them. Still, I can understand your final decision. It is that the argument of silence may give more power to the vociferous. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple. Bare "supports" (or "opposes", for that matter) can push a nomination into the non-discretionary range. They can not, however, be used to add strength to each argument's side for and against promotion when the nomination falls into the discretionary range. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• I didn't take part in the RfA, but I feel that discounting !votes because they merely agree (or disagree) with the nomination is dangerous. If someone has already said all you want to say, how can you add to it? Personally, I try to avoid saying 'per nom' both at RfA and XfD, but there are times when what can be said has been said. Do you want a rehash in the !voter's own words, which is barely different from saying 'per' someone, or a completely new reason to support? Peridon (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Xeno, the foundation for support is laid out in the nomination. No more argument is needed to support them as one only has to agree with the nomination statement. In contrast, there is no "oppose" default statement. Whence the reason there is a stronger requirement for opposes. As with all RfA's it seems support is very strong in the beginning and wanes toward the end. When I cast my support for the nomination (i.e. the reason given by the nominator in 500 words), it was 90% and I had nothing to add. Lastly, your argument to discount "support" for the nominating statement contrasts wildly with your assertion that it's not voting. If it's not voting, there is no need to count. Simply replace all the bare supports with the 500 word nomination. If it wasn't voting there wouldn't be presumptive pass/fail numbers and you wouldn't have to seek out ways to argue whose 'vote" counts more. Ridiculous. This succeeded Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion. No reason to think this nomination is less deserving. Certainly not through the discount method. This nomination should succeed if there is any consistency in competence among bureaucrats. --DHeyward (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

← I have never used the word 'discount' in this discussion [except for just now, of course]. It is helpful to keep in mind that RfA is at its core, a debate. In a discretionary situation such as we find ourselves, bureaucrats then become the scorers or judges of the debate. A debate participant who simply stands up and gives a nominal 'thumbs up' in the direction of their debate team captain without actually speaking is not going to receive any marks for the strength of their argument. Accordingly, I do not find bare supports to add much strength to the arguments in favour of promotion (any moreso than the nomination statement) in light of the numerous and varied opposition. A supporter who fleshes out their position, provides personal experience or differential evidence in support of the candidate, considers, refers, and rebuts the opposition, is always going to present a stronger argument than someone who simply does the bare minimum ( # ~~~~ ). It is suggested that we have to interpret such a minimal contribution as "per nom", however there are any other number of unspoken motivations that could be lurking behind that bare support. The editor did not elucidate their position, so it simply cannot be afforded much weight when we balance the support against the opposition. Less than 65% of participants contributed more than the absolute bare minimum required for support. Accordingly, I did not find consensus to promote. Does this mean that participants who contribute merely the bare minimum in a support do a disservice to the candidate? In a discretionary, situation, yes. As a thought experiment, imagine if every single support ^{of an RfA in the upper bound of the discretionary zone} were merely "# ~~~~" and every single oppose was well-reasoned with differential evidence. Should we promote in such a situation? Not if RfA is to be decided on the strength of arguments, I would say. (As to referring to the 'Liz' decision, I don't think comparing two dissimilar nominations is a very useful exercise and we don't do 'precedent'.) –xeno^talk 13:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC) ^{Add for clarity. 16:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)}

And you are simply wrong on wht "bare supports" mean. Unlike opposes, there is a nomination that outlines why a candidate is qualified. A bare support is "per nom." There is not, however, a voice given to opposition, whence the reasoning behind requiring a voice for opposes. Unless you are willing to discount "per silktork" because nothing more substantial has been written, you must accept supports as a reflection of the resolution statement by HJ Mitchell. That's fundamental understanding of what a resolution statement is and what it means to support it. "Support" means they support the nomination. Everyone that agrees with the nomination statement need not expand on it as it is already very long. If you discount bare supports, then you must also discount HJ Mitchells statement of nomination as that is what everyone is supporting. The nominators statement is not neutral as you imply, though, and your contortions of trying to make a bare oppose with leaderless arguments the same as a support for a 500 word nomination is boggling. --DHeyward (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am not 'discounting' anything. I am weighing the strength of the arguments and participants who do not provide additional input simply do not add any strength to the argument for promotion. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Not providing a rationale. –xeno^talk 14:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) As to your first sentence, you discounted them in fact, indeed literally, so it matters not whether you used the word. As to the second, you're the one who said they are per nom in our collective "understanding", so, your walk-back is silly, or worse. As to the rest, you are a finder of agreement (consensus), and you clearly overstep - consensus is where people agree - that these people agree and you disrespect their agreement, solely because they are in agreement, is just your supervote. As to your thought experiment, that those supporters find the argument for the tools persuasive, is the very fact you are required to recognize, otherwise, you are substituting your judgement for theirs - which is just more egregious disrespect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much more that I can say to justify the method I used in this case to weigh the strength of the arguments presented by the participants. It is your right to disagree with my method, but I feel continuing to respond will just be repetitive. I would suggest that if users truly support a candidate, that they do more than simply affix four tidles to a number sign. Provide evidence, provide personal anecdotes, provide at least a few words to substantiate their position. Especially if they feel it's going to be a close call. Absent that, their signature alone does nothing to help bureaucrats assess the strength of their support for the candidate. It reads as very weak if someone cannot bring themself to affix even a few kind words of support, and this is the reason such bare positions are considered "arguments to be avoided". –xeno^talk 14:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, to avoid your after-the-fact disrespect, as you are now active clerks there, than it is incumbent on you to warn people, when they fall unwarily into this trap of your devising. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusing a Crat of "devising" a "trap" is a massive failure with regards to assuming good faith. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 14:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No it is not - it is an analysis of what has happened and what has been argued, right here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you may want to believe about accusing a Crat of setting traps for people who participate in an RFA, it is a blatant assumption of bad faith, and it needs to stop. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 14:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No. It is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're very persistent in your misapprehensions, I'll give you that. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Such a 'warning' is provided at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions: "Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence." –xeno^talk 15:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of per nom, is the nom does that for them, so, they comply with that advice when they sign their name to support the nom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And these positions carry less weight than participants who produce additional rationales behind the nomination statement. That's why bare supports are discouraged and "short explanation[s]" are encouraged. We're going in circles here, you may have the last word. –xeno^talk 15:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

They provide the exact "short explanation" advised there - your idea that more words is more persuasive is contrary to reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion will soon be wrapped up and archived, so I'll just be brief. From reading this thread and the explanation Xeno has provided on the project page I can only conclude that a hypothetical RfA with 20 "bare" support !votes and 3 differential opposes would be closed as no consensus to promote. That is, if we follow the logic offered herein.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Such an RfA isn't in the discretionary zone, and no RfAs are that poorly attended. I ^clarified my thought experiment. –xeno^talk 16:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Strong"

Thanks to the crats for opening this crat chat, I think that considering crats do not have much to do besides RfA these days it's sensible to have a crat chat for anything in the discretionary zone. I just had one point on reading over the discussion. I dislike seeing any crat note the number of "strong" supports or opposes, even if it's just in passing. I think this will only encourage people to add "strong" to their votes (both at RfAs and in other consensus-building processes) when it should actually be discouraged. Adding "strong" to a vote should not grant it any extra weight. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I also was not aware that "Strong" (or "Weak" I'd imagine) had much any influence. And perhaps it isn't actually a contributing factor beyond one or two crat's individual, (and/or internal) thinking. Still - worth noting for future reference. — Ched :  ?  06:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised by this - my understanding was that "strong" or "weak" supports/opposes in Wikipedia's process have not been given any extra emphasis by admins or bureaucrats for the last few years (as I understand it, such votes are actually discouraged in AfDs and featured processes). If I had known that it was a factor, I would have strongly supported Hawkeye here. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't like adding those types of superfluous words. In my opinion, just looks silly!
  

However, if it's that important, I'll start doing it to everything!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't read all too much into it. I agree that it's not a standard measuring tool, but in looking at the individual post in toto, I get the impression it's more a gathering of every scrap of available information and intent to reach a reasonable conclusion to a difficult RfX. Interviewing each and every voter isn't viable, and we don't really have a weighted system here. (86% Support) It appears more to me a jotting down of every angle to reach as well rounded a decision as possible. (But I suppose one could ask the individual in question in person to get the actual intent.) @Xeno:, could you clarify please? — Ched :  ?  07:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would question why WP:PEACOCK words here would have greater value when everywhere else they disliked and discouraged maybe RFA could change the vote! to an expression in a percentage greater than 75% = support, with an amount less then 65% meaning an oppose. Then with 90% = strong support with 50% = strong oppose. Then if someone is really really strongly supporting they could say put 110% or really really strongly against they could say -10% all the crats would need to do then is work out the average even the neutrals between 75% and 65% could then formally counted in the process. Of course the whole idiotic suggested process could be gamed in the last few minutes of the RFA making everyone really happy by supporting 25,000% or 1,000,000% what ever they tink it will take to win at RFA Gnangarra 08:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too, I am strongly surprised by such a strong creativity in inventing rules at demand ! But this new rule is strongly wrong. Because crying strong is only being more vocal, not having a stronger opinion. Pldx1 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Except Xeno is up there discounting votes, so what else can I think? Was it my vote that they didn't include? Why are they including all the Oppose votes, but not the Keep votes? There are two more Adminships going on right now where I can still fix the situation. TBH here, the more I read, the more I feel betrayed! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 09:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• agree its hard to kick goals if the posts keep moving, I also note some are giving differing values to the opinions of Admins as well, while others make the suggestion that because a third party site made negative comments that all oppose votes after that are to be consider given in bad faith as well. I feel for Hawkeye as well as the Crats trying resolve this mess because what ever the result apparently many people wont be happy with it. Gnangarra 09:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree w/ MurderByDeadcopy. (If he's wrong and "strong" has weight, then I suggest editors consider adding "super-strong" to their votes to overcome competitive "strong" votes. [Just like everyone knows, a "triple-dog dare" beats a "double-dog dare", everytime!]) IHTS (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any kind of general understanding that such qualifiers should be avoided or disregarded. Of course if they come without justification, they're still just a bare support (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Not providing a rationale). Ched pretty much nails it here, we have to 'read the tea leaves', as it were. There's no cross-examination available. –xeno^talk 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• If an editor agrees with the nomination and the nominators statement, there is no argument. If they disagreed with the rationale for nomination, there is the inherent question of why they disagreed with the nomination.. There is already an advocate position staked out for support even before anyone !votes. I "Support the nomination" or I "oppose the nomination." The reasons for support have already been laid down. This isn't a popularity contest so "supporting the nomination" should not be confused with "supporting the nominee." The former is what RfA is. The latter seems to be confusing the 'crats into thinking more substantial arguments for support are needed than the opening nominating statement. --DHeyward (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would submit that yes: "more substantial arguments for support are needed" to counter the numerous and varied opposition that highlighted areas of past and present concern contra to the nomination statement. –xeno^talk 14:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd just chip in here and say people shouldn't get too hung up on the use of the words "strong" or "weak". It's strong/weak arguments that help Crats weigh consensus, rather than simple vote counting. See my comments in the Cratchat. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Exactly. It is not the preface to the words support or oppose which is important; it is what comes after those words. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Weak" could be worth taking in account if it is a borderline case and there are lots of them on one side. It is basically same as adding "not 100% sure about this" to your comment. "Strong" really shouldn't be taken in account at all then it comes to evaluating consensus.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably ought to wrap this up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So far there are 8 crats suggesting a no consensus close, and zero crats considering it a consensus to promote. Whether you think that's the "right" decision or not, it is 100% clear that's the decision that's going to eventually be made. The only reason not to close this now is if you think that the purpose of this crat chat isn't for the crats to make a decision, but for non-crats to argue about this RFA, and if you also think that one full day hasn't provided people on this talk page with sufficient time to say everything they want to say. But since literally no one's mind is going to be changed at this point, and no one has said anything new in quite some time, I'd discount this second concern (ha! see what I did there?) and put this crat chat out of its misery. It's not my place to speak for Hawkeye7, but I don't imagine prolonging this is doing him any favors. Meta discussions about "strong vs. weak", and what a discretionary range is, can be had at WT:RFA (that hotbed of productivity). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should close, if no other Crats are going to weigh in, but actually, the purpose of this page is to get Crats to justify themselves appropriately - live and learn in doing, it is hoped. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• 85% Support/10% Neutral/5% Oppose (just for the lulz) I reserve my right to change my vote. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • While the eventual decision seems clear, as NihonJoe said he wanted to chime in, it is only courteous to wait until he does so. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, OK, your call. Since it won't change the ultimate result, that seems like being courteous to NihonJoe at the expense of being discourteous to Hawkeye7 (but maybe I should stop justifying my opinions based on kindness to him, since I opposed). Just seems like waiting for the shoe to drop must suck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely the decision is clear. Waiting for another 'crat to reiterate (or even not) what the other 'crats have said if prolonging things unduly. Crats are here to serve - not self serve. With 100% agreement 24 hours of chatting is enough. Leaky Caldron 16:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: the argument you and @Floquenbeam: make would be stronger if the consensus in the chat was to promote, and we have in the past closed "early" so as to get the tools to the new admin. Here, however, there will be absolutely no difference to Hawkeye7 before and after the moment of the close. As it indifferent to Hawkeye7 and is a net plus to Joe (we want to encourage crats to participate, no?) I think that the courtesy is appropriate here. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of weird group hug for 'crats is it? Whether "Jo" or, for that matter Tom, Dick or Harry "opine" is matter of supreme indifference to me. What does concern me it that in a matter clearly of interest to many people, if not the candidate themselves, you are intentionally stringing this closure out for a purpose that has absolutely no merit. Justice should be dispensed quickly - not delayed for a non-essential contribution from one of your colleagues who knows well where to find the discussion. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• • While I wouldn't take as tough a tone as Leaky_cauldron has, I agree with the general sentiment that delaying the inevitable to allow one last Crat to opine seems a bit pointless. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

    Again, as I see it, absolutely NOTHING will change for Hawkeye7 and English Wikipedia upon closing this discussion, other than the background color of the page and a couple of filing entries in WP:100 and failed candidacies. On the other hand, we do run the risk of implicitly telling Joe that his service and advice is not valued. That alone leads me to believe that it is worth the extra hour or so. Also, please do not forget that there are clear cases of 'crats changing their mind after someone provides a convincing argument not previously made. While the probability of this happening here is very low, it is not 0, and that makes it reasonable as well to wait for Joe. So much of the interactivity problems that plague Wikipedia, and any [on-line] social framework come from impatience. I'd counsel that a few extra hours to ensure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed, and that no one feels diminished and discouraged, is not too much to ask. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

    Again, he said he would attend to it on Feb 2 his time. If that is Japan time it is now 02:48 Wednesday 3rd Feb. Leaky Caldron 17:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

    • Who says I live in Japan? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe some bot is out of order, since the results of https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=en.wikipedia.org&begin=2015-02-01&end=2016-01-31 are strange. Pldx1 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It will be closed by a 'crat. not a bot. Eventually. Leaky Caldron 16:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No hurry folks, it is not as though closing it a day later is going to change anything. I don't think the delay is discourteous to anyone, Hawkeye knows how RfA works and I doubt they are offended. HighInBC 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• So if Jo Blow who nobody knows, who hasn't 'crate'd for a year, suddenly turns up and leaves a pithy little note saying I'll comment next week, that's ok? Crats are here to serve the community, not self-serve. Leaky Caldron 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am not going to argue a straw man argument. This is not Jo Blow who nobody knows, they have 'crated in the last year, and they are not asking for a week. If you want to try arguing about the situation that is actually happening then I will participate in that debate. HighInBC 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP:CRATCHAT: "Past experience has shown that bureaucrat discussions usually work best when they operate over a short time frame. Once several bureaucrats have participated, if agreement arises, the RFA or RFB is closed as usual." When I imagine myself in Hawkeye's position, I would hate this wait - absolutely hate it. I wouldn't be "offended" (I never said "offended"), but it would really suck the longer it dragged out. When I imagine myself in NihonJoe's shoes, I have an extremely hard time imagining being insulted if it closed 8-0 before I had a chance to comment, and frankly I'd be a little mortified if I realized everyone was waiting for me because they thought not waiting would make me less likely to comment the next time there was a crat chat. Surely you think better of him than that? If you have imagined yourselves in their shoes and would have different reactions, then there's nothing I can say, so I'll stop commenting. If you haven't imagined yourselves in their shoes, then there's nothing I can say, except maybe you should. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for putting it more tactfully and hopefully therefore more persuasively than I have. Leaky Caldron 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, Joe specifically mentioned that he would like the opportunity to opine, but could not get to it for a day. If he comes back with his opinion to find that his request was rejected and the conversation closed, perhaps he would be upset at being marginbalized. I understand and appreciate your concerns, but the shoe fits this way as well, so, in my opinion—for howsoever little that is worth—the cost of keeping it open against immediate close is less than the net benefit of keeping it open vs. immediate close. This is because I do not see this as a cost to Hawkeye, since nothing will change, and I do not think Hawkeye has anything of which to be embarrased about, as I said in my opinion. I appreciate that you and Leaky have an alternate utility function, and other 'crats may as well. It's almost 24 hrs since Joe's request. No promises, but if he doesn't respond soon after, I'll consider closing before end of business day today (EST) regardless. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

      It's not just Flo and Leaky that disagree with you on this artificial extension, Avi. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• additional comment: sorry, but ... I consider the "courtesy" to NJ to be irrelevant: to wit - The RfA is Hawkeye's, not NJ's. If someone says "I wanted to vote" after you crats close - do you extend them that "courtesy"? No. With great respect to NJ, if his feelings are going to be hurt because you close this out of consideration - I have some serious doubts I'd be willing to discuss. We are now at a stage where I'm seeing lectures and/or pontifications(?) in response to Hawkeye's gracious "thank you". Priorities gentlemen, please. Let's stick to the high road as best we can. If there are discussions as to the meaning of consensus in various different situations, or other matters of tangent - they can be held elsewhere. — Ched :  ?  18:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Joe closed this about three hours after Flo opened the section, and at 24 hours, it is on the faster side. I will point to Joe's own RfB, which if it would have been closed at 24 hours would have failed, as some of us, myself included, were convinced to revisit and rethink. So while it was much less likely here, I am all for making sure that there is as much clarity as possible. However, I will keep these comments in mind next time so as to reduce waiting if possible (perhaps by asking for time limits once the discussion appears close). Thank you all, specifically @Floquenbeam: and @Leaky caldron:, for your constructive criticism and feedback! -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This one was only 27 hours and 7 minutes from when the chat was opened to when it was closed, so actually pretty quick for a 'crat chat, I believe. (No, I haven't gone back and looked to see how long previous 'crat chats took). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the watchlist notice has brought some people here who don't know what to expect. They probably don't realize how normal this situation is. Don't worry though, after a few weeks of advertising RfA people will catch up. HighInBC 00:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lowered %

So the community agreed that lowering the percentage of passage for adminship was needed because Wikipedia needs more editors, however, based on the evidence above I'd say that whole concept is a fail. Oh, wait, I meant super-duper fail!
If the crats aren't going to take changes seriously, maybe what's needed here are new crats. A sort out with the old and in with the new. New rules and ideas are often best implemented with new eyes. Guess what I'm saying here is ya can't teach a old dog new tricks. (Especially when it comes to the human race!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Um, under the old percentage/discretionary range this RfA would have been a straigthforward "unsuccessful", not a topic for discussion between bureaucrats.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I believe the point I was making is that I don't see the crats taking their decision seriously. Spending more time subtracting Keep votes for nebulous reasons and discounting votes because the word Strong wasn't added. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It seems several believe that opening up the "discretionary" zone means that somehow the Crats have to promote anyone who gets over 65%. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• You could always put yourself forward for a spot as a Crat. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  I'm sure your RfB will be very interesting and well-attended. I look forward to seeing how it plays out. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@MurderByDeadcopy: I, for one, would welcome feedback in how you feel I may have not taken my decision as seriously as I should have and what steps may help me improve. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: Would there be another venue to discuss concerns about procedures? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Either the talk page of the policy/guideline in question, or the village pump, would be good locations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is about how crats judge consensus, WP:BN may be a good place as well. If it is about an individual crat, I'd suggest his talk page (we're all male as of now—please nominate someone to change that!). -- Avi (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Avraham: Don't know if I should be answering here. But I just recall a big ordeal about the lowering of % for adminship, yet there seems to be quite a dismissive brush-off of reasons to promote. It does seem to be an awfully quick judgement and I can't help but wonder if the crats have been around so long that they can no longer set aside their personal biases. Good grief, there are times that I read something and then wait 24 hours before giving my response. And it's just a response, not a decision. Especially since the lowering of the % was suppose to increase the numbers of adminship. 'Course, it seems that the crats have had the ability to promote adminships at this % for years since it appears that this adminship had about the same % (unless I made an error) as the current one, yet passed in 2009. So it looks as though the lowering of the % won't change anything as far as passing more adminships. I'm not surprised, rather disappointed. I guess the situation will have to get even worse, before it gets better.
  

I do believe this issue of increasing adminship isn't being handled correctly. For instance, editors should be able to be promoted within 6-8 months, not 6-8 years! Giving more editors these powers with an easier way to desysops would actually create less drama surrounding adminships. And then, Wikipedia wouldn't be seeing all those long time editors who show up only to vote on highly contentious adminships such as this one. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

what "support" means - and why it has never been important to give a list of reasons for support votes

I suggest that "lack of specific reasons for Support" as being in any way significant is a straw man. In general, "support" simply means "no reason to oppose" and listing all the non-reasons to oppose seems a tad silly. Rather it is the "oppose" votes where a rationale makes sense - presumably a person opposing selection of a person has some sort of rationale more than "because I can." This is quite substantially different from "XfD" where policy requires a "policy or guideline-based reason for deletion" more than "I don't like that page" and where a "keep" !vote generally requires some refutation of the rationale for deletion presented by the OP. In general, a "no consensus" at XfD results in "default to keep: where "no consensus" in RfA is generally "default to lose." It is that substantial difference which makes me demur on the "but the supports did not give reasons for support" as being a rationale for any actual decision by bureaucrats. In short "lack of rationale in a support" is and has been for many years, the norm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comeback stories

A number of bureaucrats and others have encouraged Hawkeye7 to reconsider his actions and attitudes and perhaps resubmit for another RfA down the road. As a genuine believer in second chances, I'm wondering if there are recent precedents or admin RfA role models which fit this redemption paradigm. Thanks! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Two immediately come to mind for me: Geni (4th) and Everyking (6th). Took them a few attempts and were years ago but both are still active and productive admins since their respective re-elections. Acalamari 19:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, nice to know one actually happened during this decade (barely). And here I was thinking the desysop was a life sentence, a court without appeal ... At least 2/3rds of us don't believe that, but whatever ... "No consensus." Sigh. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is one more, Carnildo (3rd). Note that he had a lower score than me, and Everyking was below the threshold of the day. The bureaucrats have traditionally accepted a lower score for desysopped admins. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I read that Carnildo decision when I was looking at Joe's RFB. It was poorly reasoned, extremely controversial, and seems to have caused a huge schism at the time. The chances of a similar decision being taken by a few Crats (3, I believe, in that case) is now next to zero. Joe himself, in that RFB, pointed out just how terrible that decision was. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It was before I arrived. I think there was an ArbCom case over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the backstory is there. All I know is that when I read that RFA, and the resulting hubbub it caused, I took it as a "don't promote previously desysopped admins with significant opposition" cautionary tale. And I just looked up Carnildo, and he has since been desysopped AGAIN for cause. It's not one that I'd point to as a, "But this guy got less than me and was still promoted" example. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevant arbitration case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. It was an offshoot of the pedophilia userbox wheel war, in which Carnildo was involved. Both these events basically kicked off the "admins vs content editors" thing, which still pervades Wikipedia to this day. Graham87 02:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"70% is not unanimity" is not an argument

I am strongly disappointed by the rationales used by the assembled Bureaucrats for closing the present Request for Adminship. A decision was to be made. A decision was taken by those in charge of deciding. Nothing to argue against that. But, you know, [bureaucrats] are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions. And here, I have the impression that instead of providing a memorable piece of advice, backed by knowledge and wisdom, the rationales used can be summarized into 70% is not unanimity. This is not false, indeed, but no bureaucrat was needed to state such an obvious fact. Moreover, this will happen each time an RfA will go in the discretionary zone, and therefore this appears as a rebuttal of the Request for Comment that decided to enlarge the discretionary zone to 65% (and of the even larger acceptation of 2/3 as boundary). While asking myself for an explanation of such a behaviour, my keyboard struck https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=en.wikipedia.org&begin=2013-02-01&end=2016-01-31, leading to:

name	joined	rfa	rfb	act 3y	act 1y
Kingturtle	2002-11-26	2003-05-12	2004-02-28	25	9
Pakaran	2003-09-07	2003-12-05	2004-03-01	46	1
Warofdreams	2003-08-29	2004-02-17	2004-06-25	8	5
UninvitedCompany	2003-09-16	2004-04-24	2004-10-17	15	0
Cecropia	2003-12-26	2004-04-13	2007-05-17	0	0
Deskana	2005-06-24	2006-05-01	2007-07-10	174	1
Andrevan	2003-06-19	2004-09-18	2007-07-11	0	0
WJBscribe	2006-11-20	2007-03-26	2007-11-29	1442	109
EVula	2006-02-02	2006-11-07	2008-06-03	283	0
Dweller	2005-09-16	2007-05-17	2008-08-27	267	192
Bibliomaniac15	2005-09-05	2007-05-01	2008-09-09	158	91
Avraham	2005-07-27	2006-07-03	2009-04-08	168	28
MBisanz	2005-07-21	2008-02-16	2009-08-15	1989	1372
Nihonjoe	2005-09-21	2006-05-11	2009-11-28	904	398
Useight	2006-12-02	2007-12-08	2010-01-23	1	1
X!	2006-12-12	2008-06-20	2010-03-08	34	0
Xeno	2006-07-14	2008-06-04	2010-06-04	369	153
Maxim	2007-02-10	2007-06-30	2011-06-01	187	18
28bytes	2006-12-14	2011-06-14	2012-08-02	907	52
Wizardman	2006-03-09	2007-01-29	2013-03-29	5677	235
Addshore	2005-12-06	2008-11-05	2013-06-04	2190	77
Worm That Turned	2008-07-13	2011-07-06	2014-01-27	717	562
Acalamari	2006-10-20	2007-07-04	2014-01-31	1982	553

(where act 3y is the total registered admin actions in the last three years, and act 1y the figures for the last 12 months). With the conclusion: maybe some bot turned dysfunctional at wmflabs. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• This venue is expired, please take this to WP:BN if you wish to continue discussion. –xeno^talk 15:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.