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

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)
      • 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)

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)

• • • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)