Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2

Comments
I'm conflicted out of closing, but I'd suggest a crat chat of some sort given the current state of affairs.  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just went ahead and closed it. I didn't think it was too vague to need a chat. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like your close, good job!  MBisanz  talk 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice closing statement. -- Club Oranje T 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's all true! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Succeeded?
I have a quick question. I thought the threshold for successful RfA is 75%. Tallying just the oppose !votes and determining a percentage it becomes clear that 26.3% of the votes were oppose. Factoring in the additional 10 neutral (which clearly cannot be used as support votes) 30.5% of the votes can be considered "not supporting" this RfA. I am curious how this RfA succeeded with only 69.5% support. That clearly falls under the community standard of 75% and even the lower standard of 70%. Basket of Puppies 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when did neutrals affect the percentage? By that logic an RfA with 50 supports, 22 neutrals and no opposes would fail. 28bytes (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when were these done strictly on percentages? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is far from unusual for reconfirmation RfA's to pass with an even lower precentage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Finally closed 9 hours late, with "late" votes: 11 S, 3 O, -2 N (1 to S, 1 to O) . This will do nothing to dispel conspiracy theories about admins. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which brings the new total to 26.7% oppose and a 69.2% overall support. He certainly didn't pass this RfA. It needs to be closed as unsuccessful. Basket of Puppies  12:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I see no reason why admins shouldn't be permitted to have conspiracy theories - after all, everyone else seems to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)   Struck my comment, as Johnbod's clarification of his own comment has made it (more?) irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Neutrals don't count, though admittedly I didn't get this understanding from the language at WP:RFA which I think suggests what you are saying. They need to clarify that neutral votes are not counted at all. So the tally was 72.5% which I think leaves it in the "gray area" where it becomes a judgement call of the bureaucrats. Do I personally agree with the judgement call? No, but I guess it is what it is. For instance a great many of the support votes echoed the issues with WP:INVOLVED but with the belief that Sarek has or will learn from his mistakes with involvement. Shortly before this was closed, Sarek made comments about involvement that if one AGFs would indicate that he still doesn't even understand the policy as it is written. Hardly convincing that he has learned, but I guess we'll see.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the thing that has Jimbo and a lot of others concerned. With the word "INVOLVED" spattered from top to bottom of the RfA page, among supporters, opposers, and neutrals, the sudden passing of this application shows how much damage "the big deal" does. It's too traumatic and difficult to pass RfA the first time, and it's too traumatic and difficult to (effectively) desysop. We need both to be easier; then Sarek would be having a rest from adminship and reflecting on the responsibilities and duties required from a distance. He would re-apply in six to nine months' time after a good track record, and go back to adminship without all of this drama. This is a bad call, crats, but I understand why you feel pressured into it. Tony   (talk)
 * I was recused in this case, but obviously I could still see all the normal channels of communication and didn't see any pressure applied.  MBisanz  talk 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind. Was this suddenly closed, or was it closed late? Anyway isn't it a bit late now to whinge? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not late to "whinge". It was closed wrongly, it was closed late, and even, if the result for this nomination cannot be changed now (and I am not sure why it could not) it should be taken into account for next RFA.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The "community standard" of 75% is ridiculous for first RfAs, and doubly so for reconfirmations. If this kind of reconfirmations becomes fashionable, there should be a more reasonable threshold that actually still allows people who have made mistakes (as humans do) to pass. —Кузьма討論 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between 75% and below 70%--Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't count neutrals as opposes. Certainly my neutral vote was not meant to count against the candidate. —Кузьма討論 13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And actually I'd support a 2/3 threshold instead of 3/4, for all RfAs. But then, I think we should vote of RfAs, so I'm probably just a minority troll. —Кузьма討論 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 70% support votes is the absolute minimal threshold necessary for rfa success. This RfA was below that. It simply didn't succeed. Basket of Puppies  13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Кузьма, I did not count "neutrals" as "oppose", I just included those in the total number of votes. Otherwise why people vote "neutral", if their votes are not taken into account?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But if you count it as (Support)/(Total), you *are* counting Opposes and Neutrals as the same -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think counting votes is really the wrong approach here. It's the substance of those comments that should matter, and when looking at the content of all the votes in each of the three categories I remain unconvinced that this was the right call.  It seems to be sending the message that it is much easier to get reconfirmed than it is to get the tools from the start.  If that is the case then how many more of these are going to appear form admins who want "reconfirm" their popularity, or want to get some kind of overall "OK" from the community despite having run into specific problems?  Sarek got a lot of patting on his back for being "brave" enough to undergo this process, but consider the fact that he did not address the main issue people were having with him in his self-nomination.  He does not deserve any back patting for simply asking the community a black and white question about whether or not he's a net positive or net negative to the project, as opposed to confronting his specific demons.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were him I would have refused this administrator's status because the closure was incorrect.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It made no difference - the percentage count did not materially change in the final hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The percentage count is done as (Support)/(Support + Oppose), and the final count was 72.5% - it had hovered between 70% and 73% for the final few days. If we counted it as Supports as a percentage of all !votes including Neutrals, that would be treating Neutrals as the same as Opposes, which would clearly not be right -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's clearly how it is counted, but I'd like to point out again that WP:RFA doesn't make that clear and someone should fix it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit WP:RFA to clarify that point, but personally I think it's obvious enough from the RfA report, which handily provides the percentage throughout the course of each RfA. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how the percentage has been computed since, well, eternity. I shall assume that the people insisting otherwise is simply clueless rather than intentionally manipulating standards for this RfA. For that matter, I've never heard of an absolute 70% line either. T. Canens (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's good reason you haven't - WP:RFA simply says "most of those below ~70% fail" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (which is very little, because a decision has been made and I don't forsee it being changed) I don't particularly object to this close. The percentage was at the lower end of the discretionary range – by long-standing convention, neutral comments aren't included. Personally, I would have drawn the line at 'unsuccessful', but then I !voted 'oppose' so I'm biased. I don't see any improper 'crat behaviour here and suggest that people move on to something more useful: not an attempt to censor or stifle discussion, but simply a recommendation based on what's likely to be productive. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► You may go away now. ─╢ 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very gracious response TT - respect -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Boing: very classy response, TT. 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Shucks, I'd love to get a D on a test (which is what a 69% would represent) and still be allowed to preform neurosurgery. Would you want that doctor operating on your brain? No way, not for me. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He did NOT get 69%. But kudos for taking melodrama to a new level by comparing admin to neurosurgery -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, most tests at the college level and beyond are graded on a curve or against a mean, rather than by absolute percentage. A 69% may represent a failing grade, or it may represent a superlative performance which would qualify one to "preform" neurosurgery. MastCell Talk 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that every significant exam was graded on a percentile basis, but perhaps 134.241.58.253 is thinking of class tests. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Q: What do you call the med school student who graduates last in their class? A: Doctor. —DoRD (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, he got a C- then. If this is his grade after being an admins for a few years then you've got some serious problems. You need to hank this guy, and pronto. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you need to file a request at WP:HankThisGuyAndPronto then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At an English university, a 69% typically results in first-class honours pending varying levels of small print :D  Jebus989 ✰ 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling RfA a graded test is so astoundingly inaccurate it's not even funny... Juliancolton (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that it's not is so astoundingly inaccurate that it's not even funny. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reason? Juliancolton (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you completely blind, or just so brainwashed that you can't see what's as plain as the nose on your face? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MORDIOUS!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of Pinocchio. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you go teach the alphabet to the ants. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion has been filed in the appropriate receptacle. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it seems like you don't want to have a rational conversation, I guess I'll just say good comeback. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to have rational conversations with rational individuals, but you're not being rational. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, with fights like this to watch, how does WWE stay in business? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple. TV viewers like intelligent entertainment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deal With It
This RFA fell with in the discretionary range. A 'crat has rendered his/her verdict and the bit has been returned. Let us all move on. Lovetinkle (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Community discussion is healthy until it turns into a drama fest. I see no reason to prevent people form discussing the matter openly as long as they are being this calm about it.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever. It seems a bit rough to continue to the conversation after the umpire's decision has been handed down. His bit has been returned and we should honour that by allowing him to resume his ops. This continual kvetching after the fact seems a touch unsporting. Lovetinkle (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is someone not allowing him to resume this ops? I'm sorry but this sounds a whole like an attempt to censor criticism of the "umpire's decision."  I was unaware that once the "umpire" made a call the community was no longer allowed to discuss it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't be tiresome. The reality is that the 'crats have returned his ops. Let us honour that determination. If Sarek makes a dog's breakfast of things there will be plenty of opportunities to do the "told-you-so" dance. Until then let's all get on with more constructive business. Lovetinkle (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the entire community is the umpire. a crat is just another member of the community. don't try to censor community discussion. it's doesn't look good. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Going forward
Take a deep breath and step back, folks. This wasn't closed the way I would have preferred, either, but the manner in which it was closed was entirely in keeping with proper use of the discretion we give bureaucrats. This was a close call. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was never any doubt how it would be closed, and it would have been closed in just the same way had the support percentage dropped to 62%. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from being disingenuous, Malleus. If opinions had been that far, you are just plain wrong. Please learn to assume good faith. I do it with you all the time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not being disingenuous (which is of course a direct personal attack, I suggest that you check a dictionary), I'm merely stating the self-evident facts. The sentiment is clearly that as administrators will inevitably have pissed off a significant number of editors then the pass percentage ought to be lower for them. Which is of course completely arse-about-face, as with regular RfAs what's being judged is what the candidate might do with the tools, as opposed to what they have done with them. And in this specific instance the candidate had clearly abused the tools. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and the question is whether people, after discussion, felt he should be given the trust again. Obviously as we usually measure it, they did. There is a lot of evidence that it was proper:


 * For years the discretionary region has been 70 - 80% ish, the percentage applied has excluded "neutral" views, and a degree of allowance is made at 'crat judgment for the polarized views admins often get just by being admins and doing an admin's role by passing them at high 60%'s at times (subject to discretion and perhaps discussion). These are consistent long term norms. Although unfortunately the RFA page did not say it explicitly, everyone here either knew these things, or could have known them by looking up numerous past records of the kinds of !votes that were passed or failed and past BN discussion of other cases where principles were considered.
 * Examination of other past RFA results and resulting closes in the archives to see how RFAs and reconfirmation RFAs with these kinds of numbers have been closed in the past.
 * Examination of the crat-stats bot report which is used on all RFAs reported to all users (including non-crats) -- if the percentage were being calculated in an improper way then over the years it would have been noted.
 * FT2 (Talk 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You bureaucrats may of course do as you wish, including talking bollocks, as you are doing here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone taking the raw support/oppose figures as incontrovertible is talking bollocks. The consensus editing model of WP means to me that raw figures are normally used as a benchmark or guide in the absence of a finer analysis of hundreds of !votes. The reason why there is the implicit mention of discretion is because WP is not a vote. Anyone arguing about raw numbers here is by definition saying WP is not a vote except for RfAs. The closer seem to have ignored a significant concern among the supports and a majority of opposes. What went clearly wrong is that discretion here was incorrectly applied, not that his reconfirmation was regarded as a success because he passed the lowest possible threshold being reached, but to my mind there is no consensus. Just as a note: as the RfA was entering its final stage, Sarek was still engaged in a feud with Treasury Tag, both at ANI and at AWB – that is the strongest possible signal to me that his judgement is highly impaired. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But an omniscient bureaucrat thought differently, presuming he thought at all, or even bothered to read the RfA. The outcome was inevitable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrals not included in percentage calculation
To avoid the confusion evident in some of the discussion above, I've added a sentence to Requests for adminship/Front matter, indicating that the "neutral" comments are not counted in percentage calculations. I drafted this quickly, and am sure that someone be able to copyedit to improve the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Double thanks, seems very helpful to clarify that, think the wording was almost perfect but couldnt resit a minor ce. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's not a vote ... it's strength of argument. Look how many opposes were "because I don't agree with reconfirmations".  Seriously. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at how many supports were "because I believe he'll try and do better in the future". Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference here is "I disagree with reconfirmation" shows no reason for the community not to trust him, while "I think he'll improve" shows that the community does have faith in him. demize  (t · c) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What it shows is that he has not performed but is still an an administrator. Because he makes some guarded promises to do better in the future. How many ways can you spell pathetic? Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

shucks, this guy is one of the most dramatic folks here and you will keep him with a C- grade? Not very good. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the wonderful world of anonymous complaints. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and you are any less anonymous because you registered an account? HAHAHA. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a race to the bottom! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, that got me a "pass" in Astro 101 in college. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The most dramatic person on Wikipedia is Malleus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment about the late surge of supports by admin flagged accounts
I did not know that this was happening until Treasury Tag opened a discussion at ANI regarding SoV, which mentioned this process. It may be the same for those sysops who commented just prior and after my input. I am only mentioning this for the very few who have not been convinced that there was a effort by the Koncerted Klubbers Klub to sway the final "count", but have concerns about this issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is interesting - one more in a chapter of people shooting themselves in the foot over this one (SoV's request for an early close being the main one, to be clear). Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Or, we could not retreat into blaming conspiracy theories, and move on with life. I personally like that option, rather than milling over this decision which has already been made. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Decisions are taken, not made. Foot, let me introduce you to gun. Gun, this is foot. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod. SoV2's request for an early close displays a sneakiness and strategizing unbecoming of an editor who promises to change. This entire episode is not one of WP's finest hours. GFHandel . 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it displays having a very good sense of how a discussion is going. When I mentioned the early close, the percentage was 72.1%. When the discussion closed, it was 72.5%. What's sneaky about that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The obvious anticipation that it might not finish at around 72.1% (which, as everyone around here has already acknowledged is on the lower end of the acceptability scale). GFHandel . 01:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's sneaky is your evident fear that your support may have dropped through the magical 70% floor had the RfA not been closed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful not to attack Sarek (for your own sake) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? If you are then you're wasting your time, SOV has already blocked me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. I was talking to everyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What was your point then? You know as well as anyone that the !vote-% stays relatively constant after about the first 12 hours, unless something happens to cause a late tanking of a nom. Were you suggesting a change in accepted practice so that any RFA candidate can instruct the crats to conduct an early close? Or were you seeking executive privilege on behalf of yourself? Franamax (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, reading your last post here again, were you just trying to show us how smart you are? I think that covers most of the possibilities. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you can't be bothered to read WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID at WP:BN, that is very much not my fault. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read every word of everything I've seen, but thanks for the suggestion. Do you think that any RFA candidate should be free to post to BN to request early closure of their candidacy by a Bureaucrat? Under what conditions would the 'crats be expected to comply, and when would they be expected to decline? Franamax (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ""--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The crats didn't need you to tell them that. You're obfuscating.  The fact is that you asked to have it closed early.  The issue isn't about whether or not you reminded the crats that they don't have to do as you ask.  The issue is about the fact that you asked in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) My remark above was merely intended to suggest that the BN post was counter-productive in "campaign" terms, as a number (that I can't be bothered to count) of opposers subsequently commented adversely on it, & at least one switched from neutral to oppose giving it as the reason. At the same time, if you really can't see why it looks bad, then we have a problem, Houston. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of odd that this is still here. The RfA reconfirmation was successful. It's over. If you're an editor that voted "oppose" and didn't get your desired result: there's always another horse to bet on. Gratz, Sarek. Doc   talk  04:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an open question (from myself) just above which the recently-reconfirmed candidate seems determined not to answer at any length or in any de novo form. To the extent that they are now reconfirmed and no longer have to answer to anyone about anything they don't feel like exerting themselves at, you're correct. They're an admin, dismissive CAPS and bold text should do from now on. Franamax (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of routes to take if he screws up in the future. I've known Sarek for awhile, and we don't really talk to each other or really need to; this isn't a place to make friends. I think he's a good admin, but I've also seen a lot of blocks overturned on him. He's got his own particular "niche" on WP, for a lack of a better term. Everybody will be just fine, I predict. :> Doc   talk  05:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: you tried to close the debate while on 72.1% (obviously believing that you would succeed at that level) but at the same time you just know that the percentage isn't going to fall in the remainder of the allotted time (as you have stated)? If that is the case, why not simply let the debate run its course and avoid the controversy? If you are still going to stick to the claim that it was to avoid the "working week" complication for the rest of the WP community, I'm going to state what is obvious to me (and others now): I don't believe you. How about coming clean and revealing to the rest of the community exactly why you decided it was advantageous to you to try and shut down the debate early? GFHandel . 08:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me just point out here that people screamed for two years demanding that Obama release his long-form birth certificate, and when he did, they immediately started claiming it was just as fake as the officially certified copy he had originally released. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's safe to assume everyone is aware of that recent news snippet; secondly, it doesn't really offer any explanation of your motives. I guess what people are wanting to hear is: "I didn't really think it through, it was a mistake to ask, sorry"  Jebus989 ✰ 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "doesn't offer any explanation of your motives" -- well, yeah, that was the point. When you're only going to accept one answer, why bother answering? But yes, I didn't think through the implications of the request, which I shouldn't have made, and I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time with the ensuing debate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Translation: You didn't think through how crazy (birther like) Wikipedians like us would hound you after you did this, and you're sorry for unleashing us on the community. You really can do better than that Sarek, I know you can.  Just believe in yourself.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)  On second thought this is a waste of time.  Been there done that and I know how it ends.  Not continuing down this road.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is not that you made a mistake in trying to shut down the debate early. The point is the disingenuous way you tried to explain your motives ("so that the question is resolved before the work week restarts"). Everyone here knows that you made the request because you were worried that the "support" percentage might fall below the acceptable minimum, and I'm concerned that by sticking to your story you are displaying characteristics that the WP community would rather not have in its admins. The only good thing to come from this entire episode is that hopefully the stink it is kicking up will be the catalyst for reforming the RfA system. For providing the stink—I thank you. GFHandel . 20:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You, of course, have the perfect right to be as mistaken as you want.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You on the other hand no longer do. You fuck up again and you're history. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't try to read too much into the "last minute admin-flagged votes". To suggest this might be a show of support by an "old boys club" would be rather disingeuous.  I think you'll find that on most RFA's the same kind of thing happens.  A good chunk of admins use a dashboard showing current RFA's.  Many admins wait until the end and review all of the arguments made both + and - during the RFA, then make their vote accordingly.  This in and of itself is a very positive concept, giving the Admin the chance to soberly review both sides.  Indeed, isn't that exactly what a Bureacrat does?  Yes, I know that I voted early ... I'll admit that I monitor SoV's talkpage, and have had a firsthand view of some of the situations they have been involved in.  It was exactly for that reason that I was able to confidently re-affirm their admin status in my !vote. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Late" here means "several hours after it was supposed to close" so your point, while no doubt true in general, hardly applies here. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have XfD's that run later than 7 days, CSD's that take more than a couple of hours, PROD's that take more than a week ... I would bet that some 'crats shied away from this one ... there was even a call for a 'crat chat at one point. I wouldn't go all X-files on the fact that there were a few extra hours tagged on. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in conspiracies (and I'm not advocating for foul play here), but BWilkins the point, I think, is that if someone weighs in after the scheduled close they were clearly not, "[waiting] until the end and review all of the arguments made both + and - during the RFA, then make their vote accordingly." In other words the explanation that some admins are monitoring these types of discussions and weigh in at the end to make a more informed comment doesn't explain people weighing in after the discussion was set to close.  Indeed, those who have that amount of forethought are unlikely to miss the closing date/time.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions
A couple of things to  reflect  upon   from  all this; --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is a bigger waste of time than HJM's rerun.
 * There is no point in complaining  about  the outcome just  because you  didn't  like it. You  had your chance to  !vote/speak, and that's that.
 * Either have faith in  our 'crats decisions or run for RfB yourself,  or come up  with  some solutions for changing  the system for choosing  admins and 'crats.
 * Non-players yelling from  the sidelines at  the players. Do  the trial  of fire yourself first so  we can see what  you're made of.
 * Consider getting the RfA process changed so  that  it  prevents unsuitable candidates from  getting  the tools in the first  place.
 * IMHO, seven of the oppose !votes were invalid (and if I were a 'crat I  probably would have discounted them in  the case of a close call), so  those who  think RfA is a ballot, do  the math.


 * Well said. And what an excellent plug for RFA2011! Doc   talk  06:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do the trial of fire yourself first so we can see what you're made of." = "non-admins, shut up!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, this machismo "put up or shut up" nonsense should be left on the schoolyard quite frankly. If you don't think this is a productive discussion you are more than welcome to ignore it.  The fact is that a few people think the way this event unfolded is significant enough to reflect upon and discuss, especially in terms of reconfirmation RfAs more generally.  Perhaps this discussion will lead to changes down the road, and perhaps it wont, but we have no way of knowing until we have the discussion.   Please also note that the discussion is not only taking place here, but in various other venues like AN, BN, and Talk:Jimbo Wales.  I would have more sympathy for your perspective if I saw excessive drama mongering, or people calling for heads to roll but I do not see any such thing.  So just relax and ignore the discussion if you don't want to take part in it but pretty please don't tell people to shut up (note also as Seb points out, non-admins in your scenario have no recourse to do anything ...).  Cheers mate.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * to reflect upon - no, I missed that bit. I see an awful lot of people talking without reflecting, though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to that opinion, and the bad faith assumption that goes along with it. I think the editors who have offered arguments about why the judgement call made by the crats wasn't a good one are all reflecting upon this event (OhConfucius, Tony, myself, etc.).  I think those who are trying to get to the bottom of Sarek's BN request are all doing so after having reflected upon it's relationship to the RfA (Franmax, GFHandel, Jebus, etc.).  There are others as well, and one very clear simple positive that has come of this is Newyorkbrad's clarification of the RFA policy.  I understand that you don't agree with the reflections of those I've mentioned above, but there is no need to disparage them.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the final point (of which I lack the knowledge), I agree with Kudpung. In addition, those who complained about the percentage total should have checked past RfAs to note low-percentage reconfirmations, of which this is not one, and also seen that abstentions do not count in percentages. I !voted oppose, and I respect the judgment of the community. Let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible that any utility of continuing the discussions here is over, I just don't like it when people show up and say "shut up" as Kudpung did. Also, there is a related discussion going on elsewhere which focusses heavily on this example, and attempts to reflect upon what type of "community" decision we're getting at these reconfirmation RfAs and how productive it is.  But, maybe that discussion should take place in those other venues.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WPians will not be gagged, so it is a moot point. I am surprised this is so controversial though.  72.5% is an almost certain pass, for a reconfirmation where more slack is allowed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me offer some suggestions. 1) I'm getting the impression that all reconfirmation RfAs are controversial to some degree. 2) There was additional controversy and heated discussion throughout this RfA, not to mention conditional support votes, and while the support % ended in the gray area, there was no "crat chat" before the close. 3) While the vote ended at 72.5% overall, it is evident that the 20% higher margin of support from a very large admin contribution to the RfA made that possible - see this discussion. There are other related issues as well, like the fact that the close should not be based on a vote but on the substance of comments. This is one of the issues I'm most disturbed by, because there were so many support votes that appeared to be granted on the condition that Sarek had learned from his INVOLVED mistakes, but Sarek appears, even at the end of RfA to be either still wikilawyering about INVOLVED or flat out incompetent when it comes to understanding it - see .  The question then is if there had been a thorough discussion and analysis of the RfA by the crats would they still have reached this decision out of the gray area?  Maybe they would, and if so then OK.  I just feel like it wasn't looked at carefully, despite the fact that it was begging for careful assessment.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, consider that WP:INVOLVED is an issue that carries some inherently divisive baggage between admins and non-admins, and that is the issue that was most relevant to this RfA.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat silly for people to keep complaining that admins participated in this RfA since admins are only editors with an extra helping of grief and annoyance since there are so many people who whine and complain (and scream and yell) about every little thing they do. Admins have just as much right to participate in an RfA, and are in fact more likely to participate as admins tend to be much more involved in the less-public side of things on Wikipedia than are non-admins. As for whether it was considered carefully, I can assure you that it was. I read through the entire discussion and considered everything for nearly an hour before doing the final close. A 'crat chat simply wasn't necessary in this instance as (from my assessment) it wasn't really that close of a decision when everything was weighed and considered. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 16:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins have just as much right to participate in an RfA. I continue to be surprised by this type of response. Where did anyone say that admins don't have the right to participate?  There is a huge difference between saying that a group shouldn't have the right to participate and pointing out the simple fact that said group is overly represented in certain community processes.  When those community processes also deal directly with issues effecting that group such a skew in participation becomes significant.  You say you assessed the situation carefully.  OK, I'll AGF and believe you.  Did you see the last post that Sarek made in response to yet another INVOLVED discussion, that I linked above?  How do you reconcile that response with the fact that a very large number of supports were of a conditional manner, in regards to supporting Sarek because he has learned from his mistake?  Just curious because in your close you speak of a consensus firmly in the corner of supporting Sarek, but I assume that if a support rationale is based on a faulty premise that should also be considered.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much more disquieting than any flaws one might find with the close here is clear disconnect between the (general) views of the participating admins over how strictly limits on admin authority, like WP:INVOLVED, should be applied and the (general) view of other participants, who were nearly three times as likely to disapprove. This imbalance should be seen as a serious problem. Administrators are supposed to be enforcing/implementing standards established by the much larger community; if admin interpretation of those standards diverges substantially from those of other users, the basic principle underlying the admin function fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. I wonder if anyone can break it down "new admin" (say the past year) versus "old admin".  I will say I was a bit disheartened to see our latest rookie admin state that a number of the opposes lacked good faith on Sarek's talk page.  Disclosure:  I'm an admin, but perhaps as I spend most of my time on content improvement I have a different perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)