Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I applaud the crats for opening this discussion. Consensus isn't all about the numbers.  Go  Phightins   !  14:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, let me guess how you voted... Carrite (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like it wasn't already obvious. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This is wrong
The community has shown three times now it doesn't want Sarek as an admin. His answers to the questions, and his attitude, are abysmal. He was garnering more Oppose, not Support, votes as the RfA was closing. The RfA has failed. There is no integrity to this system, especially given this editor's history, if this RfA is decided by intervention. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [Bureaucrats]. . .are bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Requests for adminship. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind you that RfA is not a vote, and that consensus is not determined by the numbers, but the arguments. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The arguments were stronger against. His record is abysmal, his answers and attitude the same. In the case of an RfA, oppose votes carry more weight for good reason. Adminship is granted to individuals the community trusts and respects. The percentages in this case demonstrate this is not the case here. An adminship by intervention will never have the respect and trust of the community and that is what consensus is really all about. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume that RfA 1 was passed or he wouldn't have been an admin to step down the first time, and that RfA 2 was also passed or he wouldn't have been able to step down after the ArbCom business. That makes only one time for me when the community hasn't clearly said yes. As Maxim points out, the trend in !voting was towards acceptance rather than being towards rejection. No bureaucrat is going to take a solo decision in such a case - especially when Sarek didn't have to stand at RfA but could have requested the tools back. Had ArbCom desysopped him, that wouldn't have been the case. I believe Maxim is taking the wisest course here, whatever the outcome. Peridon (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with Sarek is the drama he creates. What is this but drama? The best outcome for him is a clear consensus from the community. That does not exist right now. Sarek would best be advised to accept that the time is not right for him now. Be gracious, show respect for the decision. Go edit other areas, stay away from all drama. Find an area on Wikipedia that can show his strengths. Then come back in a year with a clear record of good editing and try again. I'd nominate him myself if he did that. Read the opposes again. He was not a good admin. The community has said no. Accept that. Come back in a year. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-read the discussion, which features an absolute majority in support of Sarek. RfA may not be a vote (at least not in the traditional sense), but it's also inaccurate to assert definitively that "the community has said no". Not everyone agrees with your assessment of his performance. This discussion was put on hold because the tides were turning in his favour towards the end. The raw tally might suggest a no consensus closure at first glance, but the discussion itself tells a different story depending on your perspective. Kurtis (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument that RFA isn't a vote is patently incorrect. Although we can say it isn't...it absolutely is and it absolutely is a popularity contest more than a selection of those who have the ability to use the tools. It always has been and probably always will be. There also isn't an absolute majority. Yes there are more Supports than opposes, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't hit the cutoff. It also doesn't matter if 99% of the community supports him. We can and should only go by those that took the time to vote. If they didn't vote, or voted neutral, then it doesn't count. Like it or not that's how it works (and frankly I don't and have stated that repeatedly). Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Basis of the Crat Chat is questionable and unsupported by any evidence
It is neither "at the low end" or "if not outright shy". 66% is simply outside the traditional discretionary zone of 70-80%. FWIW, I opposed due to your final point. I subsequently added additional reasons. If I had not done so, and you had decided to give less weight to my original oppose, I would consider your action inappropriate. Let me explain. I saw no reason not to answer the questions concerned in the first place and the subsequent reason as as mere obfuscation. I do not speak for anyone else in the same boat, and nor should you attempt to place an particular interpretation on a swath of votes, even though the questions were subsequently answered. Leaky Caldron  17:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issue raised by the 'Crat about Recall votes, according to WP:AOR the Recall process is entirely voluntary and non-binding. That is, at any time, administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings, despite previously being open to recall. Any votes which rely on a misapprehension about Recall should be regarded as invalid. Leaky Caldron  19:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I opposed the candidate as I have done for anyone with a block record involved in repeated controversy seeking a position of trust that cannot be readily removed. I am therefore opposed to this Crat Chat. Even so, I have more general concerns. @User:Maxim. You are planning to drag this out for 2 more days even though you now accept that your original reasons for a Crat Chat are no longer valid and you would not promote this candidate. While we are waiting therefore, will you please explain your misleading opening that this was at the low end if not outright shy of the discretionary range at 66% when the accepted discretionary minimum is 70%. Can you additionally provide the evidence by examples for your assertion that reconfirmation RfA have a lower threshold. Do you accept that another of your key points is undermined by WP:AOR (see above)? Based on the weak grounds you have presented I'm struggling to see why a Chat was needed. It is only controversial if the reasoning is poor. You have made it controversial by making statements that do not hold up to scrutiny. Disappointing. Leaky Caldron  15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Leaky Caldron. Crat chats are used to gather the opinion of a several bureaucrats, so that the most appropriate decision is reached collectively. My reasons for opening a 'crat chat are still valid: I wish to seek hear the opinion of my fellow bureaucrats as opposed to unilaterally closing an RfA where there is some room for discretion. I did not express an opinion with regards to promotion/no consensus when I opened it because I need more time to weigh the various arguments; in fact, I made an effort to explain my thought process in regards to considering a promotion where purely numerically, it typically does not happen. That I have reached my conclusions on the matter does not invalidate the decision to seek the opinion of fellow bureaucrats. Hence I suggest to give time for other bureaucrats to chip, but I also suggest a deadline as to not excessively drag it out.
 * My exact phrasing with regards to the discretionary zone perhaps could have been better; I don't need to use Bradspeak that often, so perhaps I am rusty. Reconfirmation RfAs have been previously given a bit more leniency in regards to the numbers; given some of the issues I have considered (as listed in my initial statement), there was no reason to not exercise this leniency, specifically by going to a 'crat chat. By discussing the outcome, we are giving an idea of the thought process, and not simply calling it one way or the other without explanation. The nature of the opposition in an ordinary and reconfirmation RfA are fundamentally different, so that difference alone is a good reason for discussing the outcome.
 * Finally, regarding recall: I posed a question if recall should be something we take into consideration. Several supporters see it as a positive sign. Since RfA is determined from the arguments presented by everyone, and recall was brought up several times, it is something to consider. The fact that SarekOfVulcan has undergone two reconfirmation RfAs suggests a commitment to recall can be more than just words. Needless to say, if administrator screws up and backs out of a reasonable recall, I think Arbcom would be sympathetic. Especially if the promotion took into account the promise of recall. I don't know if we have a precedent, but if we promoted a candidate in large part due to some significant promise (recall or otherwise) and this promise broken along with associated misconduct, I for one would make a point of contacting Arbcom to look into it. So, no, I do not accept that my point about recall is undermined by WP:AOR.  Maxim (talk)  16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Misses the mark
This crat chat misses the mark. A 66% is a fail, not a need for discussion. Sarek made a huge error when he violated policy and now he is paying for that. The comments in the crat chat about reconfirmation RFA's being more lenient is both wrong and stupid. They should be held to the same standard. If the standard is X then that is the cutoff. I have advocated getting the tools and removing the tools to be easy but if they are to remain hard to get then 'that is the standard that everyone must meet. Not lower the bar because they are or were an admin or else you just insult the community and piss on the policy. Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "If the standard is X then that is the cutoff." The page for RfA states that "most of those below 70% fail". It never says all, but most fail under 70%. I applaud the 'crats for adding the discussion. buffbills7701 20:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see a discussion at 66%. That's a supermajority in many deliberative bodies, needed to pass major changes.  How did 70% become a bottom line?  No matter what the final decision, open discussion is appropriate and appreciated. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 04:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What the 'book' says
"Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion)." (WP:RFA)
 * To me, this means that anything over 80% USUALLY passes (but might not), and anything under 70% USUALLY does not (but might). Peridon (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All I can say is if the crats pass this, it shows the system is broken and that the community doesn't have a clue in the eyes of the Admins and bureaus. It just gives more evidence to the statements I have been making for the last couple years that admins are held to a lower standard than editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reconfirmation RFAs have passed in the past at 61% and 63%, so a 66% RFA pass would not be unprecedented.  MBisanz  talk 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It still goes against the grain to make exceptions for admins. I know it happens and I've been harping about admins being treated differently for some time now so its nice to see that I'm not just making it up like some would want people to believe. If there is a new community desire for RFA to be a simple majority (ie 51% support) then I would say that's good and agree that this is fine. If however this is only because Sarek was an admin, then I must insist this defies good policy. Nuff said by me on the matter. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @MBisanz: The RfA which passed at 61% was Carnildo 3 in 2006. On that occasion a desysopping by ArbCom was overturned after 6 months, not really a reconfirmation. Well, that's ancient history now. Could you tell me who passed at 63%?
 * @Kumioko: Actually the standard for ex-admins to regain the tools should be much higher than for first requests, but that's just my personal opinion. Kraxler (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) MBisanz, the promotion at 61% in 2006, also per crat chat, caused justified outrage. Indeed it was a big cause célèbre that year and gave rise to much heated debate. For instance, many people who hadn't voted at all complained that they had only refrained from opposing in order to avoid piling on, never having dreamt that the candidate could be promoted with 61% supports. Certainly a consideration. I supported Sarek, but I'd be troubled to see somebody promoted at 66%. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
 * While I support lowering the threshold (and think 66% is a decent one for automatic pass, better than 75% or 80%), I'd prefer to see it lowered before people vote, so they know what to expect (and when and when not to vote, as Bishonen said). —Kusma (t·c) 21:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, good to know, that was a bit before my time and I had forgotten. But Krimpet and Davemeistermoab were 67% passes and I do not think either of them was even a reconfirmation.  MBisanz  talk 21:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also remember the Carnildo RfA, and strongly believe it would be an error to use it as any sort of precedent. It was a wrong close then, it's still a wrong close now. The bureaucrats substituted their own reasoning for the community's, and arguably for ArbCom's (since they decided that his desysopping was "always meant to be temporary", something said nowhere in the decision. Oddly enough, even ArbCom made a finding that the RfA failed to achieve consensus, but for whatever reason didn't have the guts to actually do anything about it. So this was clearly an exeptional (not to mention exceptionally poor) decision that shouldn't bear on the current proceedings one bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Past RFA record
I think it should be noted where Sarek's past RfAs ended in consideration of this one. The first was closed successfully with him getting 87.4% support. His reconfirmation RfA passed with about 72.5% support. What we see this RfA is him getting 66.1% support. What should be concerning is that a week after the reconfirmation RfA, Sarek was blocked for edit-warring, then again a month later, and once more at the end of the year. He plainly acknowledged such actions were geared towards getting his opponent blocked as well since he could not block the editor himself. Editors expressing trust in Sarek's commitments under pressure at RFA should not be taken as a good indicator since he has previously abused the trust of his supporters. Certainly, I would love to believe that there will be no more serious issues, but his history does not attest to that.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to question on the front page
Concerning User:Writ Keeper's question on the front page about a lower range for reconfirmation RfAs: Carnildo's RFA of 2006 does come to mind, Writ. Compare also my comment above. When the crats were criticized for closing it as successful at 61%, they defended themselves with arguments on the lines of "He's a good admin, his image work is so useful, those are just his enemies opposing, people with grudges." Essentially the crats supervoted, collectively, and were widely believed to have been under pressure from higher up to do so. Well, I dunno, it was widely believed in the conspiracy-theory circles where I moved, at least. Long time ago, yes. I have seen the elephants dance. (Oh, did you think there wasn't anything higher up than a crat? Not so.) Bishonen &#124; talk 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
 * That example is from 2006 and is outside of the modern (post-2007) era of RfA. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  01:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, you're nothing but a wikibaby. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

"Fair to Sarek"
If you think the community would be better served by giving it more time to run, don't worry about whether it's fair to me. I started this RFA because I wanted to serve the community -- this might just be another way to do it.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, sorry; didn't mean to speak for you or anything. After all; there's no way you didn't know what you were getting into. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Far as I'm concerned, there was one vote that made this a success for me. Any way the 'crats want to close it is fine. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as Sarek's down with it, I think that extending past the usual seven days would be a good idea. I view extending the vote until there is a more clear consensus one way or the other as easily within 'crat discretion. Repromoting Sarek at this level would be perceived by some as a supervote and cause unnecessary drama, but at the same time, given that there have been previous succesful promotions lower than this, that there have been some good support rationales, and that 66% is at least (well, very close to) a supermajority, I feel like it would be a bit of a disservice to close it as unsuccessful as it stands. FWIW: I didn't vote here, and haven't given the issue enough thought yet to know how I would vote if it was extended. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Kevin_Gorman, agree that an additional 7 days to better assess community consensus is appropriate in this case. Perhaps a straw poll on this would be appropriate to give 'crats a basis for a decision to extend or not? DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, extending Rfa's, especially controversial ones, is a slippery slope that sets a precedent. How many other Rfa candidates will have supporters who want the rules bent for them? Taking "straw polls" on the topic opens more drama-laden cans of worms.  This should now be closed as a failed Rfa and we should move on. That's what I'd call fair to the editing community.  Jus  da  fax   05:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to stick with policy and keep the fail. We shouldn't be making special concessions just because he was an admin. All these discussions are only happening because the crats want to bend the rules because Sarek was an admin and they want to give him some extra flexibility. If they do this for hi they need to do it for everyone. The RFA failed and we need to let it fail and he can try back again in a year or whatever. What happens if we give him another 7 days and it fails? We'll be right back here again. If it passes then it passed because a special concession was made that wouldn't even apply to every other RFA. That is absolutely not the precedent that needs to be set here. Kumioko (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, but it's not a fail by policy - that's why there's a crat discussion to begin with. If it was a policy guaranteed failure, this page wouldn't exist.  The number of RfA's that falls in this window is not high, so even if 'crats started regularly extending RfA's that fell in to the narrow window this does, it would effect very few RfAs.  If, in a week from now, Sarek's % had risen to a more obviously promotable range, then promote him.  If it doesn't, then it would be a bad idea to do so, since it would be perceived as a supervote.  There's no need to extend indefinitely. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But the only reason they are doing it now is because he was an admin. If he wasn't previously an admin, they wouldn't even be having this discussion. They fail them all the time. If you want the honest truth they really just want to not count my oppose vote. That would be enough to throw him over and since I am "not trusted" there is no reason to count my vote. Cause I don't "have a clue". And its a bad idea to extend the RFA anyway unless the intent is to change the procedure to allow more time for all RFA's in the gray zone. Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with . The RfA has failed. Consideration must go to the editing community. Close and move on. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He hasn't been asked a question. He should keep right out of this and it is poor judgement to comment on anything related to the Crat Chat. There is no valid reason to extend this and SoV stepping in to say that it is okay with him is inappropriate.  Leaky  Caldron  10:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think extending for another 7 days would just prolong the agony for the community. Even though I ended up supporting, what it looks like to me is no consensus to promote, and I think it needs to be closed as such. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I could see extending an RFA would be to increase participation. This RFA received plenty of participation and seems to be more about double jeopardy. Mkdw talk 02:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

== Response to "Questions in the RfA: A lot of opposition is in response to poorly answered questions; however, that seems to have been somewhat rectified. How much weight should be given to these comments?" ==

As the first person to oppose on the grounds of the questions, I feel that I should clarify the reasoning behind the opposition.

Showing little to no effort to answer the questions never goes over well, and has sunk plenty of candidates in the past. The issue, in general, is not the lack of answers itself, but what the lack of willingness to critically engage in the questions. In SarekOfVulcan's case, the candidate resigned under a cloud (you can argue technicalities, but even some of the supporters acknowledge that there was a cloud), and then did not make an effort to discuss the situation or his takeaways from it. Even after being prompted, he chose to say that he was prevented from speaking about it because of a topic ban. While that would have put specific statements off limits, it should not have prevented a general discussion of the issue. The candidate only tackled the issue after it became clear that he had no hope of passing if he did not tackle the issue. That he did not tackle the issue head on, from the beginning, is what promoted the concerns. Answering the questions later did not in my case, and likely did not in many other people's cases, alleviate the initial concerns.

To put it another way: Suppose you are tasked with evaluating architects for the design of a bridge, and one of the candidates forgets a support pillar, adding it only after being told that it was missing and that the bridge would fall down without it. Yes, once the architect draws in the beam, the bridge does become more stable, but you still have to be concerned with an architect that neglects the beam in the first place. SarekOfVulcan, in answering the questions after several rounds of prompting, did draw in the support pillar for the bridge, but in showing so much hesitation to tackle the issue for which he had to resign under a cloud, I am left uneasy about the architect regardless.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I can't think of much directly on-topic stuff to add which hasn't already been noted, I think the above analogy would work better with the word architect substituted by structural engineer: architects arguably could be excused for making incorrect assumptions regarding structural analysis! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. In case I wasn't clear, I was referring to the giant thing between the roadway and the water in this picture, which I guess would be the bottom half of the tower, when I said "support pillar". It's a rather big piece of the bridge.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not familiar with the history of that bridge, but our article on its designer John A. Roebling says that he studied both architecture and engineering. An alternative design could probably exist (although maybe not from that era) without those supports being quite where they are. But that's original research and I'm rather rusty on structural analysis myself ATM. Never mind. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you review the 'support' votes, there is hesitation there. It is not enthusiastic support. There is acknowledgement of the serious problems and in some cases, there is no comment. Just a signature. There are no examples of good admin behaviours. Only references to bad admin behaviours and then a weak, "I'll give him the benefit of the doubt." The RfA failed because he's not ready to be an admin. Leave it go. Improve your behaviours, edit well, build up a good record. Come back in a year. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfA hasn't failed. That's why we're having this discussion. buffbills7701 12:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The nail has been hit on the head: how many !voters came back and amended their "no - crappy answers" !vote after the answers were improved? If this had been a first time RFA, most !voters would have placed themselves in "neutral - awaiting responses" - that's the normal way that regular RFA contributors say "feck, answer the questions, would ya!?!?"  However, many immediately placed in Oppose.  So - do you discount those !votes (or at least lower the weighting of them) because the answers issue was later rectified?  This is another reason why I think that the RFA process needs to change - the question period needs to happen prior to the !vote starts  ES  &#38;L  11:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The percentage is rising
It's my opinion that this RFA should be reopened for maybe 3-7 more days. The percentage has been climbing steadily from below 50% to 66%. While I am not personally a fan of promoting below 70%, it seems reasonable to see if this trend goes anywhere. --Jakob (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I think extending the deadline for the request for adminship may be required to generate a more defined consensus (if there is none right now, which is what the bureaucrat discussion seems to be leaning towards), in an extended RfA we should be looking more for the strengthening of reasons why Sarek should be promoted/not promoted, instead of just an increase in strength in numbers, since, after all, we are looking for a clearer consensus.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 16:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one side, the percentage might go down after this were re-opened, and I would expect some voters to change their vote, in all ways. On the other side, what would you think of the following hypothetical scenario: A country holds an election in which the polls are kept open for an indeterminate length of time, voting continues while counting the already cast ballots, the party in power can close the polls at any time, and they do so as soon as there are enough votes to ensure their re-election. Kraxler (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose extending the iVoting period. Doing so will inevitably be seen by many as controversial. Far better to close as "no consensus" and for the candidate to spend six months or a year writing and expanding articles and doing many of of the quasi-administrative functions that any editor can do without the toolkit. Then ask again for the toolkit, speaking frankly from the very beginning about the issues raised by the opposers. That's the best path forward, in my view. Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, basically, Cullen, exactly what I've been doing for the last 6 months to a year? *raises eyebrow quizzically* -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since many people don't think your ready now, it looks like another six months to a year of keeping up the good work may change people's opinions. I agree with Cullen's "path". On the other issue, I would also oppose the re-opening of this RfA, but that is ultimately up to the bureaucrats. United States Man (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cullen and US Man. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall an Rfa in the past five years where !voting was suspended after the scheduled ending, then continued on again. To do so now would be precedent-setting and raise a lot of dust, so the idea is dubious. Furthermore, Sarek's intervention here in his commentary above confirms my impression of him as startlingly lacking in tact. In any case, as noted the trend in the 'crat chat appears to be headed towards a finding of "no consensus" and will likely render the conversation on this talk page moot. Jus  da  fax   00:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , perhaps the part that was most lacking in this RfA was "speaking frankly from the very beginning about the issues". I understand that you felt constrained by the interaction ban, and I also see how that ban itself could be a serious concern to some editors. I will say to you as I have said to other RfA candidates in the same position that I wish you well, and look forward to supporting you next time.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous ArbCom case
, just a point of clarification about the vote at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision. Eight votes were required to pass a remedy. There were two alternatives, admonishment (4.1) and desysop (4.2). Nine votes were listed in the support column for 4.2. However, two were listed as second choice (T. Canens) and Worm), leaving it with seven as first choice. Admonishment, on the other hand, had 11 votes in the support column. Three were listed as second choice, which left it with a majority of 8 as first choice and a majority of 11 based on 4.2 not passing. Thus, admonishment was the final remedy with a vote of 11-3 (one could interpret the vote to be 12-2 if you look at Carcharoth's oppose).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted; I was just noting that technically there was a majority supporting a desysop, they just went the either-or route in the sanctioning for SoV, and the alternative had more support. A technicality yes, but one worth noting. Wizardman  17:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional clarification: Contrary to the statement that Sarek "got rid of his tools before arbcom could," he did not resign his sysop status until several days after the Arbcom case closed. Special:UserRights/SarekOfVulcan shows that he was desysopped on 21 March 2013, and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram states that the arbcom case closed on 12 March 2013. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are probably right that it is worth mentioning, but imo shouldn't be deciding factor. I would like to note that many of the oppose votes are sound and are from editors I respect, but there are more than a few that are thrown in that sound like sour grapes mixed with venom and vendettas. I don't usually vote in FfAs, but I noticed this one and remember telling myself when SoV turned in his tools that I would support him when/if he chose to regain them. I doubt this passes, but if bureaucrats looked at the opposes that are simply sour grapes and deducted them, SoV is well over the 70% discretionary threshold. Maybe even over 75%. Especially when you take into consideration the type of posts that started this page out. Making claims that the community has "shown three times now it doesn't want Sarek as an admin", a claim that is obviously false to any who even bother to have the most basic understanding of Sarek and his prior RfAs. Of course we know he passed his other two RfAs, and this one is around 2-to-1 in favor of Sarek. A far cry from the descriptions of the opposes here on this page. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except how many have similar entanglements with Sarek on the supportive side? Given the number of people who weigh in at an RfA and the amount of time available for them to weigh in at an RfA there is no reason to parse the numbers in terms of biases for or against a candidate, especially not if you are going to only focus on one side of the vote.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the depth of some of the statements by those who 'opposed,' I thought they were far more sincere than the 'support' ones who didn't even bother to make a statement, or worse, the ones who said they were voting because he was willing to be subject to recall. Sounds like hedging a bet that probably shouldn't be made in the first place. I'm always in favor of second chances. I believe people can see what they've done wrong and change for the better. But two things convinced me. First the ArbCom comments on desysopping, and second his answers to the RfA questions. Btw, the desysopping proposal (someone mentioned it passed), it didn't pass because there was more support for the admonishment. And as far as someone calling the 'oppose' votes 'sour grapes,' editors who commented about their experiences with him seemed honestly concerned about giving him back the tools. Here are the ArbCom comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was one of those mentioning Sarek's willingness to be subject to recall in my support !vote and I strongly object to your easy dismissal of it. The only reason I included that statement in my !vote was to indicate that I had seen the concerns of the oppose !votes and why I supported despite their concerns. I have to say that I find this whole talk page rather disconcerting, with people from both sides dismissing !votes from the "opposing" side out of hand. We had a whole week to post our comments on this RFA and it is now in the hands of the crats. This talk page seems to be mainly and attempt to get in some more comments after the debate was closed strikes me as unfair and inappropriate. As for the people here who are so strongly arguing that a two-thirds majority is below the cut-off of 70%, how many of you have never before invoked WP:IAR? Please, a little bit more confidence in our processes and some AGF for the crats. I am certain that whatever they decide it will be a reasoned and reasonable decision. If they decide to give Sarek the mop, he can be desysopped if he would abuse it. If they decide not to give him the mop, he can come back again in 6 months or a year from now. And me thinking having the mop "is no big deal"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dave Dial - Re: "...but if bureaucrats looked at the opposes that are simply sour grapes and deducted them..." The "sour grapes" are supposed to be part, and stay within, the 30% allowance, considering that the discretionary range starts at 70%. They can not be deducted twice. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
I thank the 'crats for holding this discussion. I think it was warranted and useful and that's why we elected bureaucrats and not robots :)  Snowolf How can I help? 18:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto that. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto Snowolf. Although there was only one possible ultimate outcome ("no promotion") that wouldn't have led to a very vocal protest by more than a handful of people, it was important to have the discussion so minority views could be respectfully discussed, and so there is an on-wiki history if and when a similar situation should occur in the future.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)