Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4

I would like to thank User:Worm That Turned for reverting the obvious personal attacks posted by an anonymous IP user in the "oppose" section, which also included an impermissible !vote by an IP user. For those of you unfamiliar with RfA !voting procedures, the "Expressing opinions" subsection of Requests for adminship explicitly states:


 * "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account."

Any editor may revert an !vote by an IP user, and should cite the foregoing restriction in their edit summary. Furthermore, anyone should feel free to remove an obvious personal attack (such as referring to an RfA candidate as an "asshole," etc.). Commenters are gently reminded that personal attacks on fellow editors are prohibited everywhere within Wikipedia per WP:NPA, and that includes RfA comments and !vote rationales. Editors who engage in such personal attack behavior may be blocked from further editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. RfA is a place where stark criticism is allowed, but claims should always be backed up by evidence and direct personal attacks are still unacceptable. Should the IP (or better yet, the editor behind the IP) wish to articulate why they feel SarekOfVulcan might be unsuitable for adminship beyond the attack (i.e. something that can be backed up by evidence and wikipedia policies), then they would of course be welcome to. Worm TT( talk ) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting also that I have protected the RfA from anonymous editing, but this talkpage remains open. Worm TT( talk ) 15:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protecting an RfA?
Maybe this happens all the time, but I was not aware that only members of the club get to express their opinions at RfA. What if there are IPs who strongly support this candidate? There are enough editors watching at RfA that any vandalism will be promptly reverted. I see no advantage of protecting RfAs. --Gaff (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IPs aren't allowed to vote and very new users are taken with a lot of salt, so IPs who might have useful contributions to this RFA are not a factor. The advantage is that unconstructive IPs will not have their say.  "members of the club" seems to imply that this is a bad thing, but in fact some kind of restrictions are necessary to prevent sockpuppets and potentially mis/uninformed new editors from skewing the vote count.  ekips39 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , you may be interested to know that  the en.Wiki  is the only  one of the large Wikipedias that  does not  have a set  of minimum  qualifications for voters at  RfA. Personally  I  don't  believe IPs should even be allowed to  comment  at  RfA because their comments while not  a vote, can easily  lead to  a lot  of unrefflected, unreseached pile-on votes. When IPs comment, it's almost  always either something  negative about  the candidateor a trick  question. You  can find proof of these claims by  reviewing  several  hundred passed and failed RfA or checking  out  some of the stats we extrapolated during  WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're the boss(es).--Gaff (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracking RFA for visual types
I wanted to see how this was running, so I set up a spreadsheet on Google Docs with a graph to keep an eye on it. If you're interested in setting it up for your own use, see here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe you should add some shaded areas for definitely passes, definitely fails, and that gray area in-between. I can't recall the values right now, but I'm sure they're easy to find. BMK (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, the main page says the rule of thumb is above 80% generally passes and below 70% generally fails. BMK (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Rather not subject myself to that, though, RFA2 was contentious enough without graphics. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Technical 13's oppose
Moved from the RfA. PaleAqua (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is close to the weakest basis for an oppose that I've seen in eight years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one am glad that I did read that !vote correctly, so I'm not crazy, T13 really said that? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A minimum of 100 MediaWiki Talk edits should be required for all prospective admin candidates! No, make it 1000 - that shows a true commitment to the interface section. --B (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words,
 * The wiki surely has no place
 * For admins who won't interface!
 * And what good's a candidate
 * Who won't step up to the template?
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * We simply cannot accept
 * Those who do not speak CSS
 * They also have to code in Java
 * Or they shall be thrown in the pit of lava
 * -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew that sooner or later this RfA would wind up with a reference to vulcanism.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider JavaFluencyIdentifierConstructorFactoryPattern.matcher(ProspectiveAdministratorInstance).matches to be prima facie evidence of power hunger. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More seriously: Technical13, I'd suggest taking a good hard look at how you phrased that oppose. Because what it looks like is a WP:POINTy oppose essentially blackmailing the community, consisting largely of "well, things are unfair for other people so they should be unfair for you, too, and will continue to be unfair for everyone until I get the unbundling". I'd like to think this isn't what you mean, but I'm finding it hard from what you've written to draw an alternate interpretation. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted with Ironholds and everything subsequent, but will put this here anyway) Hmm... assuming you're serious, this seems to be an "other stuff doesn't exist"-type argument, and the feet aren't the same size -- the main reason we're here is to write articles (and those who do so are a direct part of that); the interface is secondary, not directly related.  I suppose one could argue that Sarek would abuse the template namespace by adding flawed code to it, but since he doesn't even pretend to have an interest in templates, I don't see why he would.  It would make about as much sense to argue that someone who is very knowledgeable about templates and code should not be an admin because they would be more likely to use their knowledge to break the wiki, or even that someone who was well versed in policy would turn out like Wifione, or... you see, the reason for opposing someone for not having enough experience in a given area is that their lack of experience there would be more likely to result in flawed decisions, and while the "knows too much" comparison might not be the best reductio ad absurdum, this simply isn't the right type of stuff to oppose over.  ek<b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, look at all the wonderful good faith exhibited here. Anyways, there has been a discussion on My oppose on your RfA as well, and while this user's RfA shows no indication that they have any interest in technical areas, neither did this one yet this happened despite a lack of interest or knowledge of the code which they were changing which led to this waste of time and the change that resulted in another big tear between the community and the Foundation resulting in a new protection level and all kinds of bad blood and a show of bad faith.  This is exactly the kind of thing that we need to protect the encyclopedia from and I will certainly oppose any nomination or request for a toolset that a user isn't 100% capable of using with no risk of this kind of damage. Opposes have certainly killed nominations for lack of content creation (examples: 1 2 3 4 5 and I'm sure you can find a multitude of this type of oppose in just about any non-content type editor's RfA ), and now that there is an oppose based on a lack of technical ability which could actually cause great disruption, the editor who suggested it is ridiculed and not taken seriously.  That is fine, I'm thick skinned and can handle it, but don't expect that to cause me to stop pointing out the obvious. —   17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing, this does not mean I'll be disruptive or anything of that sort, it just means that I will follow policy to keep working on improving the archaic system that Wikipedia uses. Happy editing, and good luck Sarek! —   17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good faith? You left one message that said "I'm disrupting this to prove a point". You then followed up to explain to Sarek on their talkpage that just because you were disrupting their RfA to prove a point doesn't mean you think they're a bad person. The fact that you later clarified doesn't mean that there aren't any conclusions to draw in the interim, and it's probably a bad idea to snark at people for doing so. No, Pete's RfA did not have any technical concerns raised, but do you really think the problem with making site-wide changes to disable a MediaWiki element was a lack of technical knowledge? Lack of technical knowledge exacerbated it, but the actual problem was truly terrible judgment. And, yes, you're being ridiculed - people who opposed on a content basis were and are heavily ridiculed too, because their argument is as silly as this one. You're demanding technical expertise out of candidates to prevent the repeat of something that has happened, once, in a decade, due to a user's poor judgment. That's being ridiculed because it's ridiculous. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, T13, but I'm with Oliver et al on this one. What sinks RfAs of non-content-creators is not so much the lack of content creation per se but a lack of evidence of an interest in Wikipedia's fundamental mission as opposes to the MMORPG aspect. The encyclopaedia is Wikipedia. Take the politics and the javascript away and you still have the largest reference work known to man. Take the encyclopaedia away, you just have a bunch of techies arguing over some javascrpt that nobody actually cares about. It's that simple. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Noetica's oppose
Moved from the RfA. PaleAqua (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, really? You left the project but you apparently still keep an eye on it on a very regular basis just so you can oppose Sarek? You're so on top of it that you are the very first person to oppose him? Well, first off that makes your oppose stink of sour grapes and demonstrates a never-let-anyting-go attitude that probably isn't a good fit with Wikipedia. Secondly, it is so incredibly sad that it makes me want cry. I hope one day you can find a way to stop obesssing over Sarek and just move on with your life. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your thoughtless reflex jab does you no credit. I heard about Sarek's RfA, considered the situation, and opposed based on what I know. On that you judge my history and my motivations? Huh! "Never-let-anything-go"? I withdrew early from proceedings at WP:AE, with a declaration: I would leave Wikipedia if my upbraiding Sarek yielded so much as a warning. I got a warning, and I did leave – with a pristine record, after years of professional-level contributions to WP:MOS. Now consider: will others turned off by Sarek's marauding come forward and vote here? Not likely, if they risk a reception such as yours. What you lightly dismiss as "grudgeholding" (in your vote) may be valuable insight into disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia (a project I still care deeply about). Go away Beeblebrox, and learn to weigh things like a proper admin. ♥ Noetica (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you had much to contribute before you left, and I'm sure you could return and contribute much more. However, since 2013 you have, by your own admission right here, been basically a single-purpose-account whose only goal is to oppose RFAs by Sarek. That's not healthy or wise, and it says much more about you than it does about Sarek. Thanks for the sarcastic little heart graphic though, that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's one way to crash through B, when evidence and dispassionate argument can't be summoned. Single purpose? Nah. Note also: I opposed in an earlier Sarek RfA, before I was warned for calling him to account – addressing him in words like yours right here ( ♥ ). Leave it, Beeblebrox. If my free speech upsets you, you have had ample free speech back. This is not the place. Email me, if it matters so much. Noetica (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, you have no right to freedom of speech here. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't claim such a "right". It's interesting that it troubles Beeblebrox if I do speak up on an issue at exactly the right forum. Others might not speak up, out of sheer terror. It troubles you too, AG? Just move on; or email me. Noetica (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, Noetica, entitled to a view, and despite this bullshit - single-purpose-account, !!!! - should claim at will. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, is this the kind of discourse you perpetrated behind closed doors as an arbritrator? Flinging around these assertions makes you look personally involved. If you're bearing a grudge, please leave it behind. Tony   (talk)  02:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You lot aren't telepaths, so you shouldn't be casting such aspersions. Noetica is correct that Beeblebrox failed to address their arguments and focused only on their motivations.  However, as is all too often the case, Beeblebrox's somewhat valid points are obscured by the manner in which he presents them.  The point that ought to be made by bringing up "grudges" is that the opposers are objecting to mistakes that are now several years old and they have perhaps failed to recognise how Sarek has improved since then.  As for Noetica's being a single-purpose account, it does strike me as odd that they don't contribute directly to the encyclopedia but only come around to oppose Sarek at RFA, but speculation on why that is has little bearing on their arguments except to say that they may have an unduly jaundiced view of Sarek; even so, arguments should be evaluated on their own basis, not purely on the basis of who made them, especially since the candidate is under scrutiny here, not the voters (and that also goes for Beeblebrox, whose career as an arbitrator is hardly more relevant than Noetica's retirement).  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just find the over the top nature of the whole oppose and this subsequent discussion objectionable. Using an account that is retired except fot this one purpose to describe Sarek's past actions as "marauding" and implying that others who were marauded would come forward if not for the "terror" they feel at the prospect is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that never helps a discussion. But whatever, I'm sure if this is a close decision the closng crats will carefully consider the merits of this line of argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * About the best face you could put on it, Beeblebrox. Who gets the last word on my vote, here? But I share your confidence: on present evidence the crats must deal with vastly more impartiality than we can expect from the admin corps. In case you do care, my account is also handy so I can continue to email advice to editors at the Language Reference Desk. Now stop? Noetica (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning a superseded oppose vote by Ironholds
Moved from the RfA. Noetica (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's good coming from someone desysopped for... what was it? Squinge (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (Thinking again, I will strike that comment. Squinge (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Speaking as someone who supported Ironholds' last successful RfA as well as Sarek's present RfA, I would respectfully ask you to strike or delete your comment immediately above. Ironholds has proven to be a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia, regardless of the indiscretions that led to his loss of the tools, and is deserving of our respect.  The comment above adds nothing to the depth of this discussion about Sarek's merits (or downside), and, after careful consideration, I think you must acknowledge that it's a not-so-subtle attempt to discredit Ironholds' Oppose !vote.  It's simply not needed or appropriate; there must be room for honestly expressed opposition during RfA discussions.  Thank you for considering my comment and request in the spirit of constructive criticism in which it was intended.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When a commentator describes someone else as being "gung-ho", I think their own record on that score is relevant in evaluating their judgment. I trust the closing bureaucrat to decide how to value this discourse. Squinge (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Squinge: indeed! I fully agree with you; peoples' records should be taken into account. I'd ask you to look at...well, absolutely anything I've done in the last year and a half, honestly, and tell me if you think my record suggests I'm still a dumb 21-year-old, or if I've changed substantially. I'd do the same for you but it looks like you only registered ~4 months ago - which is not a problem but does make it kinda difficult to gauge whether we've run into each other before or what bits of me you have and haven't seen.
 * On the actual question of bringing records into things at all; find something more substantial, maybe? Don't get me wrong, like I said, it's totally relevant - if we're evaluating my character. RfAs tend not to be decided based on the 'crats' evaluation of the support and oppose voters' past stupidity, so while it'd be a valid thing to bring up if this was about me, it's not; it's about Sarek. If the most you can say about my complaint is that you don't like the person making it, you need to try harder. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are fair comments, and I thank you for expanding on your statement in the context of your contributions since your desysop - I just looked at your history and did wonder about pots and kettles. My "bureaucrat" comment was purely intended to convey that the crat can ignore my response as they see fit, not that they should evaluate your character. As for my history here, I don't recall ever having interacted with you before and have no opinion on whether I like you personally - I hope I would. Squinge (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I! Everyone wants to be liked. That makes a lot of sense - thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether you meant that the 'crat could ignore your response, or ignore my !vote as a consequence of your response: glad that's cleared up. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds' own history seems irrelevant but the oppose is still not clear to me. Gung ho means "working together" in Chinese and, in English usage, means enthusiatic to the point of over-doing it.  But when I reviewed the candidate's recent contributions, they seemed quite desultory and lacking in enthusiasm.  Perhaps some examples would help in clarifying the point. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we hat these discussions rather than removing them to the Talk page?
Shouldn't we hat these discussions rather than removing them to the Talk page? Is there any precedence for moving all of this from the RfA page and from the !votes that inspired them? I ask as someone who has not !voted (nor !voted on any RfA ever), but who has been interested in reading the !votes and discussions. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't give you any specific RfA, but I've definitely seen it done before, and I'm not an RfA habitue. As long as the discussion is a side-issue, as it clearly is here, and directly relevant to the nominee's qualifications, and as long as a pointer is placed in the place where the discussion was emoved from, which was also done here, I don't think it's objectionable at all.  It is, after all, what Talk pages in general are designed for. BMK (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hatting them closes them, but moving them here allows them to continue. I think that, provided a note is left on the RfA page indicating the move (as has been done in all three cases here), then it's good to do it this way. --Stfg (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussions consist mostly of badgering, and discuss the !voters, not the candidate. Under the circumstances, the move was correct, the discussions being out-of-scope on the RfA page. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that moving opposed to hatting was appropriate. My comments and concerns about the nominee are valid, about the nominee, and have been removed from the RfA where they belong.  I agree there was a bunch of nonsensical badgering and ridicule of my comments, that makes them no less valid.  All of that said, I don't care to move the section back as it's just not worth it to me and I've stricken that oppose anyways.  So, I'd say just leave it as it is. —   15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to get the last word in with "nonsensical badgering and ridicule" isn't leaving it as is, dear :). Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * T13 - if what you'd done here wasn't so unthinkingly hurtful to another editor, I'd happily put it down as another example of the "comedy gold" you so unselfishly and constantly bring to this wiki. But it was, so I won't.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Begoon, I find that comment none of useful, helpful, or of the building of an encyclopedia. I just see another poke by you at me.  As such, I request that you stop harassing me with these useless comments.  Thank you. —   19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your request is noted. I'd recommend, though, that the best way to avoid other editors commenting on your poor behaviour is, well, not to behave poorly. As a technical person you will no doubt understand that when all observers are unanimous in telling you that you have acted badly, your singular belief that you have not is unsupportable. Your oppose in this RFA, prior to the backtracking attempt, has been so universally seen as disgraceful and self-serving that I'm frankly astonished you would do anything other than attempt to place a large distance between it and yourself. That's all the advice I have for you, really. Begoon &thinsp; talk  20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to precedent, moving discussions was done at least as far back as 2008, when my RfA happened, as was the practice of beginning new threads on a RfA's talk page that may never be mentioned on the "main" RfA page. My recommendation is to just add the RfA to your watchlist if you are interested in it and not worry overly much about where the discussion takes place. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, and, as you say, the watchlist alert still works for the talk page. Moving tangential discussions off the main page makes a certain amount of sense. Begoon &thinsp; talk  20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)