Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:38:03 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

WP:CHU

Hi Where's the discussion about the new templates and stuff on CHU? I currently don't get long periods onwiki, so haven't the time to search for it... --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what happened to the clerk bots? (I've been inactive at CHU for a spell as well; yeesh) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What new templates and stuff are you referring to exactly? Regards SoWhy 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the ones that pop up when you edit the page. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the new templates that pop up when editing. Where's the discussion? I can't even work out who did it and when because the nested transcluded subpages are too tricksy for my limited brain and limited time onwiki just now. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Exchanging two accounts

Hi, I'm an italian bureaucrat, user:GdaBaskerville asked me to help him arranging his account: he created also user:Giovanni Camporeale, now user Giovanni_Camporeale@en.wiki should be renamed into a temporary name, then GdaBaskerville@en.wiki should be renamed into Giovanni_Camporeale and finally the old Giovanni Camporeale into GdaBaskerville. Both the accounts are owned by the same user who have the full access. So I ask for the way he can do the request in the right way, thanks. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason he has two accounts? On English wikipedia, without an acceptable reason, we usually only allow one account per editor. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and in specific Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On it.wiki we allow declarate socks but he wants to use only one of them, he registred two account because he didn't know that an account can be renamed, now he wants his most important edits (that he made with GdaBaskerville account) be under his new username: Giovanni Camporeale. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept a request in these terms? --Vituzzu (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK, provided that the secondary account be retired and the primary account be the only one used going forward. Any other bureaucrats, clerks, or interested parties think otherwise? -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please have the user retire the User:GdaBaskerville account. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this account User:GdaBaskerville be closed and its user and talk pages be redirected to my new account User:Giovanni Camporeale. Thank you. --GdaBaskerville (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab‎

Resolved

 – --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've observed at least some canvassing (or close to it) at this RfA. Feel free to e-mail me for evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot disclose the evidence publically, please forward it to wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into this issue with Julian. There are some awkward legal and privacy issues which necessitate an offwiki approach. Julian and I are online at different times of day currently, which is making communication tediously drawn-out but it can't be helped. If I have anything to report, I will, working creatively within any strictures I encounter, and minimising drama. I can currently give no further detail than that and I'd appreciate your patience with this. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Having explored this, the RfA is fine to proceed to a normal close without any concern by the closing Crat. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions requested at WT:RfA

People seem to be requesting the opinions of more 'crats at Wikipedia talk:Rfa#Unexplained opposes. hmwithτ 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained my views above at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my, is that what you were looking for? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of Crat opinions are there. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw a few comments, but it seems people were looking for a straight answer on how 'crats interpret totally unexplained opposes and even unexplained supports in general. Perhaps, reading through the mess, I missed some good comments. Forgive me if so. :) hmwithτ 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the mess (and I agree my edits can charitably be called a mess; actually they're worse :D ) the upshot, at least in my opinion, is that not only is there no straight answer, but there can be no straight answer, for each RfA is unique and the same edit which may be given very little weight in one candidacy may be given more in another, as consensus is not only composed of individual edits, but also the relations between the various edits, the trends of opinions, and the back-and-forth discussions to name a few things. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true. For the record, I wasn't calling your comments a mess. I was referring to WT:RFA. I think almost everyone can agree that page is usually a mess. :) hmwithτ 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually ? Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with Soxbot?

Overdue RfB? It was just transcluded tonight? -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (X! · talk)  · @506  ·  11:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Participation in bureaucrat discussion when having opined on the candidate

In general, bureaucrats do not close RfX's in which they have participated. What about participating in a bureaucrat discussion? I raise this now as although there is plenty of time left, Julian's RfB may end up in the "gray" zone and there have been a number of bureaucrats, myself included, who have stated their support or opposition. I would like to have the following three cases discussed:

1. Participation in the discussion by a bureaucrat who opined in the RfX
2. Closure of an RfX that required a bureaucratic discussion where the consensus of bureaucrats is clear
3. Closure of an RfX that required a bureaucratic discussion where the consensus of bureaucrats is not clear

My personal opinions are:

1. I think that as a bureaucrat discussion is open for all to see, and no bits are being flipped and rights given during the discussion, there should not be an issue with a bureaucrat giving his or her opinion as to the what consensus was shown, if any, in an RfX in which they had participated. Stating an opinion about the candidate should not forbid the bureaucrat from discussing, in public, the consensus, and engaging in weighing the arguments pro and con. The concern that has the bureaucrats recuse from closing a discussion in which they have participated are that they may be subconsciously affected by their opinion and not the community's consensus. Here, it is solely a discussion as to how to read the community, which is further removed.
2. While for propriety's sake I believe this should be avoided, if it was done, I do not see this as a violation of trust, as they would only be implementing the collective discussion of the bureaucrats and not using their "own" judgment, as it were.
3. This should not be done by a bureaucrat who participated in the RfX for the same reason as to why they should not close such candidacies.

-- Avi (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if you !Voted, you should not close the RFx nor particpate in any "crat chat" discussion pertaining thereto. On the other hand, I feel if all you did was make a comment in response to a !Vote (such as asking what someone meant or clarify a point that was brought up) you could participate in said chat or close the RFx. So, to me, if you by "opined" you mean !Voted, I'd say said crat should not participate in any of your scenarios. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This despite the fact that the decision is not in the hands of the bureaucrat who opined and his or her opinion of the consensus is open for all, bureaucrat and non-bureaucrat alike, to see and identify if the arguments are logical and valid or not? -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be like an arb particpating in an RFC on an admin's conduct and then voting on a subsequent arb case on that admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think there is a difference, as in the arb case, the arb is being asked to use their judgment about the person and actions of the admin; in a bureaucratic discussion, the 'crats are asked to discuss the community's response--not the candidate themselves. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it: I don't care who closes the RFA/B, or who participates in any discussion. As long as they close it right, according to the consensus of the "vote/discussion", there is no issue for me. I wouldn't care if a bureaucrat closed the RFA of their own nominee, as long as they did it correctly and not against the wishes of the consensus developed. Majorly talk 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not close the RFx of my own nominee nor of one I !Voted in, not even an obvious case. Certainly not a gray area case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, but I'm saying I don't mind as long as it's done according to what the community wanted. I think bureaucrats have their hands tied enough as it is. Majorly talk 02:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's some wiggle room here, but I try to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. We all make mistakes, we're all human, but I simply try to avoid "asking for trouble" so to speak. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety, which is why I opened the discussion very early in Julian's RfB :) -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was sorted out a long time ago. Bureaucrats who !vote in an RfX do not participate in that RfX's closure or closure discussion. There are no ifs, ands or buts. Kingturtle (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the archives of that discussion, then, please? I'd like to see it, and, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, it may be prudent to revisit it and get opinions from the community again. -- Avi (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement with Kingturtle. I'm not sure if there is an actual archived discussion about it; it seems pretty straight forward. I'd be inclined not to bother asking the community, not because I don't want their opinion, but because I can't honestly fathom them being comfortable with a biased bureaucrat not recusing themselves (for example, I recused myself from Mazca's RfA because he is a friend I've known for years and I co-nommed [the latter because of the former], and I'll recuse myself again from any closure discussion for Julian's current RfB). However, it couldn't hurt to ask... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So you do not see a difference between opining on the candidate and opining on the community's response, in an open forum? -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a difference, but 'crats that have participated are likely to be somewhat biased. Obviously, if it were a life or death situation, I think a bureaucrat could purge any bias from their decision, but thankfully RfXs are rarely life or death situations. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat for historical reference, where User:Rdsmith4 was both a supporter of the RfA as well as a key bureaucrat in the discussion itself. Not saying that it was a good idea; just that bureaucrats haven't always seen the necessity to recuse themselves. NW (Talk) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Warofdreams participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat despite being support #40 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes. -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think that Avi's initial summation is correct: a bureaucrat should not be closing an RfX they've commented in, no matter what, but they can participate in the crat chat. However, I think they should mention in the crat chat that they've taken part in the RfX; I know there's already a public record that they've participated, but it would be best if it's clear just from reading the crat chat that they did, and I think that would still preserve the impression of crat impartiality; complete recusal from the crat chat isn't necessary.--Aervanath (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• If I was a bureaucrat, and I opined (voted) in an RfX, I would not comment in any crat chat that may follow. That said, I would only recuse myself because of my own personal views on the issue, not because I think that it would be unambiguously incorrect for a crat to opine in an RfX and comment on an ensuing crat chat. Opining on and then closing the same RfA is another matter, and I would never support crats doing that, except possibly if the RfA was obviously passing (e.g. 110/0/3) and was like 18 hours overdue or something. Pretty much, I feel that Rlevse sums it up well: there is no point in giving people an opportunity to accuse you of bias if you don't need to. Once again speaking hypothetically, if the other crats felt my opinion was desirable, they could/would ask me on the crat chat page or my talk page. If the other crats were absolutely deadlocked, I would probably say on the chat page what I thought, but I would not "vote" on the outcome or something similar, if it came to that. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In my RfB, I committed to not closing a RfX I made a significant contribution to, except under extraordinary circumstances (and that'd be pretty much never). Since passing RfB I therefore rarely make a significant contribution to RfX discussions in case I'm needed to close them.

I think a Crat chat is slightly different - when one is next needed, I'd like the widest possible participation by us - those who made significant contributions can and should state that up front. I would like to think that any Crat contributions to Crat chat would be about assessment of the RfX, rather than about the candidate's merits and I'd trust my colleagues to be able to separate the two. Avoiding closure of the RfX is because of the unilateral nature of it, and the obvious problem this can present. A Crat chat is collegiate, which negates this danger. And (say) four voices assessing something tricky are better than (say) two.

If consensus were to form that Crats should not participate in Crat chats where they have made significant contributions, I'd be urging my colleagues never to participate significantly in RfX. Which would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more about avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. While I agree that the crat chat as you describe it would be more about assessing the consensus of the discussion, if you have participated in that discussion your further participation in assessing the outcome of that discussion would be seen as a conflict of interest. This would only be in cases where you voiced one of the three opinions (Support, Oppose, Neutral), not if you asked for clarifications, or tagged likely SPAs. If you have participated in the discussion itself (not just asked for clarification), then you shouldn't be closing the discussion or participating in the assessment of the discussion prior to that closing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem that Avi raised here will only arise if at almost all active crats had !voted on the RfX in question because then it becomes a simple logistics problem. If only 1 or 2 crats remain who have not !voted, there will be noone to have a crat chat with, thus the crat who will have to close this RfX will not be able to consult anyone, which cannot be the desired outcome of a "no participation at all"-rule. As such, I think, similar to Dweller above, that participation in a crat chat should be allowed even if the crat in question has !voted on the RfX in those cases where otherwise there would simply be not enough crats to have a productive crat chat. After all, discounting the inactive ones, there is only 14 crats active (far too few imho), so it's quite realistic that 12 of them !voted in that particular RfX, especially if it's one where the candidate is controversial or well-liked. And 2 crats simply cannot have a "crat chat" in the sense of having a wider discussion about the closing and we cannot want that. So I think if say 75% of active crats participated on an RfX, we should make an exception to the rule that someone who participated cannot be involved in closing the RfX. But only then, because the concerns raised above are very valid after all. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In a case like that, perhaps, but I still think it should be avoided if at all possible. If that were to happen, then the ones who did !vote in the RfA should definitely be completely up front about things and double and triple check anything they write for possible bias. I trust all of them to do that, but there are plenty of people here who are looking for even the slightest misstep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as there is enough crats who have not participated, there should be no such considerations at all. Just in those cases where there aren't, we need to be able to have such a discussion taking place without people "revolting". Regards SoWhy 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past, it's been accepted that bureaucrats who have commented in an Rfx can take part in a bureaucrat discussion, but they are expected to state that they have commented - it's in the information I put together some time ago, at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. At the moment, there are plenty of active bureaucrats, so it's unlikely to cause difficulties if any who have participated recuse themselves, but if we ever return to a situation where only a small number of bureaucrats are active, such a policy could lead to chats which have few participants, who may not be the most involved. Warofdreams talk 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Resolved

Hi folks. Just thought I'd drop you a note about some issues that may be headed your way. At AN/I, several threads start here which involve a multitude of issues, including ones that you folks have already worked on. Content, blocks, bans, admin. conduct, and a whole conglomeration of things that you'll likely be seeing in the future. I'm sure some of you are aware of many of these things, but for those of you who don't keep close tabs on the AN boards I thought you might want to start your research. I hope I'm not out of line for posting here - just trying to keep folks from being blind-sided. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm suffering from TLDR - are there issues in there specifically relevant to Crats? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing specific to you guys yet. It's tough to follow given the multiple forks, twists & turns, and volume of participants. I think that Ancient Egyptian race controversy may be a focal point. Perhaps it's just a tempest in a teacup, but even the recent blocks and bans seem to be objectionable to some; in the sense that they aren't always applied equally. It seems to have quieted down over the last few hours, so hopefully it's simply a fire that's now died out. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm not familiar with many of the issues, or even many of the participants. Perhaps I saw more to it than there actually is. — Ched :  ?  15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's something there that relates to bots, username changes, or RfA/RfB, then it's not something that will come to the bureaucrats, unless you're calling on a 'crat as an outside WP:UNINVOLVED admin to evaluate consensus (in which case, any admin or experienced user can do it).--Aervanath (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course Aevanath. I guess it was just "outside the box thinking" (or rather hoping) that an "unofficial" solution could be found. Crats tend to have exceptional clue, along with community trust - so I thought perhaps something in-between the AN/I sideshow and the ArbCom "official channels" might find a solution in sorting out the whole thing. Thanks anyways for looking guys, I'll tag as resolved. — Ched :  ?  03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone feel like re-granting rights?

I am not as active as I would like to be but I do catch cross wiki spammers via Commons & Meta from time to time. I had sysop rights & dropped them a while back - I would make some use of them again I guess. Probably worth bearing in mind that such abuse is often in user: namespace so if deletions there bother folk....

AFAIK I was of "good standing" (of course it depends who you ask!).

Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, our speedy criterion G11 covers User: namespace spam as well, so there should be no bothering, should there? Anyway, (preemptively at the moment) welcome back :-) Regards SoWhy 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... but it doesn't always get deleted..... :) & thanks Avi (ec) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• •  Done - Welcome back, Herby! -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RfB promotion standard

Hi—just a quick question. I would be interested to know if any bureaucrats (who are still able to do so) are potentially going to consider closing Juliancolton's RfB as successful if it ends up having a percentage less than the traditional ~90%. I wouldn't normally think to ask, but this RfA was just successful at 67.8%, which is below the general 70% rule. I know that I didn't oppose the RfA because I didn't imagine it could possibly be closed as successful, and so my oppose vote would be unnecessary. I know it may not be a fair question, but I'd like to have a bit of heads up if such a closure may be coming our way again. Thanks! ÷seresin 09:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's far too soon to speculate on how this RFB will be closed and I would advice everyone to cast their !votes regardless of how it might seem the RfX is going. Dave's RFA is an example that no predictions can and should be made based on percentage and numbers alone but we should not make any deductions from this RfA to Julian's RFB. Or, to allow me to be bold and answer your question without being a crat: Closures that are not fitting the traditional support % examples can always occur and the crats will never close something as unsuccessful or successful based on such % alone, so you should not worry about it but cast your !vote anyway regardless of such concerns.

To phrase it another way: If the crats told you they would or would not close it as successful, would that really make a difference for what you think about whether Julian should be granted cratship? I don't think it would or indeed should, which makes the question moot. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As a participant, I may not be entirely impartial here, but I would advise everyone to participate based on the candidate and not the percentage. How the RfB is going shouldn't really be material to a person's opinion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy and Anonymous Dissident have given the correct answer. If you have any opinion on a candidate's suitability for adminship or bureaucratship, say so and say why, regardless which direction you think it's going. (It's your duty as a wiki-citizen, or something like that.) Also, there have been a number of successful sub-70% RFAs, which makes voting based on a guess at the outcome even more difficult. An RFA closed at 67.8% has not been as sure to fail as you suggest for a long time now. (However, RFB closing conventions have tended to change more slowly than those of RFA - to date, I don't think we have had any successful sub-90% RFBs, though someone with a better historical memory than I is welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken.) — Dan | talk 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there have actually been three, including on below 80%. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3 closed at 78/12/2 in July 2007, which is 87.67% support. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay closed at 143/16/4, which is 89.94% (ok so that's just barely below 90%). Finally, way back in 2004 Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cimon avaro closed at 11/3/2 which comes out to a (shockingly) low 78.57%. Cool3 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andre's has only 86,6% support and is the RFB with the lowest support ratio so far (not counting those from way back like Cimon avaro). Regards SoWhy 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite right my math seems to have been wrong. 86.7% if we round though :). Cool3 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, there was one more sub 90% "back in the day", the very first one to use the current format Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ed Poor passed at 28/4/2 which amounts to 87.5%. So of the 34 (I believe I counted right) RfBs since the initial mailing list selection, 4 passed with less than 90% support (11.8%), which is to say that it's really not that uncommon. Cool3 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought of RFB as >90% = almost sure pass, and >85% = maybe. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty rough calculation. There is a similar one for RfAs, >80% = pretty sure pass, >70% maybe and still Dan's aforementioned close of Dave's RFA shows us that success is always possible outside those numbers; so we should abandon such calculations and just discuss on the merits of a candidate. Regards SoWhy 17:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I don't think Cimon avaro's candidacy can be considered a reasonable outlier, or can be discussed to that end. There were 16 participants; percentages really don't come into it. The candidacy took place at a very early time in RfB history, and the atmosphere and standards are completely different today. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've put together hard data on all of the RfBs thus far to determine where consensus is now. Of course, the immediate fact that jumps out to anyone who glances through RfB is that it just doesn't happen much anymore. There have been 34 successful RfBs (not including those on the mailing list) since the beginning of the project. 16 of them, roughly half, occurred in 2004, and only 5 (14.7%0 occurred within the last 12 months. Thus, it is in fact rather difficult to talk in a definite sense about where the "modern" line falls.

Support Percentage Range	Total Successful	Unsuccessful	Percentage Successful
95-100%	21	0	100%
90-94.99%	7	0	100%
85-89.99%	4	3	57%
80-84.99%	0	6	0%
75-79.99%	1	9	10%
Less than 75%	0	55	0%

The conclusion from this data is that the crats do act roughly according to <90% is successful with a discretion zone of 85-90%. There is the one notable anomaly, of a successful RfA in the 75-80% range being successful. It was a long time ago (18 March 2004) and as stated above, it was also very low participation. I will leave you as to your own conclusions about whether or not that was a valid close and whether it has any applicability to today. Cool3 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the last attempt to find a community consensus for the requirements of a successful RfB was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. At the time, I attempted to distill what could be taken from the comments made on that page to a short statement to the effect that: "Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment." That formulation found some support on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Barring any changes that I am unaware of, this is true to this day. Obviously, we can't keep everyone happy, but what Will has said above seems to be what the majority of people agree is acceptable. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to view it in terms of Support:Oppose ratios. A percentage of 90% is a 9:1 ratio. A percentage of 80 is a 4:1 ratio. I agree that <4:1 ratio is in general not accepted and >9:1 is in general a no-brainer, and in between is where discussion and discretion take hold. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of percentages. Dave's RfA below proves that people are too hung up on raw numbers IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed closure of Davemeistermoab to admin.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs) has explained his close in detail. Consensus appears to be that Rdsmith4 has, by no means, abused his bureaucrat rights. Nothing sensible is going to happen here anymore, thus, I am archiving this “discussion”. — Aitias // discussion 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Davemeistermoab, closed 11 July by Rdsmith4 at (69/33/4) Could I ask here for a detailed explanation as to the figures and the considered points regarding the successful closing of Davemeistermoabs RFA by Rdsmith4. I see..69 supports and 33 opposes, close to 50 precent? I dispute this closure.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

For the record, 69/(69+33)= .6969 = 69.7% Dave (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've getting 67.64%, FWIW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, finger slip on the calculator, my apologies.Dave (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

edit C..That is a strange way to work out the figure, the number of supports divided by the total number of votes (neutral votes are ignored) gives a figure, what is that figure called? Its not 69.7 support is it, as the percentage of support is closer to 50 percent. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I still disagree with the closure and would like another B. to look at it, according to your figures the result is still a long way away from passing. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

That is the standard way to compute percentages.Dave (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And while it is a bit of an unusual close, consensus isn't determined by numbers alone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it called then this percentage? If you ask me the consensus from the votes was not to pass. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

To find the percentage of support, divide the number of supports by the total number of support and oppose votes cast. Julian is correct with both of his statements. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To calculate the support %, neutral !votes are not counted by long-standing consensus. They can range from anything like "I really like you but very tiny detail" to "just a tiny thing stops me from opposing" and as such they cannot simply be added to the "everything else" pile when it comes to percentage. Regards SoWhy 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

.....What do you call it, this figure? What is it's name?(Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

It's called "percentage in support" I'd say. Since we only examine supports and opposes to calculate it, the name is correct although somewhat misleading maybe. Regards SoWhy 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)Rob, I'm not sure if we've moved beyond the math or not. If we have please forgive. The %support and %oppose should sum to 100. Try it both methods and see which works.

• Method One: Support - 69/(69+33), Oppose - 33/(69+33)
• Method two: Support - 33/69, oppose - 69/33

Run those numbers, it should be obvious which is correct Dave (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I still dispute this closure, there was a strong opinion amongst the voters that dave was not ready. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Well Rob why don't you wait a little while and see what the crats' have to say? Chillum 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I must admit I am curious myself. Chillum 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To reach the desired 75 percent using these methods, you would need to include all the support votes as good informed votes and you would have to reject thirty percent of the opposes. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I supported Davemeistermoab's RFA, but to close an RFA at 67% as successful is wrong. I think Rdsmith4 has abused the community trust. We elect bureaucrats so that they listen to the community; we don't elect them so that they can pass their own judgment and turn a deaf ear to the community. In this case, only 67% editors supported the candidate. Bureaucrats should pass an RFA with less than 70% support only under the most extreme circumstances. There was no consensus to promote the candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agreeing with AdjustShift here. — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So Rdsmith4 should ignore the 67% who supported the candidate? Why should the minority of people get their way here? Especially if they were wrong. This is not a "deaf ear", Rdsmith4 clearly explained his closure. There's nothing wrong with this closure at all. It is not a nose-counting exercise, as you seem to believe. Clearly Rdsmith believed the arguments to promote the candidate were stronger. If/until Dave actually causes a problem, please stop causing a scene about this. Bureaucrats should be doing this more often, not less. Frivolous non-arguments are all too often counted by bureaucrats. Majorly talk 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Majorly, please go and read WP:RFA. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. If a candidate has 70-80% support, a bureaucrat can decide whether to promote or not to promote a candidate. So Rdsmith4 should ignore the 67% who supported the candidate? If you believe that candidates with 67% support should be promoted as admins, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and ask the community to introduce such a policy. The role of a bureaucrat is important when a candidate has 70-80% support. If the support is below 70%, bureaucrats should close the RFA as either "No consensus" or "Unsuccessful". If the support is over 80%, bureaucrats should close the RFA as successful. Bureaucrats should pass or fail an RFA with less than 70% support or over 80% support only under the most extreme circumstances. We elect bureaucrats to listen to the community. In this particular case, Rdsmith4 didn't listen to the community. AdjustShift (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a rule of thumb, not a set in stone policy. We have, FYI, had several RFAs closed as successful with less that 70%, and the admins have been fine. Rdsmith4 listened to the community, in that 67% of the voters argued for promotion, and he felt the 33% who did not had weak or invalid arguments. That's his job, as a bureaucrat. To find the consensus. It is not a head count, otherwise a bot would do it. He clearly listened to the community. If you want the rule of thumb made into a rule, go to the policy page and suggest it yourself. This was perfectly in line with the current guidelines. Majorly talk 23:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• There were no "Too many admins currently" type of opposes in the oppose side. I supported the RFA; but, the oppose side also had some valid points. AdjustShift (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::And knowing Marjorly's anger upset at his recent unsucsessful attempt at RFA, perhaps his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt(Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Red flag on the play there, Off2riorob. Not cool, not appropriate. More to the point, Majorly is saying the promotion is good. Not sure how his unfortunately unsuccessful RFA has much to do with that. → ROUX ₪ 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, please explain why you inserted and underlined a word in retracting your statementDave (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First I thought my comment was too strong and changed anger to upset and wanted to strike anger and underlined it as well as struck it by mistake and then changed my mind to strike the whole thing and have left an apology on Marjorly's talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Kinda curious how WP:BN has been mistaken for User talk:Rdsmith4. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd think this is the logical place to bring it up, in order to gain the input of as many crats as possible. → ROUX ₪ 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the closing statement ended with "I will be glad to answer any further questions" and this thread started off with "Could I ask here for a detailed explanation as to the figures and the considered points regarding the successful closing of Davemeistermoabs RFA by Rdsmith4" (emphasis mine), it should have been taken to Dan first and foremost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I just can't believe what Rdsmith4 did. He is a steward of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Promoting a candidate with only 67% support is just unacceptable. As an admin, I can't block whoever I want; I've to listen to the community. I want Everyking to be an admin; I supported his RFA. I want Ironholds to be an admin; I supported his RFA. But, the community thinks otherwise. As a Wikipedian, I've to respect the wishes of the community. This is an example of abuse of power by a "trusted member" of our community. AdjustShift (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't only 67%. That's quite a high figure in a vote. Consider real life elections, such as those for the UK. You'd be lucky getting more than 40%. In any case, how is it "just unacceptable"? A massive 3% out of the rule of thumb is that awful how? The wishes of the community were to promote Dave. You cannot measure that in numbers, but the bureaucrat is supposed to figure it out. Rdsmith4 figured there was community consensus.
• As an admin, you can block without listening to the community. No one is going to complain that you didn't ask before blocking a vandal. This promotion is completely uncharacteristic of "abusive". You disagree with it, yes, that doesn't make it abusive in any way. Is there any way Rdsmith4 is affiliated with Dave that makes him biased? Did he support the candidate? Is he friends? I simply cannot see the abuse. Abuse needs a motive, and I can't see it, at all. Please don't go throwing words like abuse without thinking of the consequences. Majorly talk 23:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Majorly on this one. While I'm not sure this was the right decision – if I was a crat, I'd probably have closed it no consensus – the whole point of discretion is the element of choice. Otherwise, we could just automate the process. (FWIW, ^demon 3's and Krimpet's RFAs were successful with lower percentages, so it's not like we're in some unheard-of territory here.) – iridescent 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would have probably closed this as no consensus. The opposition arguments were fairly strong in my view. But, there has been no abuse here, and this promotion is quite within community norms. An unusual amount of opposition, but again, it's not just a headcount. The opposition said little about the candidate as an admin, more about other unrelated issues. If the opposers had perhaps brought up problematic speedy-deletion tagging, grossly uncivil behaviour, a long block log for edit warring or whatever, maybe Rdsmith4 would have given them a stronger base. As such the opposes were mostly something unrelated to working as an admin. Majorly talk 23:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Iridesant has linked to two other successfull similar promotions, One in 2007 and one in 2008, I would call this kind of promotion rare, we would rather wait for the closers comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

• Majorly, please stop talking about UK's election. I'm not a British, and I have zero interest in those elections. Rdsmith4 thinks that there was a consensus to promote the candidate, but Iridescent disagrees with him. And many other editors will agree with Iridescent. Rdsmith4 made no effort whatsoever to do what WjBscribe did during Riana's RFB. See Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion. He should have at least talked with other bureaucrats before making his decision. Rdsmith4 may think that there is a consensus to promote the candidate, but lot of editors will disagree with him. AdjustShift (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• And many will agree with Rdsmith4. Is disagreement now the same thing as abuse? Rdsmith has been a bureaucrat for nearly four years, and is normally very good at explaining his closures, of which he has made some difficult ones. Did you actually think of asking for an explanation on his talk page, before making wild accusations of abuse on here? Majorly talk 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• What "wild accusation"? I strongly believe that bureaucrats should pass an RFA with less than 70% support only under the most extreme circumstances. His decision to close the RFA as "successful" was incorrect. He didn't listen to the community. AdjustShift (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/all (warning, 300kb page) shows that there have been 5 RfAs closed with less than 70% supporting. RfAs are not a vote, but instead an attempt to find consensus among the community, as judged by a bureaucrat. Consensus isn't found by counting votes, but by measuring the strength of arguments. It doesn't matter whether we particularly agree or disagree with this call; the bureaucrats have the power to weigh supports and opposes differently, and Dan clearly did. The bureaucrats are not obligated to open a 'crat chat even in cases not within the traditional discretionary zone if they feel that after weighing the opinions, consensus is clear. In any case, I probably should not have even said as much, as my original intent in coming here was to ask us to wait for Dan to come and further explain. NW (Talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, my dear, you are absolutely right. At least two of them (Successful RFA with less than 70% support) were very controversial. Yes, RfAs are not a vote, but instead an attempt to find consensus among the community. Bureaucrats should try to "find consensus" when a candidate has 70-80% support. Rlevse did that perfectly on two occasions. See Rootology's RFA and Aervanath's RFA. When support level falls below 70%, bureaucrats shouldn't promote the candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• The 'crat chat on Riana's RfB is in no way analogous to the situation here. This is getting ridiculous; let's just wait for Dan to actually respond to this thread. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• EVula, Dan should have consulted other bureaucrats. He should have at least talked to couple of bureaucrats before passing the RFA. AdjustShift (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your opinion, which you're certainly welcome to, but I fail to see the parallel between this RfA (which was rather hum-drum with the exception of its closure) and Riana's RfB, which was rather unique in both the sheer number of participants and the fact that there was a concurrent discussion about what the passing consensus threshold was. Hence, my statement that the two are not analogous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Majorly, "the opposition said little about the candidate as admin" is a gross misrepresentation. There were many voices expressing concern that a misunderstanding of core content policies made the candidate unfit for deletion work, and many more pointing out his complete track record in deletion - the area he expressed interest for. Likewise, stop talking about 67% support, surely if so many opposes have been overlooked or discounted, the "support because of opposes" must have been discounted too. This closure most definitely requires more ample explanation from the closer, not preemptive attempts to shut up those who dare ask the question by others. Let's hear from Rdsmith. MLauba (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, there's no point in having this argument. Let's wait for Rdsmith to chime in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

edit C..[Here] are the closers recent contributions. Have a look. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

As far as I can tell, he's never failed to respond to queries in the past. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear a detailed rationale for the closure. As it stands, it seems like the sky's the limit. Might as well disregard all the opposes in JC's RfB that mention his age. After all, age has nothing to do with the ability to close RfA's, authorize bots, yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that nobody bothered to inform Dan that this thread was here; I did so not too long ago, but he hadn't edited several hours prior to my comment. We're better off simply waiting for for him to respond rather claim abuse or using questionable math or [insert drama form here]. (I, for one, am not commenting on the RfA itself until Dan's had a chance to comment) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I went to Dan's talk page to see if he had posted anything and saw your note to him, directing him here. Otherwise I would have posted there. There seems no point in splitting the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My note came more than an hour and a half after this thread was started. (although, admittedly, both were a few hours after Dan's last edit, suggesting he may be in bed; I really don't envy him for having to deal with all this drama first thing in the morning) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

's OK, he'll save money on liquid caffeine. That thumping of his heart when he sees that orange message banner and then follows it here, it's better than Nescafe!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the supports, there are quite a few with no comment at all, just a signature? Are these votes good? Is no comment better than a comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Is this really where this is headed? Dragging out every fathomable repeated question about the RfA process before the closing bureaucrat has responded? Is it really that difficult to wait? There's an entire encyclopedia right here we could work on while we wait, and entire world out there as an alternative (though I think some people would reverse those two in terms of priority, and they'd be correct to do so). Everyone needs to disengage for a bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a rare occurrence, according to the figures here..only 5 similar closures in over 5 years. The closer has recently posted, so we may get some insight soon. I would also suggest that to make a controversial disputable decision like this the closer would perhaps be better to be more involved in the day to day situation here at the wikipedia.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob, could you please allow time for the closing bureaucrat to comment? Thank you, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I've only recently become aware of this thread, having been out all day. I have every intention of replying in detail; unfortunately I have to go away again just now, but I'll be back soon. If I may, I'd like to offer a polite reminder to those who are clamoring for an immediate response - we are all volunteers, even the bureaucrats, and have our extra-wiki obligations (usually these are the condition of our being able to participate in this project in the first place). Also, when I reply I intend to do so carefully - I don't like to fire off quick rejoinders, which tend toward the counterproductive. Cheers — Dan | talk 01:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed the demand for immediate comment, looking forward to reading the well considered one. Thank you for taking the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Rdsmith4, I can only suggest that anyone involved in the discussion use this time to look at the opposing votes and the supports to weigh up the possible decisions on closure. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Alternatively, we could use this time to contribute or review encyclopedia content. The rationale behind the closure of a borderline RfA is hardly of such moment that everyone needs to "down tools" to focus on it. The closing bureaucrat will post some reasoning in due course - if there's a need for further debate over it we will all have the opportunity at that time. Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Without hearing Dan's rationale, I agree with Majorly and Irridescence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. After all, we should expect closures at the 3sigma level and, given the structure of wikipedia, it is a fait accompli anyway. However, just because the decision is unlikely to be reversed or RegentsPark thinks it fine, I don't see anything wrong in discussing/criticizing/supporting the closure (politely, of course) because that's how the community learns and moves forward. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (Addendum on rereading my comment: I do not mean to imply that Balloonman or anyone else thinks otherwise re the discussion.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole reason to have the 70% criteria is that below this the bureacrat should have no discression. This decision tramples on the opinions of wikipedians. If opposes are reduced to votes based on their rationales then support votes often have much weaker rationales and should be reduced likewise. A terrible terrible descision. I am losing my faith in this project the more I see corruption stuff like this. Be bold and reverse this mistake. Polargeo (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'Corruption' is pushing it a little far. → ROUX ₪ 07:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I just felt it was using bureaucratic powers beyond what is allowed by the community. If it was a politician doing this that is the term that would be used. However, I just fired that one off without thinking. Sorry again. Polargeo (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is all completely ridiculous, and unfair on Dan. He hasn't even been given a chance to respond properly yet. Please, everyone, stop posting here until the rationale has been produced. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Unfair maybe, but completely ridiculous is too strong. People are entitled to raise questions about how bureaucrats perform their duties and entitled to replies to those questions. Whilst I may wish they had phrased those questions differently and shown greater calm and patience, I don't think dismissing genuinely held concerns as ridiculous is helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's true; people are entitled to question. The display here is not reasonable, though, in my mind. That's a frank phrasing, but I feel it to be true. Rdsmith has promised an answer, and yet criticism of the outcome and demands for an answer have continued unabated. The community's questions will be answered. I never meant to characterise the concerns are ridiculous – the lack of patience and escalation of the situation are what are out of order. Still, perhaps "ridiculous" was too strong; I take your comment on board. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anonymous Dissident, it is unfair on the community if a bureaucrat promotes a candidate with less than 70% support. AdjustShift (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  It is? Has there been a discussion since I resigned as a bureaucrat on this project that established a consensus that bureaucrats have no discretion to close an RfA with less that 70% support as successful? I don't think there has been and looking back over the last half dozen successful RfBs, I note that no candidate has acknowledged such a rule or stated that they would never promote under 70%. I think the best formulation of what agreement there is on this area remains that candidates with over 80% support are likely to be successful and those with less than 70% are unlikely to be. It is open to a bureaucrat to determine that a consensus exists for promotion below that percentage - indeed a large proportion of the community is adverse to consensus being tied to numbers at all. The onus is on Rdsmith4 to explain his reasons for finding that a consensus for promotion exists once questions are raised. I do think it more polite to ask such questions on his talkpage than here. If you are unsatisfied with how he is performing his duties as a crat, then your recourse would be a user conduct RfC to establish whether your concerns are widely shared. But like others, can I encourage you to wait and listen for further explanation from Rdsmith4? WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input, WJB. I've never said that there is a rule on en.wikipedia that says bureaucrats should never promote under 70%. Bureaucrats should pass an RFA with less than 70% support only under the most extreme situations. I will wait for further explanation from Rdsmith4. AdjustShift (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What we are missing here

Surely it was the fact that I was voting that was discounted? I opposed on the grounds that the candidates' style was truly appalling (fact) and that some of the sourcing was very strange (many sources did not appear to match the claims made in the article). If you take my vote out, and Ottava's (who opposed on the sourcing grounds alone) then that gets us back to 70%, correct? Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I read it is that bureaucrats should only have the discretion to decide your arguments are wrong when there is at least 70 % support. Here the power has been used in a case when it should not have been used. Oppose votes should only be discounted in this circumstance if they are genuinely invalid such as sockpuppet. Below 70% support is not in the bureacrat's discretion to decide Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In effect this descision by an individual has ruled that editing standards do not matter in an RfA. This is terrible. Bureaucratic powers are not given for bureacrats to make this sort of decision. Editing articles is fundamental to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once that point had been discussed, several folk including the outstanding article writer Irridescent felt it wasnt a valid reason to oppose. Its human nature that many wont change their initial position even when the evidence suggests they should re-evaluate, so its great we have crats bold enough to use their discretion.

This was an outstandingly brave and well judged closure. RfA / RfB are not votes. A key phrase from the main RfA page is "most of those below ~70% fail" . The qualifier "most" clearly implies a significant minority of cases below the 70% threshold can still be passed. Had the folk who drafted the page wanted to communicate that say less than 1 in 20 of such cases would pass, they'd have said something like "the vast majority of those below 70% will fail"

Were RfA a vote , a small group with the kind of morals that allow them to stoop to canvassing and socking could easily blackball any candidate they like – a single oppose vote being sufficient to cancel out 3 supports. It would be only logical for such a group to oppose good hearted honest folk like Dave. It might cause unnecessary drama if Dan reminds us that such corruption was suspected in this RfA, but as a wiki non entity I can hopefully make this point. An exemplary case of someone in power putting the good of the community ahead of his desire to avoid hassle. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Article-writing is not fundamental to being an admin. I have seen some editors decline admin nominations because they felt it would take them away from writing the articles they enjoyed. You need no experience in editing articles to block a vandal, to pick one example. None of the admin tools aid in writing articles. An admin has to know when (and when not) to: delete/undelete pages, protect/unprotect pages, block/unblock users, edit protected pages, and perform complicated page moves. They also have to be able to abide by and enforce our conduct policies. The only one of those powers which involve skill in editing is the power to edit protected pages, and those are usually templates or controversial articles. If they are templates, then article-writing skill isn't needed. If it's a controversial article, then all they need to do is determine whether their edit has consensus on the talk page, and determining consensus is also not something which requires article-writing skill. So where is the need for article-writing?--Aervanath (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest you both read Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_to_see carefully. Requirement on article writing and excellence are clearly spelled out. Until the day that there is a clear separation of powers between those who are promoted for content contribution, and those who are promoted for administrative ability and dispute settling, I will oppose any RfA where there is clear lack of contribution to the project in 'article space'. Being a 'good hearted honest [chap]' is just not enough. Peter Damian (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be different from your announcement that you'll oppose every RFA, somehow? Something something post hoc ergo propter hoc something something. → ROUX ₪ 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No I won't oppose every RfA. Of course not. Please assume good faith. Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In your own words, you said you would oppose every RFA. Don't give me a bunch of tosh about assuming good faith when I'm using your own statements. → ROUX ₪ 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I said exactly that, and it was certainly not intended. Please stop this attempt to smear good-faith attempts at improving the RfA process. Peter Damian (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Riiiight. Facts are not 'smearing,' but whatever. "I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator." were your precise words. → ROUX ₪ 08:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And I have consistently been opposing - except for one case (Skomorohk) where I did support briefly, but moved back to oppose based on a careful consideration of the candidate's contributions and views and understanding of policy. There are RfA's coming up that I certainly intend to support, based on my careful research. This smearing is what you get from people who don't bother to do the necessary background work. See my work on the Skomorokh case. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do me two favours, ok? 1) Stop calling facts 'smearing'. Saying something repeatedly don't make it so, and 2) Stop assuming I'm stupid. Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay so lets make a new RfA rule. Any oppose based on editorial ability is invalid. While we are at it lets make this an invalid support as well. Ridiculous! Polargeo (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Way to miss the point here. → ROUX ₪ 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the points here is that there is a position of thought around with the opinion that some of the Wikipedian Users voting at RFA don't know what they want and that the crats should just throw away these foolish voters away and pass the vote anyway. Voters often do not say what they really feel when they vote, as sometimes that is frowned upon here, so they say , agree with harry, or just sign there name. But what they are saying after asuming good faith, is that they vote this way or that way and it is not good to discount many or even any peoples votes. The good votes and the bad votes generally will cancel themselves out in a RFA. Taking away the respect for a Users vote is detrimental to the User and to the Wikipedia. All votes are equal, whatever they write. Of course there will be one or two spoilt votes that the closer needs to take into consideration but not as in this case here, which is the acceptance of every support vote and the rejection of thirty percent of the opposes. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

!votes aren't "accepted" or "rejected", they're considered in proportion to the strength of their arguments. But on a wider issue - you've asked for the closing bureaucrat's rationale in a borderline RfA, and they've said they will provide it shortly. There seems little point in repeating your concern multiple times while we await that rationale. There's many more useful things to do in the mean time, and you'll certainly have a chance to restate your views once the rationale is received. On an even wider issue, in future when you have a concern about someone's action, it's often worth raising it with them on their talk page first. I notice none of the editors opposed to Rdsmith's decision have so far bothered to ask him directly, and suggest this might have been a worthwhile (and courteous) thing to have done. Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary controversial decisions like this, achieve nothing except reduce peoples individual authority and increase the sweeping powers of the we know best governing authority. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

The closing bureaucrat's rationale (as given in his closing statement) was clearly flawed and biased, no statement can change that fact. He excluded oppose votes that focused on article contributions but accepted the greater number of support votes that did the same. That can hardly be considered even-handed, but I do not have the slightest expectation that this unsatisfactory situation will be resolved by anyone showing a little bit of honesty or integrity. After all, an admin is for life. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How long is it respectful to wait for a comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Given that it's been all of a day or so since the RfA was closed, and that the candidate has not yet been seen deleting the main page, I think we can wait a couple of days to let Dan write a thorough rationale when he has time.--Aervanath (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially as he said he had RL chores to take care of; Sunday is a day many of use to take care of errands as we are not working. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people of position here should do what they know is a controversial action here in their position of authority and then walk away, this is like some kind of drive by, this decision should never have been taken on his own when he is an infrequent user to say the least, less than fifty edits in the last three months.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I think that you have to accept that people aren't going to wait 2 or 3 days before discussing this issue, and that there will be a certain amount of talk, and perhaps it will guide Dan when he gets around to writing his response. Meantime I have to get outside, we are all chanting "Where is my !vote?" and "Jimbo is great!"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Article writing experience

Reply to Peter Damian (from above): Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_to_see is merely a description of what a lot of RFA voters look for. It's not a prescriptive rule in any way. I am aware that a lot of editors here disagree with me on this issue, and believe that article experience is necessary for adminship; my own RFA last November generated a fair bit of conversation along those lines, based mostly around my lack of article experience. However, I was promoted despite those objections, and I think I've done an OK job of being an admin, if I do say so myself. There have also been other admins who were promoted despite a lack of contributions in the realm of article contributions, because their other contributions showed a sufficient amount of WP:CLUE. Again, you are free to disagree with me on whether article experience is necessary to be an admin, and I'm certainly not going to argue that the bureaucrats should ignore arguments based on that, because it is clear that many editors do feel that this is a necessary criterion, even if (in my opinion) they are incorrect. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Aervanath, you are right; article writing is not important for admins. Article writers like Malleus Fatuorum, Ironholds, Everyking, Dr. Blofeld, and Ottava Rima should do all the hard work, and admins should play bullies on en.wikipedia.

Aervanath, your RFA was at 72% support. It was over 70% and below 80%. It was within bureaucratic discretion. AdjustShift (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Come now, AS. The skill sets of 'content developer' and 'good admin' are not the same, and while some people may possess both, such people are in the minority. → ROUX ₪ 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't helpful. Can we please hold our respective horses and stop the negative speculation? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift, you are perfectly correct that my RFA was well within bureaucratic discretion; that wasn't my point. I'm just pointing out that not everybody feels article writing experience is integral to being an admin, in contrast to what Peter Damian claimed above. I haven't had much to do with the article writers you just named, which I think proves my point that there's actually not much overlap between article writing and being an admin. If there were, I'd probably have interacted with them a lot more. I'm not saying this to comment on Rdsmith4's close, because I have no opinion on this either way. I'm simply stating my belief that content work is not a necessary prerequisite for adminship. For some people, it seems to be. I'm not sure how to take your "bullies" comment; is this a comment on admins in general or on me in particular? If it's on me personally, I always welcome constructive criticism on my talk page. If it's on admins in general, could you expand here? Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with all the users who are calling on this to slow down while we wait for Rdsmith4's further input. I'm just talking about the general issue of requiring article experience for adminhood, not the specific RfA currently being debated. --Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Aervanath, the "bullies" comment was directed neither at you, nor at admins in general. The comment was directed at certain admins who are more interested in the political side of WP rather than content building. Aervanath, I personally believe that you are a good admin, and I agree with you on most occasions. But, I disagree with you that content building is not necessary for admin candidates. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

Could everybody please stop frivolously posting here until Rdsmith4 gets a chance to explain his decision? He's been a bureaucrat for four years, and an editor for even longer; I'm sure he knows what he's doing. There's no point in speculating. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I think we should all wait for Rdsmith4's explanation. AdjustShift (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

As I said in my initial closing statement, I am glad to respond to questions - RFAs like this are excellent opportunities to explain the niceties of RFA procedure to anybody who may have forgotten, or to members of the community who may be too new to have lived through the thrill-a-minute history of RFA.

RFA is neither purely a vote nor purely a discussion. This is true of both aspects of the process - the week-long comments-gathering period as well as the closure by a bureaucrat. The comments-gathering period involves both voting - adding your signature to a numbered list in either the "support" or the "oppose" section - and discussion, since you are also obliged to give some semblance of a reason for your vote, to which other users often respond. The closure process likewise involves vote-counting, to arrive at a final percentage of support, as well as reading the discussion that has occurred and making an informed judgment on the basis of all information present. (For those who may not be aware, the final percentage of support is defined as S/(S+O), or in this case 69/(69+33) = 67.6%.)

The percentage serves to place the RFA into one of four general categories, three of which specify a default outcome. These categories serve as an initial heuristic to the closing bureaucrat: they give him a fair, but incomplete, idea of what the community thinks. The categories and their default outcomes are:

1. >80% : clear consensus in favor; strong pass.
2. <50% : clear consensus against; strong fail.
3. 50<x<70% : no clear consensus; weak fail.
4. 70<x<80% : status indeterminate; no default outcome specified.

These percentage ranges have changed gradually over the history of the project, and should never be taken as permanent; but they seem to give an accurate description of RFA procedure at the moment.

Category 4 is usually called the "discretionary zone," because it does not specify a default outcome of any kind. The bureaucrat thus has no choice but to use his discretion - his qualitative judgment, informed by the discussion that has taken place in the RFA - to arrive at a decision. But of course Category 4 RFAs are not the only ones in which a bureaucrat must use some discretion. Inasmuch as he is not a bot, it is his duty to pay attention what has actually been said in the RFA, regardless what the numbers may look like. And of course the outcomes specified by the categories are only defaults - they are not strict, inviolable instructions to the closing bureaucrat.

So, after coming up with a final percentage and placing the RFA into one of the four basic categories, the bureaucrat's next task is to read through the RFA, paying special attention to the reasons given by voters for their votes, plus whatever discussion of those reasons may have occurred. If he finds no reason to depart from the default (in the cases where there is a default), then the decision is made. This is what happens most of the time. Sometimes, however, in reading the discussion the bureaucrat may receive a different impression than that provided by the initial head-count. This results in a non-default closure. Obviously in these situations he is expected to provide a closing statement explaining his decision, which is what I did in Dave's case. I don't know how many of those commenting here read my closing statement - in any case very few have responded to it directly, and some have asked questions answered by it - so I'll go over my reasoning again.

Dave's RFA fell numerically into category #3, meaning my initial impression was that it was unsuccessful, though barely. On reading it, I noticed that a lot of attention was paid in the oppose section to questions raised by Ottava Rima regarding Dave's citation practices - an issue having to do with the writing of articles. Writing articles is not an administrative task - none of the administrative 'tools' has to do with writing articles. In order for these comments to be relevant to an RFA discussion, whose purpose is to talk about the candidate's suitability for adminship, it would have to be claimed that Dave's citation practices suggest general habits that seem likely to carry over into administrative work. However, these voters did not argue that Dave was untrustworthy in general - only that he seemed to have been acting based on a misinterpretation of a few policies, which may even have been standard practice among contributors to road articles and so not uniquely Dave's fault. So this is an easily correctable error having to do only with one aspect of writing articles, and not a habit that bespeaks deeper dispositional issues that might be relevant to admin tasks. Accordingly, even if these concerns are valid, they are not about Dave's suitability for adminship per se. The fact that quite a few of the opposing voters (about a third, I'd guess) gave Dave's citation pratices as their reason led me to conclude that the initial impression provided by the final percentage was misleading: enough of the reasoning in the oppose section lacked the appropriate degree of rigor and relevance that I decided a non-default outcome was required.

Three final notes in response to some specific comments above:

• Some of you have asked why I did not mention the other significant group of oppose voters, those raising concerns about experience. It has even been suggested that I have ignored these votes. Naturally I have done nothing of the kind - I read them all, and it seems to me they were exactly the right kind of reasons for the oppose section of an RFA. They are directly based on the candidate's own wiki-history, and are directly related to his suitability for specific administrative tasks. (Obviously I make no judgment as to whether they are true of the candidate; that's not my job.) Had the opposing voters all been as rigorous as this, or had there been wider agreement that the candidate lacked experience, doubtless the RFA would not have succeeded. But those opposing for experience comprised only about half of all those opposing - not enough, on their own, to bring about the failure of the RFA. And my concerns with another third of the opposing votes were enough to convince me that the RFA was to pass.
• Some others of you have wondered why I did not say anything about the support comments. The reason is this: the burden is on those opposing an RFA nomination to give convincing reasons that the candidate is not suited to adminship, rather than on those supporting to give reasons he is suited. (The exception is of course the nominating statement, which is something like a letter of recommendation.) This is perhaps the only way in which it is still true that "adminship is no big deal."
• No part of my decision to promote Dave turned on the first opposing vote, which mentioned an awkward sentence the candidate had written in an article. I'd like to see much more discussion of the relevance of communication skills to adminship, and of the best way of evaluating a candidate's communication skills, before I'm confident taking a bureaucratic stand on the matter.

As I hope the above has shown, I have not by any means "turned a deaf ear" to the community - to the contrary, I'm listening as closely as ever, and exercising my own discretion in such minimal ways as seem to encourage a high standard of discussion at RFA. My apologies for the delayed arrival of these remarks. — Dan | talk 18:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Reading your not too frequent edits , it is easy to read that you have the opinion that the standards for Adminship are set too high, this is your opinion and not a policy, can you say that you have not allowed your personal opinionns on the matter give personal bias to your community decision. And.. do you not think that this is a controversial decision? considering the small percentage of comparable promotions.. and.. did you not stop to think that considering the controversial nature of your decision and your relative infrequent involvment in the wikipedia that it would have been better to pass over involment or at least to have asked another bureaucrat for a second opinion? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob. You told us of your personal impression of the opposes. Didn't it occur to you that some people did not want to spell out the possible implications of an editor putting material not found in a reference into an article, reffed by that reference? I think we can look forward to even less collegial RfA's as people strive to make very sure their opposes are not disregarded by relating their concerns to the personal traits we hope for in administrators. At the very least, shouldn't you have consulted with other crats to see if what you "seemed" to see was what they saw?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid their not wanting to explain the relevance of their votes is precisely the kind of shortcoming that I am talking about. I know of no other way to keep extraneous and irrelevant concerns out of RFA other than by a minimal requirement that each voter explain why something about the candidate makes him suitable or not for the specific jobs that administrators do. — Dan | talk 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the implications of the apparent violations were fairly clear. I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you seized on the unwillingness of !voters to explain things further (I saw very little "Huh? Why is that relevant to adminship?", thus I assume that most participants knew what it meant). However, I guess it now becomes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." When I feel strongly enough about an RfA to oppose, I will explain in whatever detail is necessary how and why that relates to adminship. I'd rather not have my !vote cast aside a second time. Thanks for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain in detail why you did consider a bureaucrat discussion unnecessary? Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I take "crat chats" to be in order when questions have arisen in an RFA about the procedure itself - i.e., when we don't have any conventions to help individual bureaucrats figure out what to do in a particular situation. Since I was hardly wandering into uncharted territory with this particular decision, I didn't think it necessary to enlist other bureaucrats to advise me or collaborate in making the decision. If this decision provokes any serious discussion about the role of bureaucrats, and if that discussion points toward a sea change in the community's understanding of what bureaucrats do at RFA, then of course I will be the first to acknowledge the change, but there was nothing innovative about this particular decision - aside, perhaps, from its being a slightly bolder application of already-established conventions. — Dan | talk 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dan, with all due respect, it is not up to the closing bureaucrat to judge whether certain rationales are related to or immediately applicable to admin-duties/tasks. Only in extreme cases when certain votes are either abusive, pointy or malicious can they be disregarded. Crats determine consensus - plain and simple. And here, there certainly was none to promote. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, might I point out that you obviously had a very subjective view of this RfA given your closing statement, and the statements above. In this case, it would have been best to recuse yourself from closure. If you want to weigh in on the discussion, do so, or if you are so inclined, disagree with the opposition and then vote support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I have no opinion of the candidate - I knew nothing about him before closing his RFA. I made my decision on the basis of what the voters said, not on the basis of my judgment of the candidate himself. To be sure, this is still in some sense "subjective," but as you can see, closing an RFA is basically a task of interpretation - there can be no objectivity here. — Dan | talk 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never implied that you had personal feelings regarding the candidate, only that you appear to have very strong opinions regarding what kind of opposes are acceptable. Unless there was some wankery going on, it isn't a crat's place to decide. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

editC..::You have no opinion of the candidate, but you do have opinions of the process, which you have recently stated, can I ask you to confirm that you closed this RFA with regards to the current policys and not your stated personal opinion, also given your stated opinion that the levels for adminship are set too high, I would say that your held beliefs and your relative limited involvment in the wikipedia should have strengthened the importance of requesting a second opinion on this closure. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the burdon of proof is on the opposers, this is not an excuse to blindly accept all and every support. These votes should also be considered for relativity. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I would also like to know which votes you have discounted, these editors will I am sure like to know why, so they can avoid the same rejection in the future. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

• I am a strong believer in Assume Good Faith. As such, I can only hope that such people accused of violating our most important policies immediately correct themselves and did not do so maliciously. As such, I am unable to legitimately claim that they are untrustworthy or did it maliciously. The decision that raising views with the implicit connection to inability to trust (i.e., you accuse someone of theft do you still think they can be trusted holding your money?) without actually spelling it out no longer has any kind of impact is a little troubling. I struck my vote before this because I have received word that my vote would be discounted anyway. I bring up a major violation that shows that a user has violated our most important rules over a very long period of time and probably should result in a ban and not adminship, and I am called a troll. Of course a Crat was going to ignore my vote. I'm just glad that I was not blocked or banned. But yes, I care far more about my ability to add good content while abiding by all of the content rules, so this will be the only thing I say on the matter. I'm sure you can fill in the obvious blanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Before Dan posted this, I had a "what the heck did he just do" feeling. However, after hearing this response, I'e changed my mind. This is exactly why we elect bureaucrats: to weigh each argument individually. For those of you who say that he's just bringing his own personal opinion in to the argument, let me just say that he was discounting opinions that had to do with quality of writing, which does not directly relate to adminship. A techer of mine once said that "you get the leaders you deserve". Rdsmith4 was elected by the community to judge consensus, and you can't say it's his fault for doing his job. (X! · talk)  · @844  ·  19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rdsmith4, you have tried to justify your decision to promote Davemeistermoab despite the fact that there was no consensus to promote the candidate. I've problems with your explanation.

• Davemeistermoab's RFA fell numerically into category #3, so it was not within the bureaucratic discretion. Bureaucrats should promote a candidate whose RFA is in category#3 only under the most extreme situations. There were no "Too many admins currently" or "Oppose - The candidate has too little Template talk edits" type of opposes.
• Writing articles is not an administrative task - none of the administrative 'tools' has to do with writing articles. Disagree. Admin tools have nothing to do with article writing directly, but they are related indirectly. When you write articles, you understand the core policies of en.wikipedia such as WP:V, WP:RS, and so on. When you know the fundamental policies of en.wikipedia, you are likely to become an effective admin.
• Peter Damian and Ottave Rima raised some valid concerns. I supported Davemeistermoab's RFA per ChildofMidnight's rationale (en.wikipedia is a collaborative project, so perfection is not required). But, the oppose side had valid concerns.

Rdsmith4, your rationales are flawed. You excluded oppose votes that focused on article writing but why didn't you exclude support votes without any rationale? Rdsmith4, you have done lots of nice things for en.wikipedia, but I think you committed a blunder by closing Davemeistermoab's RFA as "Successful". Nothing will happen to you, but please remember that multiple editors are pretty disappointed with your decision. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rationale-free supports are AFAIK generally interpreted as "I agree with the nomination statement." → ROUX ₪ 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, so bureaucrats should count rationale-free supports, and exclude opposes that focuses on article writing? I can agrue that the editor who voted "Support - per this guy" or "Support - ~~~~" didn't do any research on the candidate. So, bureaucrats should discount such support votes.
• IMO bureaucrats should count both type of votes. They should count both rationale-free supports (which means "I agree with the nomination statement") and opposes that focuses on article writing. If a bureaucrat doesn't want to count certain type of valid opposes (such as opposes that focuses on article writing), he/she should also discount certain type of valid supports (such as rationale-free supports). AdjustShift (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... this would go a lot better if you didn't put words in my mouth. I shared my understanding (echoed by X!, below) of why rationale-free supports are not discounted. I offered no opinion on whether or not they should be, nor whether or not oppose votes relating to article writing should be in- or excluded. → ROUX ₪ 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. AdjustShift (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, AdjustShift, technically every RfA falls into the discretionary zone. Bureaucrats have the ability to fail a user at 90% or pass a user at 50%. That is what they were elected to do. Also, a Support without a rationale has been discussed over and over again, and the consensus seems to be that it means "I agree with the nom, and have nothing more to add". (X! · talk)  · @849  ·  19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat promotes someone at 50%, he/she should lose his/her bureaucratship. I don't oppose rationale-free suppoprts. My point is if a bureaucrat doesn't want to count certain type of valid opposes, he/she should also discount certain type of valid supports. AdjustShift (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So we're bound to respect a push by, say, thirty-five socks that tank an RfA? Interesting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

EVula, if it can be proven that there are thirty-five socks out of thirty-five oppose votes, the RFA with 50% support should pass. But, if there are 50% legitimate oppose votes (zero socks, zero "Oppose - Too many admins currently" type of opposes), and a bureaucrat promotes the candidate, the bureaucrat should lose his/her bureaucratship. AdjustShift (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with AdjustShift. Dan, if you had engaged in a discussion with your peers, I don't think you would be getting this shitstorm. But it's over, there's no taking back Dave's adminship, questionable though it is. I really hope all of us have learned something for this, and will apply it next time we are involved in an RfA. Thanks for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion may be over for you Wehalt, but there are plenty of other people still requesting answers,. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

It's over for me because I've gotten my answer, was not satisfied by it, and am convinced the crat screwed up, both in process and in result. I don't need to be convinced further in that department, and I've made my view clear. Therefore I see no point in pestering Dan. Just because he erred doesn't mean he doesn't deserve respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I am sorry you were not satisfied by my comments, and I'd be glad to talk more about it elsewhere or another day if you'd like. The job of a bureaucrat is forever in the process of being discovered, revised, and rearticulated, and every kerfuffle like this one is a step in that process - which is why it is important for users to ask bureaucrats to clarify their decisions, and for bureaucrats to respond to good-faith questions. I appreciate your calm attitude even in disagreement, and I assure you I don't feel pestered by your comments. In fact, I'd like to hear more about the long-term effects you fear decisions like mine will have on RFA. As a bureaucrat, my foremost concern is the optimal functioning of RFA, the ritual center of the English Wikipedia, and in every bureaucratic decision I make I have my eye on the long term as well as on immediate circumstances. So, as I say, if you can spare the time, perhaps you'd consider putting your thoughts together in an e-mail so we can carry on this conversation sometime. — Dan | talk 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Roux: Many in the support column mentioned that their reason for supporting was content-related, for instance: "As an editor that has worked with Dave for over a year and a half now working on articles, I find his contributions to the encyclopedia to be valuable." I suggest that you take another look through that RfA, to refresh your evidently faulty memory. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are incapable of writing anything without an insult. And you called me the unsavoury character. In any case, you are wholly mistaken as to what I said and why: I said 'rationale-free supports'. Your example does have a rationale. I was responding to AS' "why did you didn't exclude support votes without any rationale" question. → ROUX ₪ 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that stating the self-evident truth is insulting to you then all I have to say is tough. Get used to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What 'self-evident truth'? My memory was not faulty, you were wrong about what I was saying. I would ask for an apology, but I recognise the futility of getting you to ever admit you could have been wrong about anything. → ROUX ₪ 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, go blow somewhere else. I'm not interested in what you think or want. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that a) you can't respond without an insult, b) you are incapable of admitting you were flat-out wrong. Very kind of you. → ROUX ₪ 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Wehwalt: I don't think anyone's learned anything they didn't already know. Bureaucrats have no better judgement than anyone else and RfA is a pile of steaming ordure. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like a commitment from User:Rdsmith4 that he will not close another RFA under similar controversial circumstances without accepting a second opinion from another bureaucrat. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

And I would like a pony. → ROUX ₪ 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm allergic to horses :-( --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The pony is for me! You can have a cheese and Marmite sandwich. → ROUX ₪ 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Users without recent regular contributions to the project will by that very nature have no commitment to the project and should have no say in anything controversial here, these users could also possess outdated authority from the community. This outdated authority is destructive to the project and requires revoking. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

What is the point of this?

I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is. You can't get somebody desysopped without a steward, and a steward isn't going to take "Because we disagree with the bureaucrat" as a good reason for desysopping. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, stewards can desysop at the request of ArbCom, but I doubt it'll get that far... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the recently nominated will abdicate the bit under the circumstances. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that people realize that we're attacking Rdsmith4 for doing his job that we elected him to do. (X! · talk)  · @896  ·  20:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is attacking anybody here - I see a fairly tolerant and respectful (albeit drama infested) discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe "attacking" wasn't the right word. Maybe "complaining"? (X! · talk)  · @898  ·  20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaining is definitely more accurate - nevertheless, all noticeboards are a breeding ground for such discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion should be marked resolved. This is all pure silliness. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. There's nothing left to achieve from this discussion. (X! · talk)  · @899  ·  20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably but we all know that if someone puts a "resolved"-tag on this, someone else will most likely remove it and complain that "critical dissenters are being silenced!" (or similar). Let's just wait until it simply ends by itself. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, hey. I'm done with it, I've gotten my answer, but editors were told to await Dan's response before discussing. He answered, and they can't discuss it now? Give people a chance to vent, this will all die down by tonight better than throwing a fire blanket over it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, there are still unanswered questions here. And.. we are in the right place actually, if you look you will notice that there are few requests for the demopping of davemeistermoab, this actually is about the crats decision. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Maybe my eyes are just glossy, but where have people called or demopping? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. He hasn't done anything to deserve demopping. In my view, he should stand for reconfirmation after a decent interval, but that's entirely up to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair request actually - one that isn't enforceable methinks, but fair nonetheless. Personally, I think Dave should resign the bit and go for RfA at a later date. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is a discussion about my decision and not about Dave. If there are to be any adverse consequences of my decision I wish them to be directed at me. — Dan | talk 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What unanswered questions? Dan explained his reasoning, and answered all questions posed. I suspect what you mean is that Dan hasn't kowtowed to your demand, and I am willing to bet cash money that he won't. If you seriously have a problem with the decision made, take it to Arbcom. At this point it's all becoming a bit too much like equine necrosadism. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD+EC)I completely understand many may not agree with Dan's decision. However, the obsession some people are showing about it is, frankly scary. I in all seriousness suggest some of you turn off the computer, walk the dog, go to the corner store and down a cold Pepsi, take a nap, and get on with your life.Dave (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, that probably wasn't called for. Come on, what good did it do?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that some people have been here for hours, making over a dozen edits to this page. It can wait until tomorrow, when passions have calmed.Dave (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, Dave, dropping into this discussion like this (you in particular, because you are the center of the storm, though you are not responsible for the manner in which you were promoted) is not a good way to start off your adminship, with which I of course wish you good luck. It's going to be seen as provocative and it will accomplish little. The discussion's dying, let it die of its own accord.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, today is Sunday, so people have time on their hand. Tomorrow is Monday, people will not have time to analyze this case. This discussion is dying; time to move on. AdjustShift (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Make it a Coke and I'm in. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

user:Huib

Hello,

Is is possible for you bureacrats to make the user name Huib free again, so I can register it. I'm using the name Huib in my sig and the only one not free is on the English Wikipedia.

I do not wish a rename, there have been some complains for en.wiki users that my sig is confusing, so I'm going to make redirect where I'm active, don't want to keep +200 crats or stewards busy with my rename request so this is the second best option.

Best regards, Abigor (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to create another account, (for example, User:Abigor (temp)), and make a request at WP:CHUU. SUL (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, making a new account isn't needed. All Abigor needs to do is post on CHUU asking to usurp the account Huib by having it moved out of the way so it can be registered. There is no need to create another account to do that. But I don't see why any of it is needed since Huib doesn't appear in Abigor's signature at all. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It does on other wikis, (for example, see the first vote on this page: Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Alchemica) and there have been calls for Abigor to change to that ID or stop signing that way in discussion (for example, see the end of this discussion: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#deletionist_admin) so that may be why Abigor is asking this here. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading this right, a simple WP:CHUU request will work just fine. Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I just was answering the question from Taxman as to 'why'... ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)y

I have placed a request here I hope this is the correct way of doing this.

@ Taxman: Since I'm almost not active here I don't use the name Huib here in my sig, on all projects where I'm active I use Huib just like Lar told :)

Thank you very much for your input. Abigor (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how to proceed, first a bureacurat Lar tells me to go to a page and make a request, another bureaucrat tells me not done. What is needed to get this done? Abigor (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Content contribution as a factor in RfA/B discussions

This issue has been raised many a time, both on specific RfA's, on WT:RFA, and now with the recent closure of Dave's RfA. At the risk of being pelted with rotten fruit, I would like to make a few points, and then have the other bureaucrats respond.

Firstly, I think it is clear that Dan(Rdsmith) did nothing outside of wikipedia policy and guideline. There are fewer than thirty people who have survived the painful and emotionally draining gauntlet that is RfB. Why so few? Is it because of changing usernames or flagging bots? I don't think so. The reason why the bureaucrat job is so gosh-d@rn painful to achieve is that there are rare occasions when the promotion of a potential candidate comes down to one person's decision as to how to weight the discussion at the RfX. The community demands a super-super-super majority of itself to promote a bureaucrat for those rare times when that judgment has to be rendered. OF COURSE there are going to be people who strongly disagree with that judgment; if the RfX was so simple, we wouldn't need the bureaucrat to be making the decision in the first place. We elect our bureaucrats with the knowledge that one day they are going to make a difficult decision, and we trust them to make the best decision they can. And guess what, different bureaucrats will make different decisions; we're people, not bots. As long as the decision was made rationally, not out-of-line with policy and guideline, and can be explained, I do not think there is anything wrong with the decision.

Now that that is said, I think that there needs to be a clarification about how bureaucrats approach certain kinds of oppose votes. Our job, as bureaucrats, is to crystallize the community's discussion into a consensus, or rule that none exists. There are many types of opposition. They range from those that are automatically discounted (banned users) to well-crafted statements capable of swaying the opinion of a large percentage of respondents. Part of the judgment, when necessary, of the bureaucrat is to apply some subjective, yes subjective - we are not bots, weight to these oppositions and supports and decide accordingly.

In the past, there was the opinion that "adminship is no big deal". How true this is today is a separate question, but the philosophy exists. Relatedly, historically, there was the overall feeling that admins are meant to be janitors (hence the fabled "mop"), people who sweep up after vandals and fix cut-and-paste moves, and close AfD's, etc. Please read the very first paragraphs of Wikipedia:Administrators, and I quote:

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been entrusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools") which help with maintenance. For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well. (For a more complete list, see Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.)

Administrators undertake additional responsibilities voluntarily, and are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

— Wikipedia:Administrators

That philosophy leads to the understandable opinion that content issues, while not to be ignored, are secondary with respect to trust in non-abuse of tools and understanding of the policies and guidelines that administrators enforce. However, I have seen another school of thought, which has its merits as well. The next paragraph in Wikipedia:Administrators reads, and I quote:

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, those seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. When the communal feeling may be unclear, administrators may help provide a thoughtful voice in some kinds of consensus (see this comment).

— Wikipedia:Administrators

In this particular aspect of the administrator, it is sensible to want the potential sysop to grok the project; and this is often best seen by the nature of the content that the candidate contributes.

The question now is is there a consensus among EnWiki editors that the latter kind of opinion should be given as much weight as the former? If the community can agree that it should, then we, as bureaucrats, need to understand that. If there is no such consensus, then the weight we give to such opinions will perforce be somewhat subjective based on our own understandings of what the RfA process is and what mandate we have.

I would like to hear other bureaucrats' opinions on this, as well as those of people who were way too smart to subject themselves to the public humiliation that is an RfB , so forgive me if I make two subsections below. Perhaps we need a project-wide RfC on this particular issue; perhaps not. I would appreciate your suggestions below. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

People too smart, lazy, busy, or otherwise to be bureaucrats

• I feel that if a person claims to be a content editor, then their understanding of policies that matter most to content editors is a strong way of gauging if they can properly interpret any policy. Measure a person by what they consider their strength. Obviously, the community as represented by the Bureaucrats disagrees with me and I accept that. I would just like a simple answer on how I can appropriately show where a user has overstepped their role as an editor so that people can be more thoroughly informed so I can do such without having a topic ban of RfA drawn upon me (as per DougsTech with the rational that since the Bureaucrats were already discounting his vote that any participation in that manner is disruptive and should therefore result in a ban). Thank you for your time in responding with a pertinent answer. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly true, Ottava, that this case is indicative of the communities consensus; that is exactly why I posted that tl;dr monstrosity above. In this case, Dan felt that such oppositions carried less weight. Another bureaucrat may or may not have decided that way. Dan may not decide that way in the future. We all may decide that way if it comes out that your opinion is the distinct minority. Personally, I believe that you should continue to voice such opinions; they should not be discounted out-of-hand, but weighed in relation to everything else that is said. Then again, I said that pretty clearly on WT:RFA and here last week. That is also solely my opinion, which is why, once again, I am asking for the other bureaucrats to weigh in and we can perhaps 1)let the community have a clearer understanding of our current decision processes and 2) see if there is sufficient consensus in the community for us to reflect in said decision process. At this point, Ottava, as eloquent as your arguments may be, it is still not clear that the consensus of the project, or at the least of the people who take their time to respond at RfA, is with you, and while your opinions are as valid as anyones, the bureaucrats need to do their best to reflect what the greater community feels, as nebulous as that sounds. I'm sorry I cannot give you a clearer answer; that's part of why I posted here. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I was informed from multiple sources that quite a few people agree with Dan's viewpoint on my oppose. I don't care about that, as it is clear that community consensus is against me. I just want to know how to proceed without being banned. I care more about my ability to edit Wikipedia than letting a few problematic people become admin. I have already asked Deskana, as I respect his voice above most on Wikipedia. I would like other input too. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself; if an oppose is made in a fashion that is not a violation of editor conduct (personal attack, etc.) it should not be struck nor should the person rendering the opinion be sanctioned. RfA is a discussion, and as long as that discussion is handled with respect, there should not be any repercussions. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dan made the wrong decision in my opinion, but it was within his discretion to make. Enough with the torches and pitchforks. As for necessity of content building? It's an asset but not essential. Requiring content-building of admins means that people more inclined to be gnomes would never be admins, which is profoundly stupid. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Rdsmith4, Users without recent regular contributions to the project will by that very nature have no commitment to the project and should have no say in anything controversial here, these users could also possess outdated authority from the community. This outdated authority is destructive to the project and requires revoking. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC))
  • Stop beating a dead horse. This discussion has nothing to do with what you're on about. → ROUX ₪ 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Having term limits is a perennial suggestion, one which I personally disagree with for what it is worth. Perhaps this incident will galvanize people to change, perhaps not, but may I respectfully point out that I am looking for guidance specifically with regard to the weight that should be given to content-based opinions on RfX's. Your point, as valid as it may be, doesn't address that. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rob, you've said a few times now that you suspect I'm out of touch with the community due to inactivity. I assure you that I have been quite regularly active on this wiki for fully five years now, am a longtime contributor to the ongoing discussion of the role of bureaucrats, and have my eye keenly fixed on RFA-related debate wherever I may find it. I have every intention of continuing to do the job of a bureaucrat in such a way as to keep the RFA process functioning at the highest level, as best I know how and with continual advice from the community. — Dan | talk 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I thank you for you comments, but I dispute your involvment in the project and I respectfuly request you to denounce your outdated authority or reapply for bureaucrat status as you are almost not involved in the project. Looking at your recent edits is a simple denial of your statements. Are you stating that you intend to become more involved in the project? You are almost not involved here, apart from this disputed decision. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

moved to Rdsmith4 talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

• • • • And again, that has nothing to do with what this discussion is about. Your one-note focus on this is growing tiresome and borderline disruptive. → ROUX ₪ 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If you really think that Dan made a bad decision, and that he needs to lose his tools, go to ArbCom; they are the only ones who can do anything about it. Quit whining about it here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but you mistate the case. My objection, and it seems to me the objection of many others, is that in this case the bureaucrat decided to ignore content-related opposes while accepting content-related supports. To try to hide that discrepancy by opening a separate discussion is, in my view, highly suspicious of an attempt to cover up one bureaucrat's serious error of judgement. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for refactoring your comments, Malleus; it's the wikignome in me. I do not see where Dan implied he counted content-based supports but ignored content based errors in his detailed explanation here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Reply. I see that he counted content-based oppositions less, and that, combined with his statement that he requires a higher level of clarity for oppositions than supports ("no big deal" mention) was enough to allow him to make his decision. That is not a discrepancy being hidden, that was said outright, and while you and I may disagree with that decision process, that does not mean it was ipso facto incorrect, unless I am misunderstanding you? -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• It depends, really. A lack of substantial content creation is an issue, but should not be enough to fail an RfA. We are of course an encyclopedia, and article work is essential, but the project wouldn't survive without gnomes and janitors. And as noted, the number of FAs/GAs a given candidate has written rarely equates to level of experience of competence as a sysop. I say this as someone who passed RfA with close to 20 pieces of featured content and about 40 good articles. With that said, obvious, blatant, and consistent violations of core content policies (WP:OR, WP:V, etc) do indicate a lack of overall knowledge of policy, and often bring into the question the candidate's level of experience and competence. I wouldn't expect a user to pass RfA shortly after being blocked for repeated copyright violations. In terms of bureaucrat discretion, it's acceptable for the closing 'crat to decide which votes, content-related or otherwise, hold more water. We elect bureaucrats for a reason. I was Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs)'s nominator, and as someone who has worked with Dave for a year, I'm obviously very happy that he passed; had I been the closing 'crat, I would most likely have not closed it the same way, but the decision was within Rdsmith4's discretion, and was not contrary to any policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Against policy or not, it was a controversial closure and there are people like you and baloonman and a couple of others who have stated here that they would not of closed in the same way. ..No concensus, Simple. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

And how does that relate to anything? FWIW, I disagree with the closure as well, but then again, I'm not the closing crat. The closing crat has full say of whether it's a pass or fail. But complaining about it will get you nowhere, and it's just dragging on the drama. There comes a point when you should stop beating the horse and move on to more important things. (X! · talk)  · @972  ·  22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean it was controversial or against consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is contoversial, less than one similar closure a year. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Similar in terms of percentage, yes. But again, consensus is not determined solely through raw numbers, so for all we know, there could have been plenty of similar cases in the past year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No there haven't, this is a rare closure, you youself have said you would close in a different way. If you have links to other similar closures to show as you say that ..there have been plenty of similar closures, I would have a good look at that, the facts I have dispute your comments, this is a exceptionally rare low percentage closure. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

So, am I correct after this discussion that.. In RFA all the supports whatever they say, including only a signature, are good.

If it is necessary in a low percentage then only the opposes are scrutinised as worthwhile or not, the support votes are indisputable , this is at the complete discretion of the individual closing crat. Votes against if just a signature can be ignored but support votes that are just a signature are to be accepted in all cases.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Rob - don't worry about it. Consensus is against the closure being problematic. The only thing you can do is wait until there is another time and hope that people agree with you then. You weren't personally involved in it so you have nothing to really lose in the matter. As one of the parties specifically singled out, I would like this to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, remove this page from your watchlist immediately. I know you have issues related this topic but I am not really up on your personal story.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

(ec) Rob, the same goes for you. You've dragged this discussion out so long that it's causing nothing but drama. Nothing will come out of this discussion. You've been told this multiple times. Consensus is that Rdsmith4 was acting in his role as a crat to close it this way. The more you complain, the less people will actually take your arguments seriously. (And FWIW, I'm recusing from any further discussion here) (X! · talk)  · @002  ·  23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)