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 11:49:15 on May 15, 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)

Disputed closure of Davemeistermoab to admin.

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 was 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)

• 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)