→Requesting early close on RFA: unsigned |
134.241.58.253 (talk) →RfA successful with 69.5% support?: conversation NOT OVER |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
== RfA successful with 69.5% support? == |
== RfA successful with 69.5% support? == |
||
{{hat}} |
|||
I would like to bring to the attention of the 'crats [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2#Succeeded?|this very recent RfA]] that was closed as '''successful''' despite clearly failing community standards. The percentage of support was only 69.5%, which fails community standard. I look forward to an explanation as to how/why such a controversial admin could have the bar lowered in his reconfirmation RfA. Thank you. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to bring to the attention of the 'crats [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2#Succeeded?|this very recent RfA]] that was closed as '''successful''' despite clearly failing community standards. The percentage of support was only 69.5%, which fails community standard. I look forward to an explanation as to how/why such a controversial admin could have the bar lowered in his reconfirmation RfA. Thank you. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
*Like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2&diff=prev&oldid=428515955 I said elsewhere]. It's time to remind ourselves that [[WP:NOT#VOTE|WP is not a vote]] according to our consensual mode of editing. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
*Like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2&diff=prev&oldid=428515955 I said elsewhere]. It's time to remind ourselves that [[WP:NOT#VOTE|WP is not a vote]] according to our consensual mode of editing. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::"Not a vote", indeed; it's just an arbitrary decision taken by the tiny fraction of users who are probably in the ''worst'' position to make a neutral judgement. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
::"Not a vote", indeed; it's just an arbitrary decision taken by the tiny fraction of users who are probably in the ''worst'' position to make a neutral judgement. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Account deletion == |
== Account deletion == |
Revision as of 20:41, 12 May 2011
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DreamRimmer | 35 | 28 | 6 | 56 | Open | 10:02, 4 June 2024 | 4 days, 12 hours | no | report |
It is 21:17:14 on May 30, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Account deletion
For personal reasons, I want to exercise my right to vanish and to close my account for good (Bozgo (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC))
- As you have very few contributions, the best thing to do is to just abandon your account. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting early close on RFA
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The percentage at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 has been pretty stable for the past few days, so I wouldn't mind an early close, so that the question is resolved before the work week restarts. If you feel it would be valuable to let it run the full length, that's fine too. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm. I think people may be misunderstanding Sarek's intentions here. I think he was hoping for the best but fully expecting the worst since his RfA has been in the judgement call zone the entire time and probably just wanting to "get it over with". - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't think the early close request is a big deal personally, it appears to have had a negative effect on your RFA, which, frankly, should have been pretty obvious. While some bureaucrats have discretionarily closed at this level of support in the past (I am called to mind Ryulong's promotion, which would be an unpopular precedent given his later behavior), even a liberal interpretation of the applicability of anti-recall opposes might be a difficult sell at this point. Andrevan@ 01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't shoot yourself in the—wait, too late. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If one discounts the "oppose because it's a reconfirmation" commentary (2, 18, 19, at time of posting) - and franky even if one does not - this is very much in the discretionary zone (72%). I do agree this request for an early close was probably misguided but for Tony to opine that "Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation" without noting that three opposes come from the opposite camp is rather unfair. Of course I supported the "re-rfa" and Tony opposed so we're all biased. I just admit it. Pedro : Chat 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to close because I supported, so we need to wait for another bureaucrat to come along and take on the task. Andrevan@ 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
But 87% (164/19/20) is well above the success figure in HJ Mitchell's RfA, whereas 72% in Sarek's is in the grey area, and that is why Andrevan should have, and did, recuse from making such a fine decision. In the former case, there was no room for exercise of discretion, as far as the numbers stood. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Bot flag request
Could somebody please place the bot flag on User:Wikinews Importer Bot. The bot has been work flawlessly since 2008 but has never had the bot flag. Regards. mauchoeagle (c) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Request to usurp an existing account on EnWiki
Hello... I received this request from an IP that identifies as Druth on the French Wikipedia. The user wants to inquire about claiming the name User:Druth on EnWiki. As the admin who blocked Druth on this project, it appears that the two are different individuals based on contributions. I have left a note on Druth's French talk page asking them to confirm the request there (to verify the account). Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ckatzchatspy 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Druth has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --Ckatzchatspy 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
RfA successful with 69.5% support?
I would like to bring to the attention of the 'crats this very recent RfA that was closed as successful despite clearly failing community standards. The percentage of support was only 69.5%, which fails community standard. I look forward to an explanation as to how/why such a controversial admin could have the bar lowered in his reconfirmation RfA. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Three explanations have been suggested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2, where Basket of Puppies also posted this query. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was recused from the RFA in question since I supported in an earlier RFA, but I can state that prior RFAs passed at 61%, 63%, 67%(2x), 69%, 72%, 73%, and 74%. There is no strict bar for RFA and nothing from standard procedures by the crats (7 days, recusals by those involved, non-inclusion of neutrals in ratios, etc) was changed in this case. MBisanz talk 12:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the lack of a "bureaucrat chat" was the only irregularity in this case, but is certainly not required. Andrevan@ 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was surprised both by the lack of a 'crat chat and the unilateral decision to reconfirm Sarek of Vulcan. Yes, admins have been made with a smaller percentage than Sarek's, but those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations. Many saw this one as dealing in the larger issue of documented long-term abuse of the admin's power. In my view this situation called for a thoughtful discussion by the 'crat community, not a call made by one 'crat who offers a one paragraph rationale that many will see as a 'slap on the wrist.' Indeed, to many of those outside the admin/'crat circle, this gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of a cozy insiders group. At a time when there is much debate both on Jimbo's page [3] and by a group of concerned Wikipedians [4] regarding the broken Rfa process, admin abuse and admin recall mechanisms, this decision by a single 'crat to reconfirm Sarek at a !vote below average Rfa confirmation norms without additional discussion seems to me to be thoughtless and flawed at best, and another strong indication that across-the-board systemic reform is needed. Jusdafax 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neither I nor, at a guess, Sarek, would oppose "across the board systemic reform". What you make of the more than 150 editors in good standing who supported his reconfirmation, I have no idea - since you don't explain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want tog et into a war of semantics, but I don't think Sarek has ever abused his tools, but ther have been several instances of misuse. The former implies bad faith and malice and I've never seen either of those two things when I've owrked with or observed Sarek. there are those who think nothing has been accomplished here, but I think two, less tnagible things will result from it: 1) that 60 editors, most of whom are highly respected community members, oposed the reconfirmation and that so many of them did so on the same grounds will be a serious wake-up call to Sarek that he needs to give much more consideration to his INVOLVEment in a situation before taking admin action, and 2) if a pattern of misuse were to reuslt in an ArbCom case down the line (and I sincerely hope it never comes to that), the concerns raised in the RfA will hold a lot of weight (I think somebody even suggested it might have as much weight as an RfC/U). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- This at the root of the corruption here. Sarek has misused his admin tools and passed at 72%. A regular editor who might misuse the tools would likely have failed at 72%. You know as well as I do that even if Sarek's support had dropped below 70% he would have been reconfirmed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Malleus, the crux of this is that you believe he has misused his tools so seriously, but a very clear majority of those who voted in the RfA, do not agree. Now of course, you may feel that your opinion is more than twice as important as anyone else who offered their opinion. Some people would support you in that! But that isn't how it works, sorry buddy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- This at the root of the corruption here. Sarek has misused his admin tools and passed at 72%. A regular editor who might misuse the tools would likely have failed at 72%. You know as well as I do that even if Sarek's support had dropped below 70% he would have been reconfirmed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want tog et into a war of semantics, but I don't think Sarek has ever abused his tools, but ther have been several instances of misuse. The former implies bad faith and malice and I've never seen either of those two things when I've owrked with or observed Sarek. there are those who think nothing has been accomplished here, but I think two, less tnagible things will result from it: 1) that 60 editors, most of whom are highly respected community members, oposed the reconfirmation and that so many of them did so on the same grounds will be a serious wake-up call to Sarek that he needs to give much more consideration to his INVOLVEment in a situation before taking admin action, and 2) if a pattern of misuse were to reuslt in an ArbCom case down the line (and I sincerely hope it never comes to that), the concerns raised in the RfA will hold a lot of weight (I think somebody even suggested it might have as much weight as an RfC/U). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neither I nor, at a guess, Sarek, would oppose "across the board systemic reform". What you make of the more than 150 editors in good standing who supported his reconfirmation, I have no idea - since you don't explain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was surprised both by the lack of a 'crat chat and the unilateral decision to reconfirm Sarek of Vulcan. Yes, admins have been made with a smaller percentage than Sarek's, but those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations. Many saw this one as dealing in the larger issue of documented long-term abuse of the admin's power. In my view this situation called for a thoughtful discussion by the 'crat community, not a call made by one 'crat who offers a one paragraph rationale that many will see as a 'slap on the wrist.' Indeed, to many of those outside the admin/'crat circle, this gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of a cozy insiders group. At a time when there is much debate both on Jimbo's page [3] and by a group of concerned Wikipedians [4] regarding the broken Rfa process, admin abuse and admin recall mechanisms, this decision by a single 'crat to reconfirm Sarek at a !vote below average Rfa confirmation norms without additional discussion seems to me to be thoughtless and flawed at best, and another strong indication that across-the-board systemic reform is needed. Jusdafax 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the lack of a "bureaucrat chat" was the only irregularity in this case, but is certainly not required. Andrevan@ 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) Taking corruption in the meaning of "rotten, as in corrupt meat", yes, quite possibly. Corruption as in "collusion between parties for their own fiduciary gain", that's kind of a bad word to use here or anywhere unless you have really good proof. I've defended an editor before on that fine point and I hope you refer to the former, not some pre-arranged deal or even nod-and-a-wink. I opposed but I'm not dissatisfied with the result, given SoV's apparent indication they recognize the main issue. In reference to HJ Mitchell's comment, I very much expect this re-RFA would have at least equivalent weight to RFC/U as prior dispute resolution in any hypothetical Arb proceedings. I would expect it to have significantly more weight in fact, if it involves the specific concerns raised in this process. Franamax (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neutrals have, as far as I know, never been counted into the final tally, so the actual support is 72.49%. This query would seem to be without merit. —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correct, this is in the accepted discretionary zone as outlined in the RFA front matter, although as MBisanz points out RFAs have been successful below 70% as well. Andrevan@ 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations like this one, with larger repercussions for the community. I would think a higher standard would prevail, or at least that a 'crat chat would be seen as a good idea, to air out the reasoning and allow for multiple 'crat viewpoints. Jusdafax 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again? Well, again, we seem to have received "multiple crat viewpoints" just above. Anything more needed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations like this one, with larger repercussions for the community. I would think a higher standard would prevail, or at least that a 'crat chat would be seen as a good idea, to air out the reasoning and allow for multiple 'crat viewpoints. Jusdafax 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correct, this is in the accepted discretionary zone as outlined in the RFA front matter, although as MBisanz points out RFAs have been successful below 70% as well. Andrevan@ 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said elsewhere. It's time to remind ourselves that WP is not a vote according to our consensual mode of editing. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Account deletion
For personal reason I am using my right to vanish, would like to see talk page removed and username change to anything that don't have my first name in it. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC))