Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →Going forward: dictionaries are cheap |
134.241.58.253 (talk) →Deal With It: dont |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::::Don't be tiresome. The reality is that the 'crats have returned his ops. Let us honour that determination. If Sarek makes a dog's breakfast of things there will be plenty of opportunities to do the "told-you-so" dance. Until then let's all get on with more constructive business. [[User:Lovetinkle|Lovetinkle]] ([[User talk:Lovetinkle|talk]]) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::Don't be tiresome. The reality is that the 'crats have returned his ops. Let us honour that determination. If Sarek makes a dog's breakfast of things there will be plenty of opportunities to do the "told-you-so" dance. Until then let's all get on with more constructive business. [[User:Lovetinkle|Lovetinkle]] ([[User talk:Lovetinkle|talk]]) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::the '''entire community''' is the umpire. a crat is just another member of the community. don't try to censor community discussion. it's doesn't look good. [[Special:Contributions/134.241.58.253|134.241.58.253]] ([[User talk:134.241.58.253|talk]]) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Going forward == |
== Going forward == |
Revision as of 16:56, 10 May 2011
Comments
I'm conflicted out of closing, but I'd suggest a crat chat of some sort given the current state of affairs. MBisanz talk 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just went ahead and closed it. I didn't think it was too vague to need a chat. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like your close, good job! MBisanz talk 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nice closing statement. --ClubOranjeT 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- And it's all true! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like your close, good job! MBisanz talk 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Succeeded?
I have a quick question. I thought the threshold for successful RfA is 75%. Tallying just the oppose !votes and determining a percentage it becomes clear that 26.3% of the votes were oppose. Factoring in the additional 10 neutral (which clearly cannot be used as support votes) 30.5% of the votes can be considered "not supporting" this RfA. I am curious how this RfA succeeded with only 69.5% support. That clearly falls under the community standard of 75% and even the lower standard of 70%. Basket of Puppies 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since when did neutrals affect the percentage? By that logic an RfA with 50 supports, 22 neutrals and no opposes would fail. 28bytes (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since when were these done strictly on percentages? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Finally closed 9 hours late, with "late" votes: 11 S, 3 O, -2 N (1 to S, 1 to O) . This will do nothing to dispel conspiracy theories about admins. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which brings the new total to 26.7% oppose and a 69.2% overall support. He certainly didn't pass this RfA. It needs to be closed as unsuccessful. Basket of Puppies 12:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I see no reason why admins shouldn't be permitted to have conspiracy theories - after all, everyone else seems to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Neutrals don't count, though admittedly I didn't get this understanding from the language at WP:RFA which I think suggests what you are saying. They need to clarify that neutral votes are not counted at all. So the tally was 72.5% which I think leaves it in the "gray area" where it becomes a judgement call of the bureaucrats. Do I personally agree with the judgement call? No, but I guess it is what it is. For instance a great many of the support votes echoed the issues with WP:INVOLVED but with the belief that Sarek has or will learn from his mistakes with involvement. Shortly before this was closed, Sarek made comments about involvement that if one AGFs would indicate that he still doesn't even understand the policy as it is written. Hardly convincing that he has learned, but I guess we'll see.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is precisely the thing that has Jimbo and a lot of others concerned. With the word "INVOLVED" spattered from top to bottom of the RfA page, among supporters, opposers, and neutrals, the sudden passing of this application shows how much damage "the big deal" does. It's too traumatic and difficult to pass RfA the first time, and it's too traumatic and difficult to (effectively) desysop. We need both to be easier; then Sarek would be having a rest from adminship and reflecting on the responsibilities and duties required from a distance. He would re-apply in six to nine months' time after a good track record, and go back to adminship without all of this drama. This is a bad call, crats, but I understand why you feel pressured into it. Tony (talk)
- I was recused in this case, but obviously I could still see all the normal channels of communication and didn't see any pressure applied. MBisanz talk 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Make up your mind. Was this suddenly closed, or was it closed late? Anyway isn't it a bit late now to whinge? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is precisely the thing that has Jimbo and a lot of others concerned. With the word "INVOLVED" spattered from top to bottom of the RfA page, among supporters, opposers, and neutrals, the sudden passing of this application shows how much damage "the big deal" does. It's too traumatic and difficult to pass RfA the first time, and it's too traumatic and difficult to (effectively) desysop. We need both to be easier; then Sarek would be having a rest from adminship and reflecting on the responsibilities and duties required from a distance. He would re-apply in six to nine months' time after a good track record, and go back to adminship without all of this drama. This is a bad call, crats, but I understand why you feel pressured into it. Tony (talk)
The "community standard" of 75% is ridiculous for first RfAs, and doubly so for reconfirmations. If this kind of reconfirmations becomes fashionable, there should be a more reasonable threshold that actually still allows people who have made mistakes (as humans do) to pass. —Кузьма討論 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference between 75% and below 70%--Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You shouldn't count neutrals as opposes. Certainly my neutral vote was not meant to count against the candidate. —Кузьма討論 13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- And actually I'd support a 2/3 threshold instead of 3/4, for all RfAs. But then, I think we should vote of RfAs, so I'm probably just a minority troll. —Кузьма討論 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- 70% support votes is the absolute minimal threshold necessary for rfa success. This RfA was below that. It simply didn't succeed. Basket of Puppies 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Кузьма, I did not count "neutrals" as "oppose" , I just included those in the total number of votes. Otherwise why people vote "neutral", if their votes are not taken into account?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- But if you count it as (Support)/(Total), you *are* counting Opposes and Neutrals as the same -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think counting votes is really the wrong approach here. It's the substance of those comments that should matter, and when looking at the content of all the votes in each of the three categories I remain unconvinced that this was the right call. It seems to be sending the message that it is much easier to get reconfirmed than it is to get the tools from the start. If that is the case then how many more of these are going to appear form admins who want "reconfirm" their popularity, or want to get some kind of overall "OK" from the community despite having run into specific problems? Sarek got a lot of patting on his back for being "brave" enough to undergo this process, but consider the fact that he did not address the main issue people were having with him in his self-nomination. He does not deserve any back patting for simply asking the community a black and white question about whether or not he's a net positive or net negative to the project, as opposed to confronting his specific demons. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I were him I would have refused this administrator's status because the closure was incorrect.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It made no difference - the percentage count did not materially change in the final hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I were him I would have refused this administrator's status because the closure was incorrect.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Кузьма, I did not count "neutrals" as "oppose" , I just included those in the total number of votes. Otherwise why people vote "neutral", if their votes are not taken into account?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- 70% support votes is the absolute minimal threshold necessary for rfa success. This RfA was below that. It simply didn't succeed. Basket of Puppies 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The percentage count is done as (Support)/(Support + Oppose), and the final count was 72.5% - it had hovered between 70% and 73% for the final few days. If we counted it as Supports as a percentage of all !votes including Neutrals, that would be treating Neutrals as the same as Opposes, which would clearly not be right -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's clearly how it is counted, but I'd like to point out again that WP:RFA doesn't make that clear and someone should fix it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit WP:RFA to clarify that point, but personally I think it's obvious enough from the RfA report, which handily provides the percentage throughout the course of each RfA. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's how the percentage has been computed since, well, eternity. I shall assume that the people insisting otherwise is simply clueless rather than intentionally manipulating standards for this RfA. For that matter, I've never heard of an absolute 70% line either. T. Canens (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's good reason you haven't - WP:RFA simply says "most of those below ~70% fail" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's how the percentage has been computed since, well, eternity. I shall assume that the people insisting otherwise is simply clueless rather than intentionally manipulating standards for this RfA. For that matter, I've never heard of an absolute 70% line either. T. Canens (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit WP:RFA to clarify that point, but personally I think it's obvious enough from the RfA report, which handily provides the percentage throughout the course of each RfA. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's clearly how it is counted, but I'd like to point out again that WP:RFA doesn't make that clear and someone should fix it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) For what it's worth (which is very little, because a decision has been made and I don't forsee it being changed) I don't particularly object to this close. The percentage was at the lower end of the discretionary range – by long-standing convention, neutral comments aren't included. Personally, I would have drawn the line at 'unsuccessful', but then I !voted 'oppose' so I'm biased. I don't see any improper 'crat behaviour here and suggest that people move on to something more useful: not an attempt to censor or stifle discussion, but simply a recommendation based on what's likely to be productive. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's a very gracious response TT - respect -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Deal With It
This RFA fell with in the discretionary range. A 'crat has rendered his/her verdict and the bit has been returned. Let us all move on. Lovetinkle (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Community discussion is healthy until it turns into a drama fest. I see no reason to prevent people form discussing the matter openly as long as they are being this calm about it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, whatever. It seems a bit rough to continue to the conversation after the umpire's decision has been handed down. His bit has been returned and we should honour that by allowing him to resume his ops. This continual kvetching after the fact seems a touch unsporting. Lovetinkle (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be tiresome. The reality is that the 'crats have returned his ops. Let us honour that determination. If Sarek makes a dog's breakfast of things there will be plenty of opportunities to do the "told-you-so" dance. Until then let's all get on with more constructive business. Lovetinkle (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- the entire community is the umpire. a crat is just another member of the community. don't try to censor community discussion. it's doesn't look good. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be tiresome. The reality is that the 'crats have returned his ops. Let us honour that determination. If Sarek makes a dog's breakfast of things there will be plenty of opportunities to do the "told-you-so" dance. Until then let's all get on with more constructive business. Lovetinkle (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Going forward
Take a deep breath and step back, folks. This wasn't closed the way I would have preferred, either, but the manner in which it was closed was entirely in keeping with proper use of the discretion we give bureaucrats. This was a close call. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- There was never any doubt how it would be closed, and it would have been closed in just the same way had the support percentage dropped to 62%. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please refrain from being disingenuous, Malleus. If opinions had been that far, you are just plain wrong. Please learn to assume good faith. I do it with you all the time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not being disingenuous (which is of course a direct personal attack, I suggest that you check a dictionary), I'm merely stating the self-evident facts. The sentiment is clearly that as administrators will inevitably have pissed off a significant number of editors then the pass percentage ought to be lower for them. Which is of course completely arse-about-face, as with regular RfAs what's being judged is what the candidate might do with the tools, as opposed to what they have done with them. And in this specific instance the candidate had clearly abused the tools. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please refrain from being disingenuous, Malleus. If opinions had been that far, you are just plain wrong. Please learn to assume good faith. I do it with you all the time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutrals not included in percentage calculation
To avoid the confusion evident in some of the discussion above, I've added a sentence to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter#About RfA, indicating that the "neutral" comments are not counted in percentage calculations. I drafted this quickly, and am sure that someone be able to copyedit to improve the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Double thanks, seems very helpful to clarify that, think the wording was almost perfect but couldnt resit a minor ce. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)