Misplaced Pages

Requesting early close on RFA

The percentage at Misplaced Pages: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)

I could switch my !vote if that would help juggle the numbers around if you'd like? j/k .. good luck no matter how it closes SoV. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a great idea. I'm sure there are many !voters, example moi, who wait to read all the oppose and support !votes before actually voting. Best to let things run their course to the end. --rgpk (comment) 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. While I personally think that RFA is not the place for such reconfirmation-requests, once initiated and discussed, it should run until the end. Otherwise, people will probably feel that their time has been wasted with this RFA. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. To be frank, I am astonished by this request by Sarek. Once initiated, the process should run its course. Jusdafax 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An unfortunate request.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely an RfA is conducted at the convenience of the community, not the candidate? Particularly when the RfA process being endured is entirely of candidate's manufacture. A somewhat shocking request under the circumstances. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:54, 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)

Yeah. That 72% I was referencing above is pretty low in the judgement call zone, and I wasn't foreseeing anything that was likely to change the percentages radically, since it's been sitting between 71 and 74% for the last 4 days (until I posted this, which seems to have started to have that effect. *headdesk*). Consider the request withdrawn, please, and let it run the full length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The correct move, then, is to withdraw. As it stands, it very much looks like you were trying to get the crats to make a judgement call early. That really, really looks bad.→ ROUX ₪ 00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll endorse the withdrawal suggestion (Nach, as I opposed;). Barong 02:31, 9 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)

I wasn't asking for a discretionary close as support, I just wanted it over and done with. I'm quite aware that the 72% it was at at the time was very low, and there were far too many legitimate opposes to bring it much over 75% by discounting questionable ones. I was willing to accept the outcome either way, as the community had spoken clearly -- it was just left to the closing crat to summarize what they actually said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted it over and done with, why didn't you just withdraw? Surely you must know that the appearance of asking for it to be closed early carries with it an implication (or hope, perhaps) that such a close would be in your favour. Wanting it over and done with is nice and easy; you withdraw. Asking for a close keeps open the possibility that you would be (re)promoted. Whether or not that was your intention (and I'm willing to AGF enough that it wasn't), the implication is quite clear, and one would hope that admins would be more circumspect about appearances of impropriety, and more observant of how their actions appear. → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I know, that isn't what I meant. I'm saying since the post-request fallout, it has become less defensible to promote. Andrevan@ 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot yourself in the—wait, too late. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many people here know Sarek fairly well and are familiar with how he interacts with others. Some have described it as cowboy diplomacy, which seems to be the case sometimes. Certainly he must have been comparing his RfA to HJ Mitchell's, which must have been depressing. I'd just ask that people review Sarek's last few responses to his RfA and see if you feel anything is different (e.g. , ). What I noticed is that he had taken on a more compliant and somewhat defeated tone. Like somebody that had received a serious wakeup call. I believe it's been a (wiki)life changing experience for him. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an astonishing request. For the record, 65.8% of non-admins support (probably insufficient by itself to reconfirm); 75.7% of admins support. Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation. Clearly, non-admins bear the brunt of the trigger-happy blocking of established editors, and the wanton disregard of WP:INVOLVED. It is a sorry situation. Tony (talk) 11:47, 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)

• shucks, I'll run for RfA and the moment I get a single support vote and no opposes I'll come here and ask the 'crats to close it as succeeded. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is what people mean when they say people are misunderstanding the purpose of this request. The request (I believe) was made in good faith, saying that if a bureaucrat thought it appropriate, the request could be closed early, partially to get it over with and partially so that it could be closed without anybody having to wait after the point at which it was supposed to (which is what's currently happening). I see how one could easily interpret it as "I'm winning, better make sure of it staying that way <.< >.>", but this request doesn't seem like that to me. demize (t · c) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Current percent: 72.1%. Percent when I volunteered for early close: 72.1%.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 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)

• Shocked - I was actually quite shocked when people took this close the wrong way. I had been watching the RfA and seeing how Sarek had changed. Look at the RfA, Sarek was being hammered, and by people he respects. My gawd people, he's not made of stone. I knew exactly what the request meant. He just wanted the hammering to be over with and that's all. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Yeah, I understand what you mean by that. Were I to do an RFA right now (which I'm not really interested in, I still wouldn't trust myself with those tools :p) I doubt I'd get very many any people supporting, and any of the people I've worked with often would probably oppose. That would hurt, and seeing people like that oppose/hammer you at a reconfirmation would hurt even more. demize (t · c) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• So why didn't he withdraw? If all he wanted was for it to be over, withdrawal is the only option. Or posting here and saying "this isn't going well, can a crat please close this?' As it stands, the appearance, as I noted above, is that SoV was hoping it would be closed in his favour. It stretches credulity to believe that SoV is unaware of how RFA works. → ROUX ₪ 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But you, Andrevan, just closed HJ Mitchells's RfA, which you also supported. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ's wasn't in the discretionary zone; it was a clear pass. No impropriety there. → ROUX ₪ 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting impropriety, just a logical inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I figured the words "and it's in the discretionary zone" were implied between 'supported' and 'so' in Andrevan's comment. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, so let me explain as clearly as I can. Andrevan voted in HJ Mitchell's RfA and was quite happy to close it. He also voted in SarekOfVulvcan's RfA but declined to close it because he had voted. I have a word for that kind of inconsistency. Can you guess what it is? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, you're being insulting and attempting to draw me into a bloody stupid argument about semantics. Whee. There would be an inconsistency if HJ's RFA was in the discretionary zone. It isn't, so there isn't. Something something different circumstances something something. Whatever. Please grow the hell up. You know full well that I am a native speaker of English, you're just being a giant dick to win some Internet Points so you can level up to full-fledged troll. → ROUX ₪ 23:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright gentlemen, we're all adults here. Let's try to be civil. Andrevan@ 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Intelligent"? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dishonest". Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no qualms about closing an RFA I voted in as long as it's uncontroversial (see Catfish jim and the soapdish from a few days ago, which I supported and promoted). WP:INVOLVED states: In cases which are straightforward..., the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. I see no reason why that same principle should not extend to closing RFAs. Andrevan@ 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But bureaucrats commonly ignore opposes they don't agree with, and presumably supports as well, so one has to question the judgement of any bureaucrat who would both vote and close an RfA. But only if they were sensible and honest, agreed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

*goes for the NPA block button, but stubs his finger because it's not there*

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And hopefully you won't be able to repeat your antics. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I do not ignore comments I don't agree with. I rarely ignore comments at all for that matter. Reading of consensus is separate from one's own opinion. In the past I have in a bureaucrat discussion read the consensus in the opposite way from my opinion, for example Riana's RFB, where I opposed but supported a promotion based on the interpretation of consensus. Another example is Kww's 3rd RFA, where I opined that consensus supported promotion, but closed as no consensus per the bureaucrat discussion. Andrevan@ 23:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I would like to see some evidence of that. Of course the closing crat should take into account the quality of the !votes as well as their number, but when the numbers clearly show a consensus to promote, and there is no obvious vote-stuffing or fatuuous (!) reasoning, the judgement should follow the facts. I have no reason to believe that HJ Mitchell's RfA would, should, or could, have been closed any other way, by any crat, but in the grey area of Sarek's, there is clearly, as far as you are concerned, a risk of a perception of bias, and correctly, to avoid that, Andrevan didn't close it. If you took his !vote out of HJ MItchell's Rfa, it wouldn't have made any difference in the slightest, which (I believe) is why he felt secure in closing it per the clear consensus. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, but my conviction is that it is completely improper to close any vote in which you have expressed a preference. Where the Hell did common sense go? 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's "ideal" and there's "pragmatic". The difference between them is where common-sense lies. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:55, 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)

Relevant - Kingpin (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 00:13, 9 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. --Ckatz_spy 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Druth has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --Ckatz_spy 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoring; bot archived this before it was addressed. --Ckatz_spy 11:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)