Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Statistics

Press [show] to see lots of numbers
User ID:	302229
User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, user, autoconfirmed
First edit:	Jun 19, 2005, 1:21 AM
Latest edit:	Jan 26, 2016, 7:56 AM
Live edits:	62,203
Deleted edits:	508
Total edits:  	62,711

Edits in the past 24 hours:	7
Edits in the past 7 days:	157
Edits in the past 30 days:	520
Edits in the past 365 days:	8,641
Ø number of edits per day:	16.2

Live edits:
Unique pages edited:	11,830
Pages created:	1,201
Pages moved:	530
Ø edits per page:	5.3
Ø change per page (bytes):	extended
Files uploaded:	229
Files uploaded (Commons):	638
(Semi-)automated edits:	72
Reverted edits:	142
Edits with summary:	60,609
Number of minor edits (tagged):	3,719
Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended
Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended

Actions:
Thank:	582 x
Approve:	2 x
Patrol:	863 x

Admin actions:
Block:	34 x
Protect:	16 x
Delete:	11 x
Import:	0 x
Article:
(Re)blocked:	0 x
Longest block: –
Current block: –

SUL editcounter
(approximate):	latest
► enwiki 	61,971 	+9 hours
commonswiki 	1,577 	+1 day
enwikinews 	749 	> 30 days
metawiki 	65 	> 30 days
wikidatawiki 	25 	> 30 days
frwiki 	19 	> 30 days
dewiki 	17 	> 30 days
wikimania2013wiki 	8 	> 30 days
wikimania2014wiki 	3 	> 30 days
ruwiki 	2 	> 30 days
mediawikiwiki 	2 	> 30 days
63 others	10	> 30 days
Total edits	64,448


Namespace Totals 
	Article 	36,252 	58.3%
	Talk 	6,485 	10.4%
	User 	3,976 	6.4%
	User talk 	1,844 	3%
	Wikipedia 	6,450 	10.4%
	Wikipedia talk 	1,327 	2.1%
	File 	118 	0.2%
	MediaWiki talk 	21 	0%
	Template 	4,919 	7.9%
	Template talk 	400 	0.6%
	Help talk 	1 	0%
	Category 	46 	0.1%
	Category talk 	3 	0%
	Portal 	327 	0.5%
	Portal talk 	4 	0%
	Book 	8 	0%
	Module 	19 	0%
	Module talk 	3 	0%
	
Year counts 
2005 	1	
2006 	45	
2007 	1,742	
2008 	2,541	
2009 	5,382	
2010 	4,275	
2011 	7,632	
2012 	8,848	
2013 	12,473	
2014 	10,245	
2015 	8,588	
2016 	431

As of 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question 4

What elephant in which room? Is RFA a forum for only those with inside knowledge? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Q8

I'm concerned that Q8 might perhaps be a violation of the two-question limit; it requests that Hawkeye7 respond to eight separate hypothetical RFPP requests. All these are placed under one question, but it appears to me that this is really eight questions in disguise. We discussed this problem in the RfC; it was never fully settled, but I recall that there seemed to be general agreement that such questions should not be permitted. Biblio (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While 8 examples might be slightly excessive, I don't see the harm in multiple hypothetical requests for a question like this; you wouldn't learn much of anything from 1 or 2 cases. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is excessive, maybe four would be reasonable, but eight? Definitely uses up the two questions in one go IMO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to decide whether it makes it better or worse that the same eight questions have been asked verbatim on every recent RFA that mentions RFPP, and that most of them really only have one right answer. —Cryptic 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- everyone who reads RfA knows the "right" answer by now. If it's not worth coming up with an interesting borderline case that would explain something about the candidate's thinking, it's not really worth asking any more. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting here that I have added a sentence to Template:RfA, which clarifies that multi-part questions disguised as one question are also disallowed. This should really be common sense. Biblio (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Eight? Come on Rubbish computer--that's too much. People who run for RfA aren't career runners for RfA; they have other stuff to do as well. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding multi-part questions, speaking from personal experience, I would lean more to allowing questions like #10 (simple answers) and less to #11 (complex) in this RFB. If each "sub-question" bullet point can be answered in a sentence fragment, then having a handful (4, 6, 8?) is not more onerous than a single question requiring two or three sentences. JMO, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm concerned that Q8 might perhaps be a violation of the two-question limit": 1 question number, pretty much summarises this. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to "evade the limit" and I really don't see the problem here. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish computer, the whole point is that people can game the two-question limit by asking a multi-part question under the guise of one question. In this case, we feel that by requesting answers for so many different hypothetical situations (eight, to be exact), the "one question" becomes eight separate ones. It doesn't matter that all these effectively eight separate questions are placed under one number; it's the content, and not the number, that matters. Biblio (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's more than one question. It's a single question about page protection with multiple examples. There is no rule against a single question having multiple examples listed. But if the applicant believes that it is more than one question they should ignore explaining the reason why. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed one question with multiple examples. I'm not really sure where this is going, and why this is being ignored. I won't be wasting any more time on this discussion, goodbye. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see an attempt to game the system's new rule. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination must be closed as misleading

This nomination implies that Hawkeye's problematic history is not a problem, since he doesn't intend to do much outside certain fields. There is no "partial adminship" on Wikipedia, ergo the nomination is misleading. This proposal should be closed on procedural reasons, and only be reopened after the proposal has been changed accordingly. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if he doesn't intend to work in certain areas isn't that honesty? And I'm sure that his supporters have assessed his trustworthiness for adminship. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfAs cannot be closed solely because of a "misleading" nomination statement. Nominators are obviously not neutral, and the whole point of writing a nom statement is to promote the candidate. It is the job of participants to investigate the candidate on their own and decide if they can be trusted. Biblio (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's statement is taken as their personal opinion on the matter -- not the universal truth. Every statement is open to interpretation and we wouldn't close it based upon another single person's interpretation either. Mkdwtalk 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it is firstly a matter of opinion, and secondly this cannot be the basis for a procedural close. Surely, voters are expected to inquire into the matters raised. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 was removed due to wheel warring?

Am i reading it right? he was removed because he got into a edit war with some people? that why he was desysopped? Also, he had the other privileges such as autopatrolled and rollbacker? Winterysteppe (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterysteppe: See WP:WHEEL for an overview of what wheel warring entails. North America1000 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that wheel warring is like edit warring, but instead of edits, it's admin actions. And rollback and many other user rights are part of the package for all admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the wheelwarring policy is much more strict than the edit warring policy. Sort of a modified WP:0RR.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel warring is admin-edit-warring at wheel. Everyone knows that - whell, almost everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in line to kill you first for that excruciating pun. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from project page I

  • Well, the first point is that I've never interacted with you before. And the second point is that after your oppose vote on this adminship you just happened "by chance" to vote on these same AfD's [1], [2], [3], and [4] as me!
fyi - Thanks for upgrading the Wendy Barrie-Wilson article. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 03:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If anyone honestly feels that they are being wikistalked, then please report it in the proper venue. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken a civility issue and content dispute to ANI prematurely, and did indeed get WP:BOOMERANGed - in fact, got gangboomeranged. And I was asking for it by not researching my options better, and seeking consensus (although later attempts to be a good wikipedia editor and engage that editor in discussion on a different issue where the project's guidance was pretty clearly opposed to her position weren't as productive as I'd hoped - but at least everyone was civil this time).
It's one of those "Oh, well... " moments when you step away from the situation and figure what's in it for you in editing wikipedia. Like it or not, WP:BOOMERANG is here, and gets used and abused. And we're actually warned in advance about the possibility of being hoisted on our own WP:PETARDs for taking something to ANI or another help forum without a pretty solid case. loupgarous (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Is anyone bothered by "clerked" whitewashing of comments?

Seems a wee bit over the top on faked civility. Juan Riley (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of participants have made their point, and even noted their disagreement with opposing arguments, in a respectful manner without making the discussion personal or casting aspersions. Is there any reason the remainder can't do the same? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Clerking' RfA to maintain decorum is a mandate given to bureaucrats that was confirmed by the community in a recent RFC. –xenotalk 00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just make it an anonymous ballot without comment? One man's "politified" comment is another man's censored comments? No?Juan Riley (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining decorum? That one is a joke surely? Juan Riley (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I get involved in a RfA, but I have been reading previous cases and have noticed that things can get messier at the end. There is something about "running out of time" that often make people drop their polite manners for expediency. Hopefully, it will not happen this time. Nevertheless, as you suggested, there should be other ways to make this process less rancorous and painful. In fact, we should take it on our hands and make it happen. Voting without debate, however, is no true election. I value the votes cast accompanied by a personal shrewd logic, and read carefully what others write in the discussion section. The debates should continue, but in a way that would not leave a trail of rancour and resentment behind. Perhaps anonymous debates, or other forms of moderated interaction. Technology is on our side if we use it wisely. 2₵. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 01:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a relative newbie also. However, I think there must be a better way than editing (cough cough censoring). Editing another's talk page comments in my experience gets a threatened block if not the actual block. Ah but when it suits the bureaucracy it is okay? Juan Riley (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JuanRiley: Who's talk page post have been altered ? Mlpearc (open channel) 02:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc: I said when that (talk page edits) happens it is a no-no. Here we have "voters" in this RfA having their comments edited. Is it not at least the same? Juan Riley (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: Oh my. Ask a few questions get a few thinly veiled threats. On my talk page: "I would just like to ask: do you have any alternative clean-start or hidden accounts? Esquivalience t 02:27, 28 January 2016(UTC)"
(edit conflict) @JuanRiley: Sorry, I havn't been following the "clerking" edits, are you saying post have been censored ? by !clerks ? If that's the case, I would say yes, that is quite the same. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look @Mlpearc:. There has been editing of impolite comments in the RfA. Juan Riley (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another warn off on my talk page from @Esquivalience:: "Perhaps; ArbCom and venues of drama are not for relative newbies nor do I expect newer editors to touch such areas. Esquivalience t 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)" Juan Riley (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)−[reply]

@Esquivalience: Thanks. Since the point of change was brought up here, and the editing of peoples' comments is troublesome (I am with Juan Riley on this), I pithced the issue of reform to invite some brainstorming. I thought there was interest. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caballero1967: To be fair, the type of bureaucrat clerking authorized by the RfC is limited; it does not explicitly permit editing or significant refactoring of others' comments (see Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#M: Active clerking at RFA). However, a separate RfC, not here, is the place to discuss refactoring of comments and clarification of RfA clerking. Esquivalience t 02:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: And your threatened inquisition? Juan Riley (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice @Esquivalience: evaporate. Juan Riley (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Bureaucrat note: The RfC was clear that we were requested to make more of an effort to actively ensure the smooth running of RfC, including its tone. My intention is not to censor anyone's intent, and I do not think I have. I specifically did not refactor or restate anyone comments—to the point that someone pointed that out on my talk page—but I did remove statements I felt whose removal did not hamper the salient point of the commentator and whose presence was unhelpful in stimulating cordial discourse, and I did so in light of the communities clear charge to the bureaucrats. One cannot please everybody all the time, 'tis true, and I am more than welcome to constructive criticism in this regard as well, but if the project asks for clerking from its bureaucrats, please do not be surprised when we do so. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avi and Esquivalience. I had not noticed it until Juna Riley brought it up as a potential concern. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, am delighted to see the crats finally step in and become more involved in RfAs. I would also note that in addition to the clear support for crat clerking voiced in the Clerking RfC, several participants noted that they believed improper !votes should be dealt with by crats, so there seems to be general support for the idea that crats are trusted and should have a broad mandate. (They were also recently trusted with expanded discretion when closing RfAs.) I strongly encourage the crats to continue doing what the broader community so clearly wants them to do. We can't afford to reverse all the good progress we're making to turn RfA into a better place. There will, of course, be those who oppose it, but in the end it's community consensus that really matters—and the consensus is clearly there. Good luck, and keep it up! Biblio (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Avi for stepping up and doing the clerking you have on this occasion. Just one suggestion for the future: it helps if some context can be copied here as well as the removed comments. For example, one of the sections on this page begins with "First - Who are you?", and another begins "Really?" It would be OK to copy across some of the things that these are replies to, even if they are going to be kept on the project page; it doesn't have to be only what is removed from there. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of WP:CENTRAL template

I don't understand why this RfA was linked. The entirety of Wikipedia (which is the linked intent of the template) does not need to be notify and this is very excessive. This RfA should be removed from template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relatively easy answer: a real secret ballot with a talk page discussion (a la Arbcomm). Though the little censor/clerk running thru and making polite all the comments might be harder to justify? Juan Riley (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you object to the removal of off-topic, overly personal, or inflammatory comments. Those sorts of things only serve to degrade the quality of the discussion—much as we all like to think we don't let these things get to us, eventually someone will rise to it an the whole RfA will be dominated by an interpersonal dispute between two people who don't like each other's tone of voice. How does that help to decide whether Hawkeye should be an admin? Think of this more like a meeting in meatspace; those present could ask questions and offer comments, and there would be an impartial chair to ensure that the discussion stays on-topic and doesn't descend into bickering—to that end, our hypothetical chair (the bureaucrats) would intervene when things were getting bogged down or when things started to get personal, perhaps reminding participants to conduct themselves with proper decorum or having inappropriate remarks struck from the minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crats are trusted by the community to make these judgement calls. That's why they're in the position they're in. That's why the community gave them this new mandate not even a month ago. They are answerable to the establishment, it's the community that gives them this mandate, and it's the community that watches and ensures they're doing it properly. That's why I left a comment on Avi's talk page about an action of theirs. Wugapodes (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the point when a bureaucrat was substantially altering the meaning of a comment or removing comments they personally disagreed with, that would be a problem, and would result in an outcry. Removing fuel from a potential heat source is just good housekeeping, and allows us to get on with the matter at hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not enough

As I see the debate(s) develop with time, I am starting to think that the reform's mandate is harder to achieve. The Q&A section can be so easily highjacked by dislikers and enablers. As someone until recently neutral, but still an outsider (have not worked with the candidate and have no direct stake on the issues), I am starting to feel uncomfortable with the direction, tone, and subtexts of the latest questions.-- Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 06:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I have done or said something wrong - I am willing to discuss it in the place of your choice. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, thanks for writing. But in no way I am accusing you or anybody of wrongdoing. That's not for me to decide. But I can tell you that I think I will not return to this page unless pinged. The tenor of questions and some comments is becoming increasingly acrimonious--vulture-like. The candidate ended up answering the questions nobly, I think, but they appeared to me as if meant to extract something more than information. And per the first reaction, if he answers them well, he is still damned. In other words, there is no way out. Perhaps we should see candidates without prejudice until proven clearly guilty. In regards to your question specifically, I have read those comments at the time they were written, and have also felt them offensive, shrewdly so. Now we know that they were ordered to be deleted, which shows, once more, the need for AGF. The idea of examining an RFA candidacy in public is not to enthrone us inquisitors craving for personal faults (WP:HUNT). I did not intend to predict, but I commented above about how at the end of potentially contentious nominations the tendency was for the discourse to degenerate. I enjoy an honest and sincere debate that is also respectful. The challenge is to create an atmosphere conducive to such a balance among so diverse crowd of people who live away of each other (mostly). Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 09:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, an RFA for a candidate who was previously deadminned for abusing the tools will always be a contentious affair. And it should involve digging deeply into the candidate's actions, motives, etc. (which you liken to an inquisition). Nothing less will do when the community is considering giving the tools back to someone who previously misused them. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking question

Please see Support #142 by Rosario for background

Wow. So I could say that "A successful RfA based on thinly masked attempts to obfuscate and dissemble regarding the candidate's editing and adminning history would not not send a positive message to newcomers. !voters should focus on the candidate's poor record as an admin and editor rather than on obfuscating and dissembling"? Because, to me, that seems like a clear personal attack. Just like the majority of the text of this !vote did. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hallward's Ghost: In my opinion, if you really were concerned about how the RfA was being handled, and the candidate's record, then yes. You could say that you felt that an RfA in which supports or opposes were thinly masked attacks or the like is distinctly unhelpful, and that you request or imply that everyone involved should think about why they opine as they do, that is part of the discussion. If, however, someone was obviously trying to make a point, that would be handled in its own way.
This is the first time I (and possibly any 'crat) am trying to be active as clerks based on the RfC, and so there will be growing pains. My decisions for this RfA are predicated on my trying to be as unobtrusive as possible and to err to AGF if the attacks are not obvious. Thus my decision. -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That attack was pretty obvious. The person questioned the motives of almost every opposer. I'm not sure how it isn't a personal attack, but you've got the 'crat bit, so it's your view that matters. You did that in another area, where MurderByDeletionism was questioning motives. I think it's important to have an "all sides" discussion without having one side questioning the motives of the other over and over. I'll leave it at that. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost: Firstly, to be clear, just because English Wikipedia committed gross negligence by giving me a 'crat bit does not mean that I have any more weight in these decisions. I appreciate your feedback, and the way the first few RfXs are clerked, and the feedback obtained, will help shape our discretion going forward. This is why, as I mentioned above, my decision process includes an express desire for less overt changes to text. The best clerked RfX would be one where we need to do nothing . I agree that it isn't crystal clear, but since those sentences can be read without logical contortions to be general statements on RfX and not an attack on any opiner, I let them stand for now. Over time, and with feedback, perhaps that will change. What I do want to ensure is that you and everyone understand I am not intentionally being capricious or negligent, but have a rationale for what I am trying to do. Being human, though, I'm cannot guarantee perfect consistency and I do appreciate being directed to areas where it may appear that I was inconsistent so I can either explain or correct my actions. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to find any other way to read that quoted portion as doing anything other than impugning the motives of people who do not support Hawkeye7's candidacy. But like I mentioned above, to each their own. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, can I rewrite the statement to avoid altercations? My apologies to Hallward's Ghost. Rosario (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say sure, but it may lead to confusion with Halward's answers, so may I suggest instead of overwriting, striking out your text (and any of my interruptions), and rewriting underneath. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rosario (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the counter?

What happened to the counter? At this moment there are 173 supports and 79 80 opposes, but the counter says 162 vs 65 (which I think was correct a few hours ago). Some bug? Bishonen | talk 17:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The counters are updated by User:Cyberbot I which is currently down. BethNaught (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Should we start updating it manually, like we used to? Or maybe just remove the counter, for as long as it's misleading? I dunno. @Avraham: you got anything? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Nope. I know very little about bots, sorry. Feel free to manually update it; it's not like the running total is sacrosanct. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q 22

While the individual RfA page proper is considered a discussion, I also don't feel that badgering anyone for their views is in good taste. That said, I do think that the addendum to the answer of Q-22 by User:SilkTork (here) is a very poor mis-characterization of what Silk actually stated in his oppose (vote #34 at the time of this post). I wanted to state my view publicly as if further cements my own rational for opposing. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Support of Deryck C

See Anon comment in support of Deryck C.

Really? Resorting to these types of tactics truly does make one despair. — Ched :  ?  16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked impartiality in reading my comments so they would not be taken as partisan. I am not desperate at all. The outcome will not affect me, but the way the candidate is evaluated will. 166.170.32.33 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched: I'm not sure which type of tactics you're referring to. I understand the point that this isn't strictly double jeopardy, though I want to note that most current admins gained their tools within 4 years of their first edit to Wikipedia. I can understand those who oppose this RfA based on bad temperament he showed last year, but in my opinion recalling drama from 5 years ago is unhelpful. Deryck C. 10:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - provided that the candidate has moved on. Myself and several other oppose voters believe that this isn't the case here. MLauba (Talk) 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan:, sans the ping, I might have deferred to MLauba, who makes some very sage observations. I am willing to go into detail if you wish, but here are my initial thoughts. "last year" (your emphasis) was 32 days ago. Many of the "last year" opposing diffs are from October 2015, which is less than 4 months ago. Some of the opposition is due to the responses (or lack thereof) to this very RfA. The "double jeopardy" issue is something I would consider a logical fallacy. You will have to elaborate a bit for me to understand the "most current admins gained their tools within 4 years of their first edit to Wikipedia" issue.
Now, if you are asking about the totality of my post: (and perhaps I should log out to do this part) Allow me to plant my tongue firmly within my cheek and say the following. "I am afraid to post my true thoughts while logged in because of the ' risks of voicing opinions. I can just imagine what would happen to me if I say something that the [supporters] would find disagreeable. ' ." Now, consider some following points: 1) Signing as an IP is far from being anonymous as it offers a location. 2) If someone were truly afraid, why say anything at all? I am familiar with Persuasive writing, and to some extent it is considered to be a form of manipulation.[5]
tl:dr - I don't like manipulation, and I don't like being painted with a broad brush. Elaborating further would entail my using unflattering terminology that I've so far avoided. If you still have questions though - I AM more than willing to draw up some detailed explanation. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find Ched's making fun of other people of poor taste. IvetteHer (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you see Ched' "making fun of other people." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am making fun of anyone, or anything, then you have very much missed the mark. I'll ask you IvetteHer to please explain that, because I very much consider it a personal attack. (see: WP:NPA) — Ched :  ?  18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean it as a personal attack. I intended to say that your quoting on the anon felt to me as you making fun. Walking a fine line. IvetteHer (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing opposers

Given the boundary, we can graph how many opponents were missing, at each moment, to turn the decision into not now.

Moreover, the score among the 80 admins is above 70%. Pldx1 (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the "2/3 boundary"? I had always heard that anything between 70-75% was bureaucrat's discretion, while almost anything below that was a "no consensus." Also, why does the percentage among admins even matter? Do they have some kind of "supervote" that's worth 25% more than us regular editors? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per recent RfC regarding RfA reform, the crats' discretionary range is now 65 to 74.99%, not 70 to 79.99%, as it was previously. That said, like Hallward, I would like an explanation of what this graph and the cryptic "missing opponents" message above are supposed to mean. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be "noticed" at all. It sets up an unhealthy "class" system at RFA, that has no place in an open, frank discussion. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hallward, I suppose he's free to draw attention to whatever he wants, but as someone who holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in economics -- with a heavy emphasis on mathematical and statistical methodology -- I'm still trying to understand his point regarding the 2/3 (66.67%) threshold. The RfC in question was adopted with a super-majority of 74 to 31, or 71%. That's about as solid a "consensus" as I have ever seen for proposed RfA reforms, ergo, the 65 to 74.99% discretionary range is operative, and the practical implication for Hawkeye's pending RfA is that the outcome will be decided by a 'crat chat. Moreover, I have no idea what he means by "missing oppose voters." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means "number of additional people who would have to oppose in order to make the overall result under 2/3". Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discretionary range has recently been widened by adjusting the lower point from 70% down to 65%. This is one of the first RFAs with the modified range, perhaps even the first where it matters. Bureacrats might find the widening useful here, given the retaliatory motives and misguided reasoning behind some of the Opposes here. The "admin metric" is useful, given that almost every RFA tends to have trolls, incorrigible admin-haters, and troublemaking users with a block log not fitting in a single sheet of paper (when printed with small font) among the voters. Using some "editor quality" screen to select only some subset of "good" editors and recalculating the percentages helps downweight any trolls. Maybe a better editor quality metric, ideally a multi-factor model, than just the single admin bit could be used for this kind of analysis. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dirtlawyer1: And now, the first comment posted to the crat chat (other than Avi's administrative notes) is an immediate impugning of the opposers' motives. I hold out almost no hope that this discussion will lead to anything other than promotion for an admin that was previously deadminned for misusing the block button. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallward, certain rationales among the "opposes" are personalized and easily lend themselves to being characterized as "vindictive" or grudge-based. Most of the "opposes," however, simply express reasonable concerns about the candidate's history. I don't relish the crats' jobs on this one -- it's not going to be any easy 'crat chat to close. Having watched several of these over the past three years, I would not get too emotionally involved either way. There really are two sides to this story, and waging rhetorical trench warfare -- either for or against the candidate -- only raises the temperature without shedding any additional light. Hawkeye is neither the Great Satan nor a Messenger of Light; he's been proven to be eminently human. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important to keep in mind that the candidate has been a great contributor, and I personally hate to see a good contributor get rhetorically shredded, regardless of any past mistakes he's made. Many "oppose" voters still need to learn to voice their concerns without demonizing a good, but flawed candidate; many "support" voters still need to learn to deal properly with the more over-the-top "oppose" comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I started as "neutral", when I almost always support RFA candidates who are also good editors. I moved first to a "regretful" oppose, and as I read more of Hawkeye7's answers (which I viewed as less than straightforward) to a "strong oppose." In my view, resysops of previously deadminned editors should require a supermajority, particularly when the deadminning was for misuse of the most powerful button with which admins are trusted. And supports for such candidates should have to be just as well-reasoned as we expect opposes to be. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the comment
  • "Using some "editor quality" screen to select only some subset of "good" editors and recalculating the percentages helps downweight any trolls. Maybe a better editor quality metric, ideally a multi-factor model, than just the single admin bit could be used for this kind of analysis." by jni,
I have a question: which weighting factors do you have in mind? I just ask, because changing the existing criteria for inviting editors to vote in RfAs seems like a policy we currently invited editors would have to vote on. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, and it's a prerogative of the 'crats. I just wanted to know, so I could decide whether to show up for these things. loupgarous (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Pldx1's attempt to close the RFA

Hawkeye7 RfA is now in cratchat, no harm was done by anyone. Changes to the current fluidity of close timings can be addressed on WP:BN or via RFC.

I couldn't find his name on the list of Crats, so I've reverted his attempts to effectively strike both the one support and the several opposes that have come since the listed closing time. My understanding is that time isn't hard and fast, so I think my revert is correct, and his attempt to end the discussion was not. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear User:Hammersoft. I approve the diff you made, since it underlines the fact that I have placed a remainder of the closing time in both the support and the oppose sections, and not in only one of them. You know, there are people that really think that a written, contractual, clause is written and contractual. As an afterthought, I must admit that, to be totally fair, I should have added the same comment in the Neutral section. Concerning your description of what I have done as a closing, this seems over the facts: closing a Request for Adminship is not saying that voting period is over, it is proclaming the result. It was obviously in the discretionary zone (and I have not even stated that). But let's wait for, and follow, the ruling at Bureaucrat_chat. Pldx1 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably stop beating that horse, Pldx1. You've been told, numerous times, that what you believe in this regard is incorrect. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for historical references:

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Hawkeye7_2"