Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3/Bureaucrat discussion

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.

We have here a complicated situation. As it stands right now, the RfA is at 66%, which is numerically very much at the low end, if not outright shy of the traditional discretionary zone. Nevertheless, several factors, including the significant switching of opposes and neutrals, a recent growth in the percentage, and the fact that this is a reconfirmation RfA, makes it a reasonable case to not close it purely by the numbers, but by careful scrutiny of the individual argument for and against promotion. As the result here is bound to be controversial—and by far not straightforward—I've opened up a cratchat to go over several of the points brought up in the RfA.

If I did not feel that there was any chance at promotion here, I would not have brought up a bureaucrat discussion. I will list some points that I think are relevant, but as the initiator of the crat chat (and because I'm still thinking about it), I will refrain expressing a definite opinion until we get more input. Here are some of the issues brought up in the RfA that I think will determine the consensus; please feel free to add more:

• Reconfirmation RfAs: traditionally, some leniency has been given, especially percentage-wise, as a former admin may attract opposition that is nowhere near objective in their reasoning.
• Recall: This is SarekOfVulcan's second reconfirmation RfA. Is there consensus within the RfA that because he has a track record of resigning/standing for reconfirmation after significant controversy, there is a much less risk that we will have a situation where it becomes difficult to desysop when it would be appropriate?
• Net positive as an admin: Comments in both support and opposition both suggest overall competency in using the admin toolkit.
• Net negative as an admin: Several comments in the opposition are based upon the drama, Arbcom cases, desysoping, and so on; is there consensus that it clouds the seemingly overall good use of the admin bit?
• Questions in the RfA: A lot of opposition is in response to poorly answered questions; however, that seems to have been somewhat rectified. How much weight should be given to these comments?

I think we have a borderline case here, and I await my fellow bureaucrats' comments. Maxim_(talk) 13:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Recused As I supported his first and second RFAs. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, let's not mince words here: this RfA is solidly below the traditional 'crat discretion range. I don't feel comfortable with exercising 'crat discretion here; I think this RfA should close as failed. I don't know about a lower range for reconfirmation RfAs (Maxim, do you have any examples that come to mind?), but the thing for me is that the community is the one who should decide whether that counts for something or not, not the 'crats. And by all appearances, they have; there were supporters who mentioned it in their rationales. It wasn't enough to get this RfA into the discretionary range, though, and I think we should respect that; I don't think we can "double-dip" on the reconfirmation angle to put this into the discretionary range, when that's one of the factors that got it to where it is now. I definitely don't think closing this RfA as successful is an option (in my opinion). The most I would consider is to give it a few extra days, to see if this positive trend pans out, but even that might be overreach on our part, and I'm not sure it's wise or fair to the community in general or Sarek in particular to let this go on. This feels like a no consensus to promote for me. I will say, though, that it was a good idea to open a discussion on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There are precedents for a closure outside the range - see Danny, Ryulong, and others. That being said, that doesn't mean it should apply here. Arguably, it hasn't gone well in the past when this did happen. Andrevan@ 02:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrevan: So should this be taken as a no consensus to promote opinion? Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Andrevan@ 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I'll briefly explain why I opened a crat chat. The typical, traditional reasoning behind considering to promote reconfirmation RfAs at lower percentages is because it is more likely some of the opposition arises from disagreements with regards to judgment calls an admin had made that are not necessarily invalid, as opposed to clear misconduct. As such, it makes sense to carefully check if there are good reasons to exercise 'crat discretion—a crat chat is a good way of doing so. Having thought about this RfA for another day, I feel that most of the opposition is well-founded, being based on previous misconduct and how it was addressed by SarekOfVulcan. As such, we don't have the circumstances where promotion below the discretionary zone is appropriate. I am in agreement with Writ Keeper that this should be no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse from an abundance of caution, as the user and I talked frequently on IRC. Pakaran 21:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Meta-note: I suggest waiting today and tomorrow for more bureaucrats to show up (after all, it is the weekend) with the hope of reaching a decision before Tuesday (UTC). We don't want to drag this out more than necessary. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this a couple times, and here's what I got from it. The supports were various, but I saw a surprising number noting his getting rid of the tools before arbcom could as a reason to support. (The way that decision was done was rather odd since there was majority support for the desysop, but that's another issue.) As for the opposes, while some note the lack of answers to questions (I'd give a stronger weight to the supports noting track record in lieu of any question opposition), many were because of concern that SoV hasn't learned from the arb case, and we would end up with another desysop possibility down the road. For me to support a 2/3 promotion, either the supports would have to be incredibly strong (they were not, in fact there were a lot of moral and why not supports instead), or the opposes would have to be mostly unfounded or very weak (they were not). In the end, I can't see promoting in spite of consensus to be a proper move in this case. Decision: no consensus. Wizardman 16:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be extending to this RfA the extra margin of discretion that has been afforded in the past to reconfirmation RfAs. It makes sense to me to do so where a candidate has chosen reconfirmation when they could simply have requested restoration of the rights, or where they seek reconfirmation whilst holding the rights (and there is no imminent threat of them losing them). Is this such a case? Arguably it is - ArbCom could have but by a narrow margin chose not to desysop and so there is no doubt a school of thought that says he could just have got the tools back by asking. I do not however subscribe to that school of thought. I think bureaucrats' discretion in considering such a resysop request is wider than simply considering what ArbCom did/ would have done. In my view, resigning where one has hung on to the bits by the skin of one's teeth still counts as controversial circumstances. As such, I think this should be treated as any other RfA. The opposition is firm and well grounded. I don't see this as "grudge" opposition generated as a result of proper but controversial admin decisions, to which I agree with those above limited weight should be given. Accordingly, I don't think there's a consensus to promote here. WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus: Andrevan, Maxim, Wizardman, WJBscribe, Writ Keeper
Recused: MBizanz, Pakaran

• Closed as no consensus. –xeno^talk 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]