261:
this error (which presumably has already been brought to his attention). Presumably, Raul could have
Hamster's adminship revoked temporarily (I assume that bureaucrats can ask for accidental promotions to be revoked, anything else would seem rather silly) and reopen the RFA for another day. Kim's RfAr should be against Raul for failing to provide the sought-after remedy.
92:
Although I know bureaucrats aren't held strictly to numbers and
Knowledge is not a democracy I just think I should note for those who are interested the number counts on this. As of close there was 81.25% support, and purely on the numbers that means that there would be somewhere between 79% and 80%
61:
I disagree with Kim on this and I don't think that this deserves an RFAr since Kim is of course assuming that he had gotten a chance to vote on the nomination that it would have made a difference as to whether
Hamster Sandwhich was promoted or not and that Hamster shouldn't be punished for an honest
248:
No, because it is just a procedural thing (due to the fact that only arbcom... or the board... or Jimbo) can order someone de-adminned and the latter two would never do so for procedural issues the only way to do it would be to file an arbcom case against the candidacy (which in affect isn't really
260:
Actually it seems far more reasonable to place the RFAr against Raul, as Raul's the one who's violation of policy/established norms Kim is seeking relief against. Specifically, closing the RFA early and not giving the discussion the standard seven days to proceed, and then doing nothing to address
376:
Just because he hasn't got a right to it doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing it though ;). Everyone who thinks in good faith that an ArbCom cae is needed should go ahead, in my opinion. The ArbCom can always reject. (And no, I don't think Kim's got a case here either, and the
Arbitrators who
180:
Just as a note. The only way to simply request a rerun is to formulate it as an RFAr. There's simply no other policy or method in place. So insofar as I've
Requested arbitration against Hamster Sandwich, it's officially purely on grounds of procedure. (An area where I don't often tread, granted)
189:
Yes and it's a same since arbcom cases are truly lacking many times because not enough users take an interest in proposing possible solutions, I'll even go as far to say that as far as I've seen many users aren't even aware that they can go to arbcom workshop pages and propose ideas.
164:
Had HS's RfA not been closed prematurely, it is quite likely that it would have succeeded anyway. So making him stand again will be punishing him. And
Apparently in the judgment of the closing Bureaucrat he "enjoyed consensus support for his adminship" at the time of the closing.
287:
The entire idea is stupid. What are the findings of fact going to be? "So and so entered the date wrong." The proposed decision? "Greater care must be taken in calculating seven days from the time of nomination." I propose we start a new version of
316:
Yes, that is precisely the point I am making. What wd be the result of arbitration against Raul be? "Greater care must be taken by the b'crat in calculating seven days from the time of nomination." Aren't b'crats human? Won't they make mistakes?
324:
Yeah, the only way I can see this RFArb going anywhere is if Kim could prove that someone deliberately acted improperly to ensure
HamsterSandwich became an admin. And no-one is claming that. I don't feel this is likely to achieve anything.
274:
On the other hand, it can also be argued that the nominator and/or the nominee gave the wrong closing time and that the b'crat closed it according to the time mentioned. In this view, the RfAr can be brought against nominator/nominee also.
249:
against the candidate himself anyway) since it isn't the bureaucrats fault for using his judgement as he is supposed to do and you can't file it against RFA policies since policies like everything else is just lines on a page.
62:
mistake, that being said I agree that Kim should have had the chance to say his piece on the RFA instead of having to do it on talk pages and arbcom cases and I can see why he feels that an arbcom case is necessary.
118:
Interesting data point. I forget who but somebody at least for awhile kept compiled data on noms and what the pass close ratio was and the support numbers/percent average for passing and failing RFA's.
201:
Too bad he didn't get 100%, then we would have no issues :-), like the person who got like 184/0 recently. A perfect walk-through, thanks to Boothy443 not voting...thank
32:
233:
A question, as
Hamster Sammich was not the person in charge of being promoted, shouldn't the RFAr technically be against the beaurocrat in question? -
77:
I don't see this as punishing
Hamster - it's just that it's far from clear that he has, at any time, ever enjoyed consensus support for his adminship.
47:
293:
309:
265:
305:
21:
427:. It's just the perception of a "behind the scenes" advocacy that compromises an otherwise proper promotion. --
262:
207:
423:
saying that it was all a mistake of the calender. I dont think that the promotion in and of itself is a
93:
support though that does not take into account consensus or how the closing bureaucrat weighs the votes.
169:
54:
43:
78:
140:
104:
Also for comparison, strictly based on numbers, Luigi30's RfA passed at 72%. Just a data point. -
370:
241:
112:
416:
384:
301:
431:
222:
182:
166:
51:
39:
318:
276:
343:
Of course. I'm just voicing my concerns that I don't think it's likely to achieve much.
420:
344:
326:
289:
135:
377:
already voiced an opinion seem to share my opinion. But at least we know that now.) --
366:
334:
251:
234:
192:
121:
105:
95:
64:
380:
297:
17:
428:
351:
350:
It's his right. That doesn't mean it was a nice thing to do, or justified. --
131:
31:
Kim
Bruning has opened an ArbReq against Hamster Sandwich because of his RfA (
205:. Anyway, we should just let him be an admin, I doubt he will skew up anyway.
358:
332:
Yeah but it's his right to file an RFAr even if it is bound to be rejected.
419:
conversation may have somthing to do with this dustup plus the notice at
272:(Just for discussion purposes, I am outlining this train of argument.)
365:
to do anything. We're making an enyclopedia here, not a society.
48:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#User:Hamster Sandwich
134:, IIRC, and also IIRC he's still compiling stats.
46:because he was promoted to Admin in error, see:
8:
42:has made a request for arbitration against
294:Knowledge:Lamest arbitration requests ever
7:
340:---- 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
257:---- 06:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
198:---- 05:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
127:---- 05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
101:---- 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
70:---- 05:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
28:
361:, not a government. Nobody has a
221:I think he will, hence. :-/
312:) 12:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
244:) 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
211:
115:) 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
373:02:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
354:02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
329:23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
321:13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
268:09:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
185:05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
57:05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
1:
434:07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
389:03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
347:01:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
279:12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
225:06:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
214:
172:06:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
145:05:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
81:05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
208:
461:
357:Actually, this is
263:Christopher Parham
339:
256:
238:
197:
126:
109:
100:
69:
452:
387:
383:
337:
333:
254:
250:
236:
216:
213:
210:
195:
191:
143:
138:
124:
120:
107:
98:
94:
67:
63:
44:Hamster Sandwich
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
451:
450:
449:
385:
378:
335:
252:
193:
141:
136:
122:
96:
65:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
458:
456:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
348:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
85:
84:
83:
82:
72:
71:
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
457:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
388:
382:
375:
374:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
353:
349:
346:
342:
341:
338:
331:
330:
328:
323:
322:
320:
315:
314:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
278:
273:
270:
269:
267:
264:
259:
258:
255:
247:
246:
245:
243:
239:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
204:
200:
199:
196:
188:
187:
186:
184:
171:
168:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
144:
139:
133:
129:
128:
125:
117:
116:
114:
110:
103:
102:
99:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
80:
79:Phil Sandifer
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
60:
59:
58:
56:
53:
49:
45:
41:
34:
30:
23:
19:
424:
362:
286:
271:
232:
206:
202:
179:
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
223:Kim Bruning
183:Kim Bruning
167:Paul August
52:Paul August
40:Kim Bruning
319:Gurubrahma
277:Gurubrahma
130:That'd be
33:Archive 42
359:Knowledge
345:Raven4x4x
327:Raven4x4x
425:big deal
367:Dmcdevit
336:Jtkiefer
253:Jtkiefer
194:Jtkiefer
123:Jtkiefer
97:Jtkiefer
66:Jtkiefer
20: |
421:WP:SIGN
381:grm_wnr
298:Talrias
292:called
290:WP:LAME
237:HAIRBOY
170:☎
137:android
108:HAIRBOY
55:☎
429:hydnjo
379:
352:SCZenz
266:(talk)
363:right
209:Voice
132:Durin
16:<
432:talk
417:This
386:Esc
215:All
212:of
203:God
317:--
308:|
304:|
296:.
275:--
142:79
50:.
371:t
369:·
310:c
306:e
302:t
300:(
242:☎
240:(
235:C
113:☎
111:(
106:C
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.