Meta talk:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni

• This RfA ended on 22 March 2019 03:51 (UTC), as such I have not taken into consideration any vote casted after that time. With that in mind, the tally is 22 supports, 8 opposes and 1 neutral (Vogone; although it looks its leaning oppose). That makes it 73,33% < 75% required for promotion. If I even go ahead and discount votes of users with, say, less than 50 edits at Meta, the tally would be 18 supports, 7 opposes and 1 neutral, which would make a 72% < 75 % (the affected would be: RhinosF1: 26 edits; Bradv: 17 edits; Natureium: 42 edits; Barkeep49; Arifin.wijaya: 20 edits). As such I think there's no consensus for promotion at this time on both scenarios. Sorry. Pinging my fellow bureaucrats Matiia and MF-Warburg as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• *I have no problem with whatever you all decide, but I do have two questions: first, I have it as 26 support and 9 oppose (revi supported but didn't mark it), and I could just be counting wrong, but I've done it several times throughout the day and that's what I get to.

  Second, on the discounting, I would also suggest stuff like Special:Contributions/Iwan_Novirion would be fair to include in the not active camp, which would make it either 75% using your numbers, and 76% if you didn't add revi's. Either way it's close and like I said, I think either one is fair, but since you're getting into numbers, I thought it worth bring up. Thanks for taking the time to do this, Marco, it is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • • Also, yeah, figured out where the number discrepancies are: NovakWatchman and Ajraddatz used {{support}}. Tulsi and revi supported without templates. MF-W opposed without a template. That'd bring you using your methods to:
      • All votes 26/9/1 (74.28%)
      • Discounted 22/8/1 (75%) and if you use my suggestion that a first non-minor edit in almost two years isn't active 22/7/1 (75.8%).

As I said, fine with whatever, just wanted to get the math straight since it seems to come down to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Doh. I misread that you weren't counting the late votes. Yeah, your numbers are fine. Again, thanks Marco. Sorry for the confusion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• On enwiki the crats would discount revenge votes in close calls like this - is that not done here? Bradv🍁 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any revenge votes. Nihlus 02:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  [1] SQL^{Query me!} 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why are we using en.wp rules for meta-wiki? And as far I'm concerned, murbaut case is in relation towards inexperience in editcounts (not enough editcount rationale), it follows other oppose voters who are concerned about Tony 500 contribs.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 02:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm just wondering what the rules are here, since they don't appear to be spelled out anywhere. For instance, where's the rule that votes after 7 days don't count? Or the rule that people with less than 50 contribs can't vote? I think that if we're discounting votes based on those rules, we should definitely be discounting bad faith votes. Bradv🍁 02:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict.)I'm pretty sure Bradv was merely asking a question - and wasn't intending to close this RfA. SQL^{Query me!} 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well, this is a very strange RfA and I don't really like what is happing here. That said, it doesn't seem there to be approval by at least 75% of participants (as shown by MarcoAurelio above). I agree to close this as no consensus. Matiia (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Matiia, thanks for commenting, since you and Marco agree, feel free to go ahead and close this as no consensus or withdrawn: I don’t particularly like the arguing on this talk page, and if 2/3 crats are on the same page, that’s enough for me. Thanks to both of you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)