Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
+
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


<font face="Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</font> 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
<font face="Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</font> 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

*At the moment I think this request is a pass. It meets the requirements for demonstrating reasonable consensus, and has no shortage of support. Disclaimer: I opposed. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]''' ([[User_talk:Andrevan|talk]]) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:53, 6 March 2008

I am not comfortable being the sole bureaucrat to determine the outcome of this RfB. I do not believe an extension of time would be beneficial here - reviewing the history of the RfB, it has oscillated around similar levels of opposition and support and it seems probable that we would be looking at a similar balance in a few days time.

Numerically speaking, this RfB falls (at 85.8%) very slightly above the highest % support for an unsuccessful nomination (85.3% - Quadell) and below the lowest % support for a successful RfB (86.7% - Andre). The fact that this RfB enjoys the highest number of supporters ever has to be seen in the context that the level opposition (39 opposers) is however far higher than the highest level of opposition a successful RfB has had (16 opposers - Essjay). A relevant discussion I would draw your attention to is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfB passing %, where there seems to be significant support for the view that demanding 90% support for bureaucrat candidates is excessive and that some reduction should be made. Although I think shifting goal posts mid-discussion is unhelpful, I think we also need to be mindful of community attitudes that form a background to this RfB. This request seems to be within the scope of discretion and I think the discussion needs to be carefully evaluated if we are to correctly determine the outcome.

Turning to the issues raised in the discussion, I think it would be correct to say that there are two primary concerns raised by those opposing:

  • The fact that Riana's decision to nominate Kelly Martin for adminship calls into question her judgment
  • Issues of temperament - with diffs cited of a couple of incidents involved the use of profanity/incivility

On the one hand opposition centres on very few incidents, on the other it does seem to have been such that a number of highly respected members of the community do not trust Riana to be a bureaucrat. At the moment I am rather on the fence - I am unsure how to factor in the recent discussions about what should be the correct threshhold for promoting a bureaucrat. If the test remains along the lines of "no significant opposition", then I am not convinced this request can be successful. If were are simply looking for a consensus with some form of supermajority, then that does seem to exist in this case.

WjBscribe 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment I think this request is a pass. It meets the requirements for demonstrating reasonable consensus, and has no shortage of support. Disclaimer: I opposed. Andre (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]