Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678

This discussion falls, both numerically and in terms of the issues raised, on the knife-edge of the level of consensus the community expects for adminship promotions.
Quite a bit of the opposition is expressed as weak or reluctant, but others express strong views. The opposition spans a number of concerns - lack experience (both content creation and deletion discussions etc); issue with bot operation; BLP concerns; temperament issues. Those are legitimate issues, although it is somewhat unusual to see so many opposing for some many different reasons. I am not sure that concerns about "unfinished business" or preferring the candidate to focus their time on another area can be seen in quite the same way - we are volunteers, how volunteers choose to allocate their time is up to them.
Those supporting express the view that there is room for different types of administrators, but many acknowledge the lack of content contributions flagged by the opposition and, like those opposing several make it clear that their support is "weak" and/or that they have been "on the fence".
So where does that leave us? I would not feel comfortable closing this request as successful without obtaining input from other bureaucrats, and likewise think it would be unfair to Cyberpower678 to conclude that no consensus exists without getting input from others. This is a pretty difficult one and I'm willing to be persuaded if others think the outcome is clearer than it has appeared to me on an initial analysis. WJBscribe (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• If I'd been the closing crat, I'd have probably promoted straight away (which is not to say that a Crat chat is a bad idea, at all). I'm a bit short of time to write my thoughts in detail, so in brief, there's a large bulk of support and some opposes, as you say, that I'd weigh less heavily. In my opinion, there is consensus to give this user the tools. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is on the upper edge of that 70-75% discretionary range, so if there was a convincing reason it could end up as no consensus. I don't see that as the case here. The opposes are primarily reluctant ones, and if nothing else at least acknowledge that he wouldn't abuse the tools if he became admin. Honestly I'd have just promoted straight away myself without a crat chat; definite consensus. Wizardman 12:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not that anything turns on it, but I've always thought of it as a 70-80% discretionary range. Apparently that used to be your view too going by your answer to question 1. WJBscribe (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did read through the discussion, and while I've been away from RfA matters for quite some time, I believe that promotion is justified. As Bureaucrats, our traditional role has been to observe and act upon a decision made by the community. It is not our role to act upon our own evaluation of candidates' strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, I believe we do have some leeway to disregard opposing comments where the only or primary reasons given lack a basis in policy or a clear connection to the goals of the project. A number of the "oppose" comments fall into this category. I view the nomination in that light. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• My own opinions on this candidate are too strong for me to participate in this bureaucrat chat in an unbiased manner, so I defer to the judgement of my fellow bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)