281:(although I attach little weight to anything that criticizes what article topics he has edited). Then there's the issue of communication and time: while I am uncertain it's a good idea to tell volunteers where they should be contributing, I think it is unwise for we bureaucrats to ignore multiple, good-faith concerns about potential communication availability/worries about being "overstretched" due to additional responsibilities (although to be fair, any delay in responding to RfA questions can be attributed to the sheer number that were asked). On top of these, some in opposition are of the opinion and have cited contradictions to the aforementioned improvements in maturity and temperament. There are some other issues, too, such as a lack of deletion-related work, a possible dearth of knowledge of some policies and concerns about overall judgment; these are less frequent that the previous issues but appear to be significant when taken in combination with everything else.
398:
closed, but to date I think we've only extended RfAs where either (i) some new evidence came to light late in the discussion (not just a late swing in opinion) or (ii) to dilute the effect of canvassing. I'm not sure I like the idea of an extension to see if our evaluation of consensus gets easier later. The % might change, but it seems unlikely that the balance of the argument will change. Indeed, in the c. 12 hrs after the scheduled close before this RfA was placed on hold, there were 4 new participants who were evenly split between supporting and opposing.
35:
358:
and worked on recognizing his own limitations. However, the concerns raised in opposition are well-founded and cannot simply be ignored. Reading this RfA gives me the feeling of reading an administrator's first (unsuccessful) RfA. If the candidate is able to overcome some of the concerns raised, I think they will find a much stronger mandate in a future RfA. While I
199:
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.
344:. I'm still processing. If the request rests on a razor's edge, I'd rather re-open the discussion for 24 hours to allow it to stabilize. Given the progression of the RfA, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing it without additional input: as though promotion is a defensible result, Acalamari's comments above are compelling. –
110:
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.
246:, as in my view the relative weights of the arguments don't overcome the presumption in the candidate's favor stemming from the !vote totals (if anything, the opposes are weaker, taken as a group). Given that I don't see any Bureaucrats supporting a finding of no consensus, this discussion can probably be closed soon.
362:
to grant the tools to
Cyberpower678 - that is, I think he's mature and clueful enough not to jump right into complex situations and cause issues, I'm afraid that would be a supervote. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that weighing of oppose votes is enough find sufficient consensus to promote (those
162:
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.
146:
Briefly, I don't think we can entirely disregard concerns regarding "unfinished business", especially insofar as those concerns outlined how the candidate's approach to his workload might affect negatively his execution of adminship. Accordingly, I think opening the bureaucrat discussion was fine (an
321:
Acalamari said the things that make this particular consensus gauging tricky. In the event that this is my last comment before this 'crat chat draws to a close, I will just say that I feel there is not much consensus in this chat. A couple of "definite consensus", a couple of "barely", a couple of
270:
The positives: The majority of those supporting and opposing agree that
Cyberpower678 is highly experienced with technical aspects of Knowledge (XXG), such as bots and tools; there are several "thank yous" littered across the RfA with regards to that work. Several people who have known Cyberpower678
109:
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,
397:
My worry if we make the end time totally elastic is that whoever chooses when to bring the discussion to a close has a huge influence on the outcome. The community has chosen 7 days as the duration of an RfA. It's not a strict limit, and users are free to continue commenting until the discussion is
357:
Having read it in greater detail, I am still divided. It's clear
Cyberpower678 does hold the trust of the community - no one is suggesting this is not the case. We could deliver a successful result and I think he would become a very capable administrator as long as he moved cautiously into the role
224:
After reading this over, I concur with WJBscribe that this is a close one. Many individuals were "on the fence" and it feels like this entire RFA ended up there too. Even a sizable number of people who started neutral but didn't end up there. There were, of course, also some individuals who felt
131:
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
115:
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
468:
After reviewing things, I think this is too ambiguous to decide in favor of promotion at this time. I agree with the comments left by
Acalamari and xeno, and I don't really have anything more to add to the discussion than what has already been written. I don't think it is within our discretion to
290:
but skyrocketed to 39 by the time WJBscribe opened this discussion. I do not consider it prudent to discount the rapid shift from a safe pass to a borderline case. While an extension has been suggested, this is scarce in practice, so I base my judgment on the current result and cannot ignore this
380:
On a general note, I think we should also remind and encourage community members to continue to place comments after the "scheduled end" of the RfA to assist in determining consensus, and probably try not to ping bureaucrats' until at least 24 hours after it expires (our advice now says 12). The
306:
I have to say that this is very much the way my thoughts are leaning. I respect the fact that a number of other bureaucrats see a consensus here - in some cases a clear one - but I do not. The arguments are finely balanced and I think
Cyberpower678 would do best to take some time to address the
198:
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
296:
Taking everything into consideration - most notably the concerns of
Cyberpower678's lack of mainspace experience, concerns over potential lack of time and concerns over temperament, all combined with the volume of opposition, how concerns have been mentioned amongst supporters and the swing in
280:
The negatives: Many of those opposing - and some in support - note
Cyberpower678's lack of article writing experience. By itself, this is not a trivial concern and it's even less trivial when a massive amount of those in opposition - and when the opposition itself is numerous - are stating it
112:
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
271:
for a number of years have highlighted his growth as an editor, stating that he was less mature years ago but that he has since learnt from past mistakes and improved himself. There seems to be little worry that
Cyberpower678 would
567:
55:
67:
331:
238:
322:"no consensus", a recuse, and an undecided. And when there's no consensus in the chat as to whether there is consensus in the RFA, that can be a good indicator that consensus in the latter does not exist.
363:
taking this position would need to provide more detail as to which opposes were weighted and how). I hope that this does not discourage the candidate from continuing their good work. –
571:
179:
381:
bureaucrats (as a group) are always aware if an RfA is 'pending closure', we're reading it, processing it, maybe hoping new comments come in to make things clearer for us. –
212:
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. --
453:
As with Deskana I feel that my own interactions with and opinions of the user would result in non objective comments from me, thus I will leave it to the rest of the crats.
101:
84:
46:
21:
107:
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.
307:
issues raised by the opposers and try again in a few months. We have some very sensible and respected admins who were unsuccessful on their first RfA attempt(s).
178:
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
412:
You're probably right. Also, it would be peculiar (and unprecedented, I believe?) to have an extension as a follow-on to the bureaucrat discussion. –
426:
286:
I also factor in the last-minute build up of opposition into my judgment. Just prior to the final day of the RfA, the opposition stood at
553:
536:
526:
509:
494:
461:
441:
420:
407:
389:
371:
352:
316:
301:
253:
219:
207:
191:
173:
155:
141:
125:
80:
17:
42:
327:
234:
587:
430:
477:
116:
and I'm willing to be persuaded if others think the outcome is clearer than it has appeared to me on an initial analysis.
323:
230:
204:
147:
extension might have been better, though I do note a user pinged us on bureaucrats' noticeboard on this one). –
50:
200:
566:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
549:
403:
312:
187:
121:
483:
297:
opposition towards the end - I do not consider there to be sufficient consensus at this moment.
505:
250:
213:
163:
Honestly I'd have just promoted straight away myself without a crat chat; definite consensus.
137:
76:
544:
in light of split responses above and candidate's request. Thanks all for your comments.
487:
546:
533:
524:
439:
418:
400:
387:
369:
350:
309:
298:
184:
164:
153:
118:
581:
470:
455:
501:
247:
216:
133:
500:
This is indeed a close one but I find myself agreeing with Acalamari's analysis.
574:, or that of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
519:
434:
413:
382:
364:
345:
148:
261:
My judgment is that Cyberpower678's request for adminship be closed as
89:
The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point
66:
532:
Agree with closing; appropriate given Cyberpower678's withdrawal.
75:
The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-
29:
427:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship#Is it canvassing?
425:
Keep in mind there were concerns of canvassing raised here:
65:
132:
opinion, there is consensus to give this user the tools. --
287:
102:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678
85:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678
47:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678
225:very strongly one way or the other. I would lean
54:. All other editors are welcome to comment on the
560:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
8:
518:Candidate has withdrawn; move to close. –
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
7:
229:on this one, but by a razor's edge.
28:
79:discussion regarding the related
469:extend the RfA in this case. ···
33:
1:
93:Please do not modify the text
49:and is only for comments by
431:Special:Permalink/670910596
604:
554:17:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
537:10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
527:10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
510:03:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
495:01:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
462:00:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
442:01:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
421:23:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
408:23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
390:22:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
372:01:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
353:22:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
332:00:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
317:23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
302:21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
254:21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
239:20:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
220:15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
208:13:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
192:14:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
174:12:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
156:15:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
142:11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
126:09:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
563:Please do not modify it.
275:abuse/misuse adminship.
588:Bureaucrat discussions
542:Closed as no consensus
70:
324:Useight's Public Sock
291:eleventh hour change.
231:Useight's Public Sock
69:
43:bureaucrat discussion
41:This page contains a
45:about the result of
572:related nomination
552:
406:
315:
190:
124:
94:
71:
545:
493:
399:
308:
183:
117:
92:
62:
61:
595:
565:
490:
484:Talk to Nihonjoe
480:
476:
473:
458:
171:
37:
36:
30:
603:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
593:
592:
578:
577:
576:
568:this discussion
561:
488:
478:
471:
456:
165:
72:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
601:
599:
591:
590:
580:
579:
558:
557:
556:
539:
513:
498:
466:
465:
464:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
423:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
319:
293:
292:
283:
282:
277:
276:
267:
266:
258:
257:
256:
241:
222:
210:
196:
195:
194:
160:
159:
158:
114:
111:
108:
105:
104:
98:
64:
63:
60:
59:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
600:
589:
586:
585:
583:
575:
573:
569:
564:
555:
551:
548:
543:
540:
538:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
523:
522:
517:
512:
511:
507:
503:
497:
496:
491:
489:Join WP Japan
485:
481:
474:
463:
460:
459:
452:
451:
443:
440:
438:
437:
432:
428:
424:
422:
419:
417:
416:
411:
410:
409:
405:
402:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
386:
385:
373:
370:
368:
367:
361:
356:
355:
354:
351:
349:
348:
343:
340:
339:
333:
329:
325:
320:
318:
314:
311:
305:
304:
303:
300:
295:
294:
289:
285:
284:
279:
278:
274:
273:intentionally
269:
268:
264:
260:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
223:
221:
218:
215:
211:
209:
206:
202:
201:The Uninvited
197:
193:
189:
186:
181:
177:
176:
175:
172:
170:
169:
161:
157:
154:
152:
151:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
130:
129:
128:
127:
123:
120:
103:
100:
99:
97:
96:
90:
86:
82:
78:
68:
57:
53:
52:
48:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
22:Cyberpower678
19:
562:
559:
541:
520:
515:
514:
499:
467:
454:
435:
414:
383:
379:
365:
359:
346:
341:
272:
263:no consensus
262:
243:
226:
167:
166:
149:
106:
88:
74:
73:
40:
51:bureaucrats
457:·addshore·
180:question 1
77:bureaucrat
547:WJBscribe
534:Acalamari
401:WJBscribe
342:Undecided
310:WJBscribe
299:Acalamari
185:WJBscribe
168:Wizardman
119:WJBscribe
56:talk page
582:Category
20: |
502:28bytes
244:Promote
227:promote
217:ɐuɐʞsǝp
134:Dweller
113:fence".
570:, the
550:(talk)
404:(talk)
313:(talk)
214:(ʞɿɐʇ)
188:(talk)
122:(talk)
516:Note:
203:Co.,
16:<
521:xeno
506:talk
436:xeno
433:). –
415:xeno
384:xeno
366:xeno
360:want
347:xeno
328:talk
251:aran
235:talk
205:Inc.
150:xeno
138:talk
472:日本穣
248:Pak
81:RfA
584::
508:)
486:·
482:·
479:投稿
475:·
330:)
288:22
237:)
182:.
140:)
91:.
87:.
83:,
504:(
492:!
429:(
326:(
265:.
233:(
136:(
95:.
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
