 | This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
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)
- 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 extension might have been better, though I do note a user pinged us on bureaucrats' noticeboard on this one). –xenotalk 15:39, 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)
- 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 very strongly one way or the other. I would lean promote on this one, but by a razor's edge. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Promote, 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. Pakaran 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- My judgment is that Cyberpower678's request for adminship be closed as no consensus.
- The positives: The majority of those supporting and opposing agree that Cyberpower678 is highly experienced with technical aspects of Wikipedia, 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 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 intentionally abuse/misuse adminship.
- 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 (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.
- 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 22 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 eleventh hour change.
- 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 opposition towards the end - I do not consider there to be sufficient consensus at this moment. Acalamari 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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 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). WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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 "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. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Undecided. 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.
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 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. –xenotalk 22:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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 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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)