This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.
We have a bit of an interesting case here. We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range. However, given that the candidate was formerly an admin, it makes sense to consider the outcome in more detail. As the numbers are shy of 70%, to some extent the burden becomes on us to show why there would be an exceptional case made to grant adminship. My reasoning as to why I wouldn't call the RfA "no consensus" based on the numbers (and then promptly go back to my cave) would be as follows:
However, most of the opposition is based on the previous poor judgment, as evidenced, in part, by the block log. And evidenced poor judgment is indeed a reason to not grant adminship.
My overall assessment is that so far I see both sides of the coin, but I'm still debating what to call it, although I would be closer to calling it no consensus because we can't show an exceptional enough case to promote below 70%. Perhaps other bureaucrats are going through the same conflict (this RfA could have been closed 13 hours ago), so I think it is not unfair to hold a discussion. Maxim(talk) 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]