A brief closing statement is probably warranted here. I should make it clear that this was to me a borderline case and I think that the relative level of support demonstrated might well have justified a successful outcome. That said, having read the comments made both in support and opposition of this request, I do not think a sufficient consensus exists to promote Xeno based on this request. Those opposing make relevant objections which are acknowledged as having merit by those supporting and a number deliberately chose to express their support as being weak. Bearing in mind the level of trust which the community has shown it requires for bureaucrats to be appointed, I do not think a sufficient level of community support has been expressed for this request to be successful.
WJBscribe (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final (124/27/6). Closed by WJBscribe at 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC). Consensus not reached.
Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. I'm an avid watcher of CHU /USURP /SUL, so I know the process over there and I like to think I'm a fairly decent judge of community consensus. You may remember me from such administrative roles as the Rorschach debate. –xenotalk 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
Optional question from Soap
Awesome Question by Awesome Harej
Please keep discussion constructive and civil.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |