This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk 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/Trappist the monk. The final decision was that consensus existed to trust Trappist with access to the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.
I have been considering the outcome of this RfA for a while now. I think it is an appropriate instance for me to seek the views of other bureaucrats, and in particular other bureaucrats more active than myself, in determining whether a consensus exists for promotion. Numerically, the numbers of supporters and opposers are finely balanced at the low end of the range where it is generally accepted that bureaucrats have a discretion as to whether or not to promote (thanks guys!). The RfA however has some special features which take it away from the norm, and the opposition is as a result somewhat different to that which I usually see. In no particular order, I make the following observations:
Reading through the points on both sides, I am leaning towards the view that a consensus may exist for promotion, but I am by no means convinced and would appreciate further input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
A couple of points from me:
I believe that consensus for promotion exists. My reasoning is quite similar to that of MBisanz; there has not been a strong case made that Trappist the monk is unsuitable for adminship. A significant part of the opposition is to do with that he is requesting the tools for a specific reason. The design of the admin kit should not be held against him, as it is accepted that he has proposed to do a useful and beneficial task with the tools that he needs. The concerns about temperament are not strong or numerous enough to prevent consensus from being reached.
An aside note on going beyond the stated boundaries: We, as a community, if not given a reason otherwise, should trust our editors—especially, but not only, those who have been around a long time and have shown clear commitment and dedication to our project. For some issues, such an approach may be fairly naïve; I'm thinking of interactions in matters that are a source of major contention, ranging from nationalistic disputes to civility. But, the promise of not using admin tools beyond what was agreed to in an RfA is not difficult to keep. I think it's a pity we must discuss what to do if such a simple promise is broken. Surely, that bridge could be crossed if and only if there is a need? For me, crossing it now doesn't make for a collegial atmosphere. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I count four bureaucrats leaning towards the conclusion that a consensus for promotion does exist (WJBscribe, Avi, MBisanz & Nihonjoe), with two bureaucrats leaning towards no consensus (28bytes & Wizardman). I suggest we leave it a few more hours in case others are able to contribute or anyone changes their mind. If nothing changes, I am minded to close this request as successful. I agree with others above that the candidate should be encouraged (although he clearly cannot be compelled) to create a userpage. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
In light of Maxim and Wizardman's comments above, I believe we now have a 6-1 split, following approx. 24 hours of discussion between bureaucrats. On that basis, I am going to close the request as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Request closed as successful - thank you very much for your input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk 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/Trappist the monk. The final decision was that consensus existed to trust Trappist with access to the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.
I have been considering the outcome of this RfA for a while now. I think it is an appropriate instance for me to seek the views of other bureaucrats, and in particular other bureaucrats more active than myself, in determining whether a consensus exists for promotion. Numerically, the numbers of supporters and opposers are finely balanced at the low end of the range where it is generally accepted that bureaucrats have a discretion as to whether or not to promote (thanks guys!). The RfA however has some special features which take it away from the norm, and the opposition is as a result somewhat different to that which I usually see. In no particular order, I make the following observations:
Reading through the points on both sides, I am leaning towards the view that a consensus may exist for promotion, but I am by no means convinced and would appreciate further input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
A couple of points from me:
I believe that consensus for promotion exists. My reasoning is quite similar to that of MBisanz; there has not been a strong case made that Trappist the monk is unsuitable for adminship. A significant part of the opposition is to do with that he is requesting the tools for a specific reason. The design of the admin kit should not be held against him, as it is accepted that he has proposed to do a useful and beneficial task with the tools that he needs. The concerns about temperament are not strong or numerous enough to prevent consensus from being reached.
An aside note on going beyond the stated boundaries: We, as a community, if not given a reason otherwise, should trust our editors—especially, but not only, those who have been around a long time and have shown clear commitment and dedication to our project. For some issues, such an approach may be fairly naïve; I'm thinking of interactions in matters that are a source of major contention, ranging from nationalistic disputes to civility. But, the promise of not using admin tools beyond what was agreed to in an RfA is not difficult to keep. I think it's a pity we must discuss what to do if such a simple promise is broken. Surely, that bridge could be crossed if and only if there is a need? For me, crossing it now doesn't make for a collegial atmosphere. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I count four bureaucrats leaning towards the conclusion that a consensus for promotion does exist (WJBscribe, Avi, MBisanz & Nihonjoe), with two bureaucrats leaning towards no consensus (28bytes & Wizardman). I suggest we leave it a few more hours in case others are able to contribute or anyone changes their mind. If nothing changes, I am minded to close this request as successful. I agree with others above that the candidate should be encouraged (although he clearly cannot be compelled) to create a userpage. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
In light of Maxim and Wizardman's comments above, I believe we now have a 6-1 split, following approx. 24 hours of discussion between bureaucrats. On that basis, I am going to close the request as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Request closed as successful - thank you very much for your input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply