This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing 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/GoldenRing. The final decision was that consensus exists to allow GoldenRing access to the administrative toolkit. Please do not modify the text.
This RfA falls towards the lower end of the "new" discretionary range. I am minded to close it as successful, but wanted to gain input from other bureaucrats before doing so as I anticipate that such an outcome may be controversial (and I can sometimes be something of an outlier in bureaucrat opinion). The community clearly expects, in setting the discretionary range where it has, that some RfAs with the level of support that GoldenRing has will succeed. If an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion, then I have difficulty imagining the sort of discussion that could succeed at the low end of the discretionary range.
The opposition is based almost exclusively on concerns about the candidate's activity levels and numbers of edits. That is usually regarded as weaker opposition than concerns (backed up with diffs) showing issues with temperament, or lack of understanding of key policies. The one ground of opposition that falls within the latter category - mistakes in CSD tagging identified by SoWhy - is mentioned by only a tiny number of opposers. The candidate's answers to questions (which allow those participating in an RfA to test a candidates' knowledge of policy where not obvious from their editing background) appear to have been found satisfactory. It seems to me that the number of edits, combined with the opportunity to ask questions, is sufficient for an assessment of GoldenRing's suitability to be an administrator. There is a narrow consensus that GoldenRing should be an administrator, and I would close this RfA as successful accordingly. That said, I am interested to know whether other bureaucrats would reach the same conclusion.
WJBscribe
(talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Honestly, I think this is a pretty clear no consensus. I read over the discussion, and it feels like people are letting personal opinions get in the way. If this is seriously successful then we need to revisit all the other bureaucrat chats we've had recently since the arguments in favor are the same arguments where people went the other way in previous instances. All I'm getting from this is "do some work = not qualified. don't do any = plenty qualified". Wizardman 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
After looking over this RFA, it is a very interesting case. A lot of strong support, much of which is based on the answers the candidate gave to the questions (though also some about temperament, etc). Also a lot of opposition, much of which is based on edit count, activity rate, and/or (lack of) content creation. I, like WJBScribe above, am not sure what kind of RFA could pass in the mid-60% range if this one can't. That being said, I personally put very little stock in edit count and content creation - though I don't discount !votes based on that criteria, as I find them to be valid (yet can border on absurdity, in my mind, when taken too far). Because of that, I find myself in a situation where I feel it difficult assess consensus in a completely neutral manner. I do not wish to tip the scales one way or the other in an atypical situation where I don't feel comfortable with myself. Yes, I have an opinion on whether or not consensus exists to promote. But unless I'm certain I completely trust myself on a particular RFA I would rather abstain. Useight's Public Sock ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I think we should allow the rest of the day so that crats who are mostly available at weekends have a chance to comment but, absent a shift in views, we seem to leaning fairly heavily in favour of a successful outcome. WJBscribe (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing 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/GoldenRing. The final decision was that consensus exists to allow GoldenRing access to the administrative toolkit. Please do not modify the text.
This RfA falls towards the lower end of the "new" discretionary range. I am minded to close it as successful, but wanted to gain input from other bureaucrats before doing so as I anticipate that such an outcome may be controversial (and I can sometimes be something of an outlier in bureaucrat opinion). The community clearly expects, in setting the discretionary range where it has, that some RfAs with the level of support that GoldenRing has will succeed. If an RfA like this one doesn't show a consensus for promotion, then I have difficulty imagining the sort of discussion that could succeed at the low end of the discretionary range.
The opposition is based almost exclusively on concerns about the candidate's activity levels and numbers of edits. That is usually regarded as weaker opposition than concerns (backed up with diffs) showing issues with temperament, or lack of understanding of key policies. The one ground of opposition that falls within the latter category - mistakes in CSD tagging identified by SoWhy - is mentioned by only a tiny number of opposers. The candidate's answers to questions (which allow those participating in an RfA to test a candidates' knowledge of policy where not obvious from their editing background) appear to have been found satisfactory. It seems to me that the number of edits, combined with the opportunity to ask questions, is sufficient for an assessment of GoldenRing's suitability to be an administrator. There is a narrow consensus that GoldenRing should be an administrator, and I would close this RfA as successful accordingly. That said, I am interested to know whether other bureaucrats would reach the same conclusion.
WJBscribe
(talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Honestly, I think this is a pretty clear no consensus. I read over the discussion, and it feels like people are letting personal opinions get in the way. If this is seriously successful then we need to revisit all the other bureaucrat chats we've had recently since the arguments in favor are the same arguments where people went the other way in previous instances. All I'm getting from this is "do some work = not qualified. don't do any = plenty qualified". Wizardman 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
After looking over this RFA, it is a very interesting case. A lot of strong support, much of which is based on the answers the candidate gave to the questions (though also some about temperament, etc). Also a lot of opposition, much of which is based on edit count, activity rate, and/or (lack of) content creation. I, like WJBScribe above, am not sure what kind of RFA could pass in the mid-60% range if this one can't. That being said, I personally put very little stock in edit count and content creation - though I don't discount !votes based on that criteria, as I find them to be valid (yet can border on absurdity, in my mind, when taken too far). Because of that, I find myself in a situation where I feel it difficult assess consensus in a completely neutral manner. I do not wish to tip the scales one way or the other in an atypical situation where I don't feel comfortable with myself. Yes, I have an opinion on whether or not consensus exists to promote. But unless I'm certain I completely trust myself on a particular RFA I would rather abstain. Useight's Public Sock ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I think we should allow the rest of the day so that crats who are mostly available at weekends have a chance to comment but, absent a shift in views, we seem to leaning fairly heavily in favour of a successful outcome. WJBscribe (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply