This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453 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/Lugia2453. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.
After giving this RfA a great deal of thought, and reading the supports and opposes a few times over, I don't feel comfortable closing it unilaterally either way. As a result, I'm opening this up. Here's what we know:
Due to the first three points, we are at an impasse of, at its core, whether or not an admin needs to have knowledge of every policy and contribute on multiple fronts, or whether a specialist admin, even in a relatively simple field, is okay to promote. I'll allow other bureaucrats to weigh in here. (I have a lean-opinion, but not a strong enough one to comment with just yet). Wizardman 04:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Extensive article contributions demonstrate understanding of key content policies and the ability to work well with others. Lacking that, I looked through the entire RfA to try to assess if these skills have been shown. There isn't much to be found that would tip consensus either way. There are some specific concerns in the opposition (esp. #2, #9, #16, #17, #19) which suggest a combination of a lack of experience or precision in relevant areas; however, these points are countered well by the supports (esp. #40, #45, #47). There is no strong consensus against promotion, but there isn't consensus to promote, either.
The default, by tradition, would be to close the RfA as no consensus. That being said, less than 100 editors commented. There were a lot of votes in both support and opposition that didn't provide much reasoning behind them. There wasn't a lot of discussion about Lugia2453's level of experience and the quality of his work. The easy choice is to call it "no consensus", suggest to the candidate that they get some article-writing experience under their belt (e.g. a few GAs), and branch out with their maintenance tasks.
Instead, I suggest a more complicated but perhaps better choice. Restart the RfA from scratch. Blank the present discussion; reset the tally to 0/0/0. This will surely attract more attention, and hopefully yield a better discussion, which will either reach consensus from the arguments made or even make the call obvious from the numerical standpoint.
I invite comments from everyone. For my fellow bureaucrats: is this a precedent we wish to set? For the community: is what I have proposed reasonable, or will it cause more problems than it would solve? For Lugia2453: if this idea gains any traction, are you willing to do a second week of RfA with only a few days break after the first one?
Maxim(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
So far, I think we're split 3:1, with the majority of the view that there is no consensus to promote. Unless anyone changes their mind in the next few hours, or more bureaucrats join the discussion that are of the opinion that there is a consensus to promote, I think we should close this RfA as "no consensus". WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would like to address an issue regarding the timing of the close. There seems to be a suggestion (both on the RfA page and on the talkpage) that bureaucrats were somehow avoiding closing this discussion. I doubt that is true. Please bear in mind that few of us are active at any given time, we are volunteers and have commitments away from Wikipedia. I am sure that Wizardman was simply the first bureaucrat with sufficient time to come across this RfA after it was due to close. I want to assure everyone that bureaucrats do not shy away from difficult calls; indeed the whole point of these "cratchat" discussions is to avoid that happening. I don't believe there is any hesitation amongst us, just a shortage of numbers to provide the rapid attention that is possible in other areas. You don't need "braver" bureaucrats, just more bureaucrats, if the possibility of discussions overrunning by 24 hours+ is a problem. WJBscribe (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453 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/Lugia2453. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.
After giving this RfA a great deal of thought, and reading the supports and opposes a few times over, I don't feel comfortable closing it unilaterally either way. As a result, I'm opening this up. Here's what we know:
Due to the first three points, we are at an impasse of, at its core, whether or not an admin needs to have knowledge of every policy and contribute on multiple fronts, or whether a specialist admin, even in a relatively simple field, is okay to promote. I'll allow other bureaucrats to weigh in here. (I have a lean-opinion, but not a strong enough one to comment with just yet). Wizardman 04:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Extensive article contributions demonstrate understanding of key content policies and the ability to work well with others. Lacking that, I looked through the entire RfA to try to assess if these skills have been shown. There isn't much to be found that would tip consensus either way. There are some specific concerns in the opposition (esp. #2, #9, #16, #17, #19) which suggest a combination of a lack of experience or precision in relevant areas; however, these points are countered well by the supports (esp. #40, #45, #47). There is no strong consensus against promotion, but there isn't consensus to promote, either.
The default, by tradition, would be to close the RfA as no consensus. That being said, less than 100 editors commented. There were a lot of votes in both support and opposition that didn't provide much reasoning behind them. There wasn't a lot of discussion about Lugia2453's level of experience and the quality of his work. The easy choice is to call it "no consensus", suggest to the candidate that they get some article-writing experience under their belt (e.g. a few GAs), and branch out with their maintenance tasks.
Instead, I suggest a more complicated but perhaps better choice. Restart the RfA from scratch. Blank the present discussion; reset the tally to 0/0/0. This will surely attract more attention, and hopefully yield a better discussion, which will either reach consensus from the arguments made or even make the call obvious from the numerical standpoint.
I invite comments from everyone. For my fellow bureaucrats: is this a precedent we wish to set? For the community: is what I have proposed reasonable, or will it cause more problems than it would solve? For Lugia2453: if this idea gains any traction, are you willing to do a second week of RfA with only a few days break after the first one?
Maxim(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
So far, I think we're split 3:1, with the majority of the view that there is no consensus to promote. Unless anyone changes their mind in the next few hours, or more bureaucrats join the discussion that are of the opinion that there is a consensus to promote, I think we should close this RfA as "no consensus". WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would like to address an issue regarding the timing of the close. There seems to be a suggestion (both on the RfA page and on the talkpage) that bureaucrats were somehow avoiding closing this discussion. I doubt that is true. Please bear in mind that few of us are active at any given time, we are volunteers and have commitments away from Wikipedia. I am sure that Wizardman was simply the first bureaucrat with sufficient time to come across this RfA after it was due to close. I want to assure everyone that bureaucrats do not shy away from difficult calls; indeed the whole point of these "cratchat" discussions is to avoid that happening. I don't believe there is any hesitation amongst us, just a shortage of numbers to provide the rapid attention that is possible in other areas. You don't need "braver" bureaucrats, just more bureaucrats, if the possibility of discussions overrunning by 24 hours+ is a problem. WJBscribe (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply