This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim! 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/Salvidrim. The final decision was that consensus existed among respondents that Salvidrim is trusted with the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.
This page should be used for bureaucrats to discuss the closing of Salvidrim's RfA. Non-bureaucrats are requested (and encouraged) to use the talk page. – Avi ( talk) 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply |
This RfA was near completion when new information regarding the candidates editing arose. The RfA itself was within the classically defined "discretionary zone" but the recent information did result in a very late "push" as it were, with some people changing their opinions. As such, and in mind of Q12 of my own RfB, I decided not to close the RfA at that moment, as late-breaking news can be a valid reason for people to revisit their opinions' about a candidates trustworthiness. That said, I requested the input of my fellow bureaucrats, and it seems clear that they felt that the near 24 17 hour extension was enough, and that we should determine consensus at this point. Please feel free to proceed; I will put down my own thoughts shortly. Thank you. –
Avi (
talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
(edit conflict)
The above discussion displays unanimity among the bureaucrats that there exists a consensus among English Wikipedia Project members that Salvidrim should receive access to the administrator maintenance toolset, and I will therefore close the discussion and implement community consensus. Thank you all for participating. -- Avi ( talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim! 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/Salvidrim. The final decision was that consensus existed among respondents that Salvidrim is trusted with the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.
This page should be used for bureaucrats to discuss the closing of Salvidrim's RfA. Non-bureaucrats are requested (and encouraged) to use the talk page. – Avi ( talk) 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply |
This RfA was near completion when new information regarding the candidates editing arose. The RfA itself was within the classically defined "discretionary zone" but the recent information did result in a very late "push" as it were, with some people changing their opinions. As such, and in mind of Q12 of my own RfB, I decided not to close the RfA at that moment, as late-breaking news can be a valid reason for people to revisit their opinions' about a candidates trustworthiness. That said, I requested the input of my fellow bureaucrats, and it seems clear that they felt that the near 24 17 hour extension was enough, and that we should determine consensus at this point. Please feel free to proceed; I will put down my own thoughts shortly. Thank you. –
Avi (
talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
(edit conflict)
The above discussion displays unanimity among the bureaucrats that there exists a consensus among English Wikipedia Project members that Salvidrim should receive access to the administrator maintenance toolset, and I will therefore close the discussion and implement community consensus. Thank you all for participating. -- Avi ( talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply