This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 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 RfB, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text if you are not a member of the bureaucrat group..
The varying opinions in opposition are strong. The issues involve (1) Avraham's judgment, reactions, and handling of disputes, and (2) Avraham re-applying for RfB too soon after the first try. Numerically, this RfB sits about 82.3%, on the low side of the spectrum considered at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar.
If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I've just now finished reviewing the RfB. I will point out that there is a considerable number of opposition rationales that suffer from significant problems. That has really nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the point being made, but rather it pertains to judgement as to whether or not any given reasoning is actually contributing to the building of the consensus required to promote a user to Bureaucratship.
That being said, however, it is not simply an issue of what gets "validated" and what gets "rejected". As we all know, there are certain very-high standards that the community demands for Bureaucratship (not the place to discuss whether or not it is realistic), and part of it involves "very little significant opposition". In the case at hand, even taking into account the problems I mentioned, it is not enough to get to a point where the opposition presented could be considered "of little significance", at least to the extent that would be required for a RfB to be successful.
Redux (
talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
It has been brought to my attention that had the RfB ended on time, the result would have been 101/20/9 or 83.5%. That result doesn't change my view, but I think it is only fair to share this information. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 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 RfB, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text if you are not a member of the bureaucrat group..
The varying opinions in opposition are strong. The issues involve (1) Avraham's judgment, reactions, and handling of disputes, and (2) Avraham re-applying for RfB too soon after the first try. Numerically, this RfB sits about 82.3%, on the low side of the spectrum considered at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar.
If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I've just now finished reviewing the RfB. I will point out that there is a considerable number of opposition rationales that suffer from significant problems. That has really nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the point being made, but rather it pertains to judgement as to whether or not any given reasoning is actually contributing to the building of the consensus required to promote a user to Bureaucratship.
That being said, however, it is not simply an issue of what gets "validated" and what gets "rejected". As we all know, there are certain very-high standards that the community demands for Bureaucratship (not the place to discuss whether or not it is realistic), and part of it involves "very little significant opposition". In the case at hand, even taking into account the problems I mentioned, it is not enough to get to a point where the opposition presented could be considered "of little significance", at least to the extent that would be required for a RfB to be successful.
Redux (
talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
It has been brought to my attention that had the RfB ended on time, the result would have been 101/20/9 or 83.5%. That result doesn't change my view, but I think it is only fair to share this information. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply