Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:08, 30 July 2019

This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page.

Discussion

• The discussion has dropped ever so slightly below 75%, and it would be improper of us to not discuss it given the overall situation as well as the unprecedented levels of participation in this discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Acknowledged I'm aware of this, will be several hours before I can even begin the review. — xaosflux 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to promote. Don't have much time currently to elaborate as much as I'd like, but here's a quick version. While I note the WP:100 opposition, I also note the WP:300 support - indeed we've never had an RfX with so many supports, even in the days when mass participation was more common. There are a few very weakly put opposes (and at least one that is frivolous and should be disregarded), but only a few. The vast majority are well-put, relevant and strongly argued, including the "per XXXX" comments, which we should weigh as heavily as XXXX's comment. However, I just can't get over the sheer weight of the support, which, remember, means supporting the nomination and requires no further argument. There is an unprecedented mass of editors here, a net of more than 200. In an RfX with lower participation, a net of 200 (say 212-12 or 250-50) would be a cakewalk. As this is in the discretion zone, I think this is an argument that is very very hard to overlook. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Acknowledging for the same reason as Xaosflux, although it might be between 24-48 hours before I can opine given the time I have available and the masses of text there is to read. But there is no rush. What I will say right now, however, is that we should, as always, not become carried away by pure numbers; 326/116/15 would be 163/58/8 if halved and would not be an issue. As I have said before, "sheer number of opposition" is countered by "sheer number of support" and vice versa. Acalamari 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that I've seen this. It's going to take awhile to read the entire RFA, though. Useight (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Noting that I have also seen this. That said, from only a quick scan of the RfA, there are not a lot of explanations in the support column, and a lot on Floq's previous experience. We aren't just judging the promotion of an administrator, but the repromotion of an administrator which makes the job harder to determine what to take into account. I will be taking the previous experience supports into account, but with less weight than those who explained themselves.

As for a timeline for me getting to this, I'll need a few days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Recusals

• I've already gone on the record (multiple times) stating I supported what Floquenbeam did, and that I thought the Wikimedia Foundation (and especially T&S) were acting like morons when they blocked Fram. Therefore, I'm recusing myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Recuse; thanks in advance for your efforts on this bureaucrat chat. –xeno 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Well this is rather a pain. As an arb, I'm currently looking at the Fram case. I've also made a few statements on the matter, including one stating that I expected Floq would sail through an RfA. Looks like I was wrong on that count. I'm happy to read through and weigh up consensus, but will consider requests for recusal too. Worm(talk) 22:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Worm, I've always appreciated the chance to read your opinion on things, but as a previous arb, I was frequently subject to more information about situations and users than the public. It's why I rarely ever voted on RfAs as an arb. Given this has one particular situation that arbs have on their docket exploded into detail, I think recusal is the best. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Amanda (and to those on the talk page). I'm good at spotting when I have an actual conflict, but prefer advice in situations where I have a perceived conflict. I'm happy to recuse. Have fun fellow 'crats. Worm(talk) 06:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  I've now moved myself into the recuse section. I don't envy the task of the 'crats, weighing consensus over such a large number - and trying to extract the question of "should this individual be an administrator" from the "should the Foundation have blocked Fram". Combine that with the old "reconfirmation RfAs" dilemma, you have a perfect storm. This is what the 'crats are here for - and why we need them. Perhaps I'll go and nominate another one Worm(talk) 07:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Consensus to promote

Dweller

No consensus to promote

Recused

Nihonjoe, xeno, Worm That Turned

Other

• Bureaucrat discussions