Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley. The final decision was that no consensus exists at this time. Please do not modify the text.

Discussion

[edit]
  • With the implementation of the 2015 65% rule this falls in to the expanded discretionary range, currently sitting at ~69.5 support from strict votes. In examining the discussion in detail and applying personal vote weighting criteria, I still see this in the discretionary range at at over ~68% support. The majority of the arguments are strong, though I see the most contentious criteria being the expectations of future conduct of the candidate. In this area, I think there is no consensus for promotion at this time. Regarding the area of "content creation", I think the support and opposition mostly cancel each other. Respecting that there may be other areas that need to have consensus further examined, I'm opening this as a bureaucrat chat for additional input. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I don't see the delay between the minimum closing time and the closing freeze (~11 hours) to have resulted in any significant change in the overall discussion. — xaosflux Talk 03:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also been unsure about my conclusion. My analysis is largely the same as xaosflux, where conduct and content creation are the two big issues in the RfA. I feel there is consensus to promote because most of opposes regarding conduct are predicated on a single incident. If there was an established history of several incidents over a period of time, that would made for a stronger case with regards to not promoting on the basis of (mis)conduct. Maxim(talk) 10:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to reply with detailed thoughts on this RfA this evening. --Deskana (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worm That Turned basically took the words right out of my mouth, and I don't really have a lot to add to his comments other than to say that I agree wholeheartedly with his rationale, and his conclusion that there is a consensus to promote. I really wish I had something smart to say, but in this case Worm That Turned beat me to it! :-) --Deskana (talk)
  • Me too WormTT(talk) 12:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've had a look at the RfA, and it's definitely not a clear cut decision. The discretionary range was changed for a reason and this sits slap bang in the middle numerically. I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of !votes are just that, not "votes" but have put forward thoughts and opinions, or at least let me know what they feel is important when making their choice. As has been pointed out on the talk page, it's also interesting to look at the "swing" both from support to oppose and the other way, something I've not really seen before.
      There are a number of oppose votes, but the two largest are "lack of content creation" and "behaviour at arbcom", followed by behaviour in 2016. I've long made my opinions of "lack of content creation" clear - there are more things to do on Wikipedia than write articles, but an admin should be able to appreciate why those who do can feel the way they do. As Xaosflux points out, the content creation arguments do pretty much cancel each other out. Behaviour at Arbcom - well, I'm in a pretty unique position as I'm one of the people who is sitting there. I know how stressful that place is, and I personally am fairly forgiving to what people say there. I also note that the person who had the most right to be upset by the behaviour there, Opabinia Regalis actually supported the RfA. Now, that's not to discount those votes, the idea that an admin cannot cope with stress is a valid concern - but it does come into my consideration.
      Overall, I believe this is a very close RfA, but given the detail that has been given in both support and oppose votes, I believe we have enough information to call consensus to promote. WormTT(talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment from me as I am fairly pressed for time. This is not a straightforward one. There has long been little consensus in the community as to whether and to what extent writing articles should be a prerequisite for adminship. Where that the only issue, I think I would be of the opinion that there was a consensus. However, it is not the only ground of opposition. There is also clear and unified opposition based on conduct concerns, although I take Maxim's point that it centers on a single issue; one would normally expect opposers to be able to point to a pattern of problematic conduct to back up such concerns. That said, the incident is recent. I am currently on the fence and will give more thought to the matter (and elaborate further) once I have more time to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I find WTT's rationale above persuasive, but I am still not convinced. I can't help but feel that if I still can't see a consensus after this much time since the close, it probably isn't there. I would encourage Jbhunley to run again - I don't think it will take much to get over the line, but I don't think this RfA quite got there. I am willing to be persuaded, but at the moment I am unconvinced this is one we can pass. WJBscribe (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will review and comment accordingly soon. Acalamari 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had intended to write a much longer statement but my university internet was offline soon after I posted my above comment and I've only just got back on. However, after my constant review of the RfA over the week and what I've read since, my thoughts are aligned with Wizardman's (especially with regards to reservations among supporters and the strength of opposition) and thus, I also conclude that there is no consensus to grant adminship to Jbhunley at this time. My apologies for my lateness. Acalamari 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep this as pithy as possible, anytime that there are concerns with both content and conduct in the oppose section, it's a higher mountain to climb to have that consensus. Many of the supporters do note some reservations of the issues the oppose votes give. While I've never been in the "admins have to make content" camp, I understand where it comes from. The conduct is more concerning, and the crux of the opposers seem to be veering more towards that (though it's relatively split), and these are issues from 2018, not diffs dredged up from many years ago. Having both of those concerns, I can't in good conscience promote this one, and would call it a no consensus. Wizardman 22:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Wizardman's comments. There are two substantial areas raised by opposers. There has been plenty of time to discuss them, but the oppositions remains substantial, and this doesn't look like a consensus to promote. Given that one area relates to recent actions, it may well be that a renomination next year would be successful. But no consensus here. Warofdreams talk 23:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spent some time reviewing the discussion, unfortunately not in enough depth to register an opinion on the RfA itself at this exact moment, but am willing to take the time close the bureaucrat chat in about 6 hours from now. Acalamari: could you let me know if you are still planning to opine? Similarly, if any other bureaucrats would like me to hold off longer please let me know. –xenotalk 18:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we've ever needed a neutral "closer" for these discussions (which are more often than not closed by the person who started them as I recall). The outcome has never been contentious and I can't imagine it ever being so. It would be good to have your opinion on the RfA, whether you end up closing the chat or not. WJBscribe (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't so much that I wanted to remain neutral; simply that the discussion proper is lengthy and I'm not comfortable opining without a deep dive into comments of the participants. As far as who closes, it looks like about half and half opener vs. another bureaucrat. I'm not sure about xaosflux's availability, either. –xenotalk 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with someone else closing, was just ensuring there was time for the active 'crats to comment, with the current 3/7 split give it a few hours in case anyone wants to flip after having time to read the other responses - but this looks fairly clean. As a reminder to the candidate, this is not "RfA 2" and we were not evaluating your fitness ourselves, just the response of the prior participants. — xaosflux Talk 21:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a lot of !votes to read through on this one. We all give different types of comments different "weights", as it were. Personally, I feel that comments about a candidate's temperament are very weighty indeed. And, as it happens, there are a large number of people opposing for that reason (in part or in full). It is true that much of it is about very few recent instances, but that is neither here nor there in my assessment of consensus. Taking that into consideration would be akin to a "supervote" in my opinion. That all being said, I'm pretty certain that I would support the candidate in this RFA, had I participated. However, a lot of people didn't and for solid reason(s). I don't see a consensus. That's not to say that the supports weren't also large in number and solid in reason (just so nobody infers anything I didn't intend), because they were. Useight (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals

[edit]

Thank you, Xaosflux, for starting this discussion. I participated in the RfA so I must recuse. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
  • Consensus to promote: Maxim, Worm That Turned, Deskana
  • No consensus to promote: Xaosflux, Wizardman, Warofdreams, Nihonjoe, Useight, WJBscribe, Acalamari
  • Recused: 28bytes
  • Offer/motion to close: Xeno
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this discussion, the related nomination, or that of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Closed at 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat_chat&oldid=1142575345"