Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship | Salvidrim! Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:17, 13 January 2013 editYoureallycan (talk \| contribs)12,095 edits A large portion of the community oppose this user - there is no clear consensus support - do not promote is such situations← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:20, 13 January 2013 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,096 edits Undid revision 532936442 by Youreallycan (talk) - please read instructions at top of pageNext edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:
	;Avi's opinion:As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by well-reasoned arguments. That being said, when I initially reviewed this RfX, my opinion of the community's consensus was that Salvidrim '''does''' have the community's trust. The primary oppositions were that Salvadrim lacked experience—be it time or edit areas. This was expressed as manifesting in Salvidrim's article creation, gnomishness in editing, and similar comments. It was my reading of the supporters that the vast majority were aware of this, and nevertheless felt that Salvidrim would be a benefit to the project, and it was my read that there was a consensus among participants that Salvidrim's lack of overall experience should not be an impediment to his receiving the mop.		;Avi's opinion:As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by well-reasoned arguments. That being said, when I initially reviewed this RfX, my opinion of the community's consensus was that Salvidrim '''does''' have the community's trust. The primary oppositions were that Salvadrim lacked experience—be it time or edit areas. This was expressed as manifesting in Salvidrim's article creation, gnomishness in editing, and similar comments. It was my reading of the supporters that the vast majority were aware of this, and nevertheless felt that Salvidrim would be a benefit to the project, and it was my read that there was a consensus among participants that Salvidrim's lack of overall experience should not be an impediment to his receiving the mop.
	:However, there was a violation of Misplaced Pages policy during, actually near the very end, of this RfA, and that seemed to impact a number of respondents. Judging from about the Jebus989 edit and on (and I do not mean to single out Jebus, but it was that edit that raised the issue) there is an almost even number of additional supports and oppositions (10 to 13) with some of the oppositions being former supports, some supports moving to neutral, at least one old support reiterating trust, and new supports indicating trust despite the editing issue. It is thus my opinion, at this time, that there was ''not'' a tectonic shift in community trust—there was not a mass flight from supporting Salvidrim or to opposing him—and that the consensus of participants is that Salvidrim should be trusted with the sysop maintenance tool set, but, of course, make sure to watch his editing in the future, as we all should. That is my opinion on the community's consensus at this point, and I await others'. As I will be travelling for many hours tomorrow, should bureaucrat consensus be very clear before I land, please do not keep Salvidrim in suspense, but close as appropriate and promote if necessary. Thank you. -- ] (]) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)		:However, there was a violation of Misplaced Pages policy during, actually near the very end, of this RfA, and that seemed to impact a number of respondents. Judging from about the Jebus989 edit and on (and I do not mean to single out Jebus, but it was that edit that raised the issue) there is an almost even number of additional supports and oppositions (10 to 13) with some of the oppositions being former supports, some supports moving to neutral, at least one old support reiterating trust, and new supports indicating trust despite the editing issue. It is thus my opinion, at this time, that there was ''not'' a tectonic shift in community trust—there was not a mass flight from supporting Salvidrim or to opposing him—and that the consensus of participants is that Salvidrim should be trusted with the sysop maintenance tool set, but, of course, make sure to watch his editing in the future, as we all should. That is my opinion on the community's consensus at this point, and I await others'. As I will be travelling for many hours tomorrow, should bureaucrat consensus be very clear before I land, please do not keep Salvidrim in suspense, but close as appropriate and promote if necessary. Thank you. -- ] (]) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

	* - A large portion of the community oppose this user - there is no clear consensus support - do not promote is such situations - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:20, 13 January 2013

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)

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 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)

Avi's opinion: As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by well-reasoned arguments. That being said, when I initially reviewed this RfX, my opinion of the community's consensus was that Salvidrim does have the community's trust. The primary oppositions were that Salvadrim lacked experience—be it time or edit areas. This was expressed as manifesting in Salvidrim's article creation, gnomishness in editing, and similar comments. It was my reading of the supporters that the vast majority were aware of this, and nevertheless felt that Salvidrim would be a benefit to the project, and it was my read that there was a consensus among participants that Salvidrim's lack of overall experience should not be an impediment to his receiving the mop.; However, there was a violation of Misplaced Pages policy during, actually near the very end, of this RfA, and that seemed to impact a number of respondents. Judging from about the Jebus989 edit and on (and I do not mean to single out Jebus, but it was that edit that raised the issue) there is an almost even number of additional supports and oppositions (10 to 13) with some of the oppositions being former supports, some supports moving to neutral, at least one old support reiterating trust, and new supports indicating trust despite the editing issue. It is thus my opinion, at this time, that there was not a tectonic shift in community trust—there was not a mass flight from supporting Salvidrim or to opposing him—and that the consensus of participants is that Salvidrim should be trusted with the sysop maintenance tool set, but, of course, make sure to watch his editing in the future, as we all should. That is my opinion on the community's consensus at this point, and I await others'. As I will be travelling for many hours tomorrow, should bureaucrat consensus be very clear before I land, please do not keep Salvidrim in suspense, but close as appropriate and promote if necessary. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)