Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.

We have a bit of an interesting case here. We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range. However, given that the candidate was formerly an admin, it makes sense to consider the outcome in more detail. As the numbers are shy of 70%, to some extent the burden becomes on us to show why there would be an exceptional case made to grant adminship. My reasoning as to why I wouldn't call the RfA "no consensus" based on the numbers (and then promptly go back to my cave) would be as follows:

• Rich was desysoped based in part based on a finding that he misused the admin tools; however, the finding was later rescinded
• Most of the opposition is not based on how the tools were previously used
• Opposition based on editing disagreements (e.g. opposes 7, 32, 35): I'm reluctant to assign a lot of weight to opposition based on bot screwups years ago, or based on interpretations on style guidelines, or based on difference in redirecting philosophy...

However, most of the opposition is based on the previous poor judgment, as evidenced, in part, by the block log. And evidenced poor judgment is indeed a reason to not grant adminship.

My overall assessment is that so far I see both sides of the coin, but I'm still debating what to call it, although I would be closer to calling it no consensus because we can't show an exceptional enough case to promote below 70%. Perhaps other bureaucrats are going through the same conflict (this RfA could have been closed 13 hours ago), so I think it is not unfair to hold a discussion. Maxim_(talk) 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Difficult one, will have a think about it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a little annoyed that WJBscribe has summed up my thoughts so perfectly, because it means I have little further to add. I understand allowing a little more leeway for admins, as past consensus can be taken into account - however, significant developments occurred subsequent to that consensus, i.e. the arbcom case and events leading to it. As such, I'd expect the same level of support as I'd expect for any other editor, and although it is close, the RfA doesn't quite reach that level. The opposes are generally not easily dismissed (as I've seen on some RfAs in the past) and the reasons do not appear to be based on malice, but rather genuine concerns. No consensus seems like the most accurate outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 06:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it is a difficult one. I am leaning "no" not only because it's a bit low on the support side, but because a decent number of the opposes express reasonably held beliefs and are valid. While it is always easy to knock out some opposes, it is hard (if not wrong and impossible) to knock out the entire opposition. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus. I don't think the support is there on this one. Extending former admins a little extra latitude where they could have just asked for the tools back is one thing, but I've always been much more reluctant to do it where the tools were removed for cause. In any event, the opposition in this case advance sensible points and - barring a few possible exceptions - cannot be dismissed as grudges against past admin/editorial decisions. I think the numbers make this one look closer than it is and, reading through the discussion, I see no consensus to support a successful outcome. WJBscribe (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. A few interesting points have been raised on the talkpage. First, some users avoided opposing as to not pile on, but then it became close. Second, the circumstances regarding SilkTork's comment (specifically whether it was on the main page or the talk page) would seem to strongly affect the result. What if we were to either (a) extend the RfA, or (b) restart the RfA? On one hand, if we need to go such lengths, perhaps that is a sign that we just have no consensus. Or, we could equally say that the discussion circumstances are such that the inability to determine consensus do not actually equate to there being no consensus being to promote. If we were to go this path, option (b) piques my curiosity: we create a clean numeric slate, with !voters having access to the points made in the initial discussion, and thus being able to form a better informed opinion. Maxim_(talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I saw SilkTork's comment as a clear oppose, in the wrong section. Just because he says it wasn't an oppose doesn't mean it wasn't one. If he had opposed and said exactly the same, there would have been less controversy around it. As such, I would not agree with restarting the RfA. Extension on the other hand - as we have no consensus, and it is so close, I could see as a reasonable course of action. That said, how long should we extend by? Perhaps better would be for Rich to wait a few months and file a new RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 06:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretfully, I see no consensus, even if extending leeway as suggested above, there is substantial, well-founded opposition. --Dweller (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close The candidate has asked us to close the RfA. As a courtesy, we ought to accede to his request and I'm mindful to do so straight away. Any objection? --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment here will be to note my recusal due to my participation in the RfA and to thank Maxim for starting this discussion. Acalamari 13:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close as no consensus. Briefly, so as not to rehash what was written above, both the supports and the opposes are cognizant of Rich's history, and there is, in my opinion, enough grounded, non-grudge, oppositions to indicate that there is no consensus to allow Rich access to the administrative toolkit at this time. -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been over 24 hours since this discussion was commenced and no bureaucrat has expressed the view that a consensus exists for promotion. Several of us have positively opined that there is no consensus to promote, and those on the fence state that they are likewise leaning towards concluding that there is no consensus. Whilst there is a suggestion that we could reopen and extend the RfA, I don't think that's something we could do unless Rich agreed. Given that the candidate has now requested that discussion be brought to a close, I'm going to go ahead and close this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Closed as no consensus. Thanks to all for their input. WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]