Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat

Discussion

• Initiating discussion; I am still assessing the RfA. For those who care about numbers: the strict math puts the RfA at 75.3%, which is within the discretionary range if rounding to the whole percentage point, and slightly outside if we round to the one-tenth. I feel a crat chat is worthwhile given not only the closeness but also the volume (>450 editors opined) and the acrimoniousness of the discussion. It is the kind of RfA that is better closed collectively than leaving one of us to do it alone. Maxim_(talk) 02:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for opening the crat chat, Maxim. Looking at it now... 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Preemptive apologies to Tamzin, since it is already quite late in the evening in the US, I won't be able to read through the RFA contents in its entirety until after work tomorrow. Useight (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• I read through the RFA enough to understand the situation. I do not believe there is a consensus. The considerable opposition is rooted in WP:NPOV and other foundational principles, and resonates with the consensus conclusions from the 2006 userbox wars. The change in voting patterns after Hammersoft's oppose is stark, and I cannot believe for a minute that this RFA would enjoy 75.3% support if the facts brought to light in Hammersoft's oppose had been available for consideration from the beginning of the RFA. The bureaucrats are not bots; to proceed with promotion on the technical grounds that 75.3% is outside the range now considered discretionary would imply that we can be replaced with a very small shell script. I would like to thank Maxim for opening the chat and Useight for bringing it to my attention. UninvitedCompany 04:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Recusals

1. Bowing out of this one, for the reasons I noted within Tamzin's candidacy itself and because I supported. Acalamari 03:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)