Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
+
bide
Line 11: Line 11:
*It's getting reasonably late here, and I'd like to give the RfA a suitable read. I am more likely to get a response tomorrow morning than tonight. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*It's getting reasonably late here, and I'd like to give the RfA a suitable read. I am more likely to get a response tomorrow morning than tonight. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*I just finished work and am brain fried. Could be up to 10 hours for a preliminary response as there are so many walls of text on this one. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*I just finished work and am brain fried. Could be up to 10 hours for a preliminary response as there are so many walls of text on this one. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*I will respond at an opportune time. '''[[User:UninvitedCompany|<span style="color:green">Uninvited</span>]][[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Company]]''' 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


== Recusals ==
== Recusals ==

Revision as of 23:31, 7 August 2023

Discussion

  • Starting a chat as we're in discretionary territory. I'm leaning towards promotion, mostly given we're in the upper range of the discretionary zone, but I want to review the RfA at least once more. Maxim (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reasons for opposing, in rough order of importance, are a lack of content creation, a lack of edit summaries, and the style and substance of the answers to questions (particularly Q7). That said, there are numerous support !votes that mention these concerns and do not find them to be sufficient cause to oppose. As I hinted at in my initial statement, what makes the difference to me in this RfA are the numbers. The arguments in opposition are reasonable, and if we were two percentage points above the floor of the discretionary zone, I would expect to be a solid "no consensus", but as we are in the upper range of the zone, at 73%, to me that pushes it into having sufficient consensus to promote. Maxim (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals

Summary

Consensus to promote
Maxim
No consensus to promote
Intend to Respond
Xaosflux, 28bytes, WereSpielChequers, Lee Vilenski, AmandaNP
Recused
Abstain
WarofDreams

Close