Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With no clear opposition against clerking bureaucrats closing discussions, and with this discussion shading to the lower end of the newer discretionary range, and with it having been a number of hours past due, I have been bold and made the decision that this request for access to the administrative tool kit would benefit from a discussion amongst the bureaucrats to clarify the community's consensus. Thank you, and I look forward to an accurate and timely discussion. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Avi, for opening the chat. Purely based on the numbers this would traditionally be a "no consensus to promote", but since the thresholds have changed recently it makes sense to discuss it as a group. It still looks like a "no consensus" to me, even with the lowered bar, given the level of opposition. The opposers bring up reasonable points, and I don't see any basis on which to discount those concerns. 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purely with respect to your clerking activities Avi: you were acting in a strictly bureaucrat capacity and I don't feel this precludes you from opining as a bureaucrat in this chat. –xeno^talk 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm aware of this Cratchat and will take a look at the RfA in detail in the next 24 hrs (or fewer). --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with 28bytes. The sheer volume of opposition is of note by itself. In terms of the substance of the opposition, there are clear issues with previous conduct that cannot be discounted. Thus I suggest this RfA be closed as no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar to Dweller, I intend to weigh in this evening, if possible. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion below. -- Avi (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am still at work, but I will be able to start studying the RfA an hour from now. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am aware of this chat, but have been really busy all day. I will review the RfA tomorrow (Feb 2nd, my time) and then post an opinion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like a "no consensus" to me, even with the lowered bar, given the level of opposition. The opposers bring up reasonable points, and I don't see any basis on which to discount those concerns.

Thus I suggest this RfA be closed as no consensus.

Let me preface with my standard disclaimer in that I reserve the right to change my mind if suitably convinced by persuasive arguments. That said, my initial read of the responses here is that they do not demonstrate a consensus to allow Hawkeye7 access to the administrative toolkit at this time. The opposition, in the main, is consistent in their feeling that Hawkeye has not completely rehabilitated himself with respect to the temperament and judgment needed for an English Wikipedia sysop after the ArbCom case in which he had his access removed. There is unquestionable support for him to regain it, but the opposition in this case strikes to the very heart of what RfXs are about: the trust of the project members in the candidate's judgment as relates to the use of the toolset. The supports are not consistent in the same measure that Hawkeye7 has rehabilitated. Many of them are more of an offer of second chance notwithstanding the potential for a reversion to prior behavior. I think that taken in toto, the contributors' discussions about the very essence of what is being determined at an RfX leads me to conclude that there is no consensus to restore the tools to Hawkeye7 at this time, and the status quo remains. Regardless of the outcome, I want to underscore that Hawkeye7 has comported himself admirably during this discussion, and he should take great pride in the overwhelming approbation he has received regarding the content he creates for Wikipedia. Should this discussion close without Hawkeye7 regaining the tools, the discussion at the RfA should provide a roadmap as to Hawkeye7 as to what the project wishes to see from him, and that in a reasonable amount of time, should he demonstrate the desired behavior and judgement, I expect that many of the oppositions would switch to support. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is our role as bureaucrats to look for consensus. And I simply do not see it in this RfA. I am amazed at the polarity. I don’t recall an RfA that contained so much genuine praise juxtaposed with so much genuine concern, and then at the same time having little to no knee-jerk, petty, or confusing opinions on either side. Both the praise and the concern are backed up with sound arguments and supporting evidence. But in particular, the concerns that were raised are legitimate and are sound. Concerns like those of Leaky Caldron, SilkTork, and others are not to be offset by the praise. These are legitimate concerns that must not be brushed aside or ignored. So as I said earlier in this, I consider this RfA as unsuccessful, specifically no consensus.

These RfAs really put people through the grinder. A candidate’s entire history is logged, and you have 200+ people, that are committed to the Wikipedia project, digging and scrutinizing the candidate. I commend you, Hawkeye7, on going the full week being dissected in public. I wish the process were less intrusive. I think you should review closely the reasoning provided in the opposition to this RfA, heed them, and then try another RfA again in a year or two. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're here because the community recently gave us wider discretion in promoting candidates that achieve at least 65% support. However, reaching this threshold does not translate into an automatic promotion (otherwise we really wouldn't be required); it is still necessary for us to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented and render an opinion (or result, in going it alone) based on the arguments presented. I've read carefully all the arguments for and against. I count four in opposition that do not present any argument nor do they hang off another participant's, generally submissions such as these are set aside. That said, there are nineteen such bare supports (and one that seems to have been registered as an oppose-in-disguise). While these bare support are generally understood as 'per nom', they certainly don't add strength to the argument to promote any more than the nomination per se. In the neutral section, six 'lean' oppose, five lean support, and three are truly neutral and void of argument. Setting aside those twenty supports, and adding back in the neutrals than leaned support, we're left with 176 that argue in support of promotion. (I also find it somewhat telling that only one editor chose to register a 'strong' support - we usually see far more of these; on the other hand, four in opposition chose to use this qualifier.) Setting aside the four bare opposes but adding back the six neutrals that leaned oppose, there are 97 that argue against promotion. With this in mind, I'm afraid that I'm left with the opinion that consensus does not exist to return the tools to Hawkeye7 at this time. I would hope that Hawkeye7 is not overly discouraged if consensus to promote is not reached in this discussion: as Avi has noted above, those in opposition were kind enough to make it very clear what they would need to see to sway their opinion to the neutral or positive. In particular, I would like to thank Hawkeye7 for his continuing editorial contributions, towards which mine cannot even hold a candle. –xeno^talk 02:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a look through, I got to agree with the above. The opposes have genuine concerns about the candidate's suitability for adminship, and while the supports are certainly committed on their side, it's not a situation where one side makes the other side look unfounded. Honestly, this looks like a very clear no consensus close when all is said and done. Obviously no one has concerns about his article writing ability, no shame in sticking with that. We're an encyclopedia, after all. Wizardman 02:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opposes are mostly well-founded. There are few that are weak, either by their own words or by their strength of argument. While there is a very large body of support, this significant opposition at the lower end of the range tells me that this RfA has found no consensus to promote. I'd add my voice to those giving words of encouragement: there's a large group supporting and a sizable chunk of those opposing cite issues that could be overcome if the candidate chose to. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only concur with the above, particularly with Xeno and Dweller's comments. There is clearly lots of support for restoring the tools, but not yet a consensus. Given the clarity of reasoning among many of those in opposition, there is every chance that Hawkeye could obtain consensus if those concerns are addressed over the next few months. Warofdreams talk 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the discussion, I have to agree there is no consensus to promote in this case. I encourage Hawkeye7 to review the concerns raised and see what changes can be made to address those concerns before any future RfA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for Joe to opine, but it seems pretty clear that the consensus of the bureaucrats is that the project members partaking in the discussion about Hawkeye7 have not demonstrated that there is a consensus to afford him access to the administrator toolset at this time. Joe, once you opine, unless there is an earth-shattering change from now, please feel free to close the discussion and handle the filings. If you're busy, one of us will be more than happy to handle the paperwork. Thank you all for participating. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.