Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

Discussion

• The discussion has dropped ever so slightly below 75%, and it would be improper of us to not discuss it given the overall situation as well as the unprecedented levels of participation in this discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Acknowledged I'm aware of this, will be several hours before I can even begin the review. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to promote. Don't have much time currently to elaborate as much as I'd like, but here's a quick version. While I note the WP:100 opposition, I also note the WP:300 support - indeed we've never had an RfX with so many supports, even in the days when mass participation was more common. There are a few very weakly put opposes (and at least one that is frivolous and should be disregarded), but only a few. The vast majority are well-put, relevant and strongly argued, including the "per XXXX" comments, which we should weigh as heavily as XXXX's comment. However, I just can't get over the sheer weight of the support, which, remember, means supporting the nomination and requires no further argument. There is an unprecedented mass of editors here, a net of more than 200. In an RfX with lower participation, a net of 200 (say 212-12 or 250-50) would be a cakewalk. As this is in the discretion zone, I think this is an argument that is very very hard to overlook. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Recusals

• I've already gone on the record (multiple times) stating I supported what Floquenbeam did, and that I thought the Wikimedia Foundation (and especially T&S) were acting like morons when they blocked Fram. Therefore, I'm recusing myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Recuse; thanks in advance for your efforts on this bureaucrat chat. –xeno^talk 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Consensus to promote

Dweller

No consensus to promote

Recused

Nihonjoe
xeno

Other