Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page.

Discussion

Initiation and Acknowledgements

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Acknowledging for the same reason as Xaosflux, although it might be between 24-48 hours before I can opine given the time I have available and the masses of text there is to read. But there is no rush. What I will say right now, however, is that we should, as always, not become carried away by pure numbers; 326/116/15 would be 163/58/8 if halved and would not be an issue. As I have said before, "sheer number of opposition" is countered by "sheer number of support" and vice versa. Acalamari 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've seen this. It's going to take awhile to read the entire RFA, though. Useight (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have also seen this. That said, from only a quick scan of the RfA, there are not a lot of explanations in the support column, and a lot on Floq's previous experience. We aren't just judging the promotion of an administrator, but the repromotion of an administrator which makes the job harder to determine what to take into account. I will be taking the previous experience supports into account, but with less weight than those who explained themselves.

As for a timeline for me getting to this, I'll need a few days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crat Commentary

This isn't ArbCom, feel free to reply to ourselves in any section.

Dweller

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)[reply]

The instructions at WP:RFA include a footnote, which reads "Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers." Over the years that I've been a bureaucrat, this has been accepted as community consensus. If the community wishes to change that consensus, that'd be fine and we should amend our reading of consensus in RfX discussions accordingly, but at this point in time, we have to weigh unexplained opposes differently from unexplained supports.

The text was added by Lourdes in 2016, following the comments by several Crats, notably WJBscribe, in this Crat Chat, when this issue was last raised. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux

In reviewing this RfA and the associated talk pages I feel it is important to frame what I have considered in the primary scope of RfA and what I do not. I am applying less weight to discussion points that stray from this purpose (and full weight to ones that are on point).

I see that the primary purpose of RfA is to determine if a person has the trust of the community to: perform administrative duties with due care and with sound judgement; have and will continue to maintain a high standard of conduct; be accountable for their actions; maintain account security.

I do not see actions by or investigations in to other parties (e.g. Fram, WJBscribe, the WMF Foundation) as germane to determining the consensus of this discussion. The only WMF related item that I would have deferred to was the 30 day prohibition on having admin access, which has expired.

I do not see debate over if this request should have been at BN or RFA as very relevant, there is no policy reason that Floquenbeam should not have been allowed to request administrator access at Requests for Adminship, no editor was required to participate in the discussion so any 'waste of time' considerations are of little consideration to me as well. We do not have a 'reconfirmation' process for administrators, and I don't consider the strength of consensus required on this RfA to require a higher standard then any other RfA.

I am still evaluating the hundreds of comments against these criteria, and am open to feedback from my fellow 'crats regarding these or other weighting factors. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Recuse; thanks in advance for your efforts on this bureaucrat chat. –xeno^talk 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTT recused

Well this is rather a pain. As an arb, I'm currently looking at the Fram case. I've also made a few statements on the matter, including one stating that I expected Floq would sail through an RfA. Looks like I was wrong on that count. I'm happy to read through and weigh up consensus, but will consider requests for recusal too. Worm^TT(talk) 22:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, I've always appreciated the chance to read your opinion on things, but as a previous arb, I was frequently subject to more information about situations and users than the public. It's why I rarely ever voted on RfAs as an arb. Given this has one particular situation that arbs have on their docket exploded into detail, I think recusal is the best. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amanda (and to those on the talk page). I'm good at spotting when I have an actual conflict, but prefer advice in situations where I have a perceived conflict. I'm happy to recuse. Have fun fellow 'crats. Worm^TT(talk) 06:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved myself into the recuse section. I don't envy the task of the 'crats, weighing consensus over such a large number - and trying to extract the question of "should this individual be an administrator" from the "should the Foundation have blocked Fram". Combine that with the old "reconfirmation RfAs" dilemma, you have a perfect storm. This is what the 'crats are here for - and why we need them. Perhaps I'll go and nominate another one Worm^TT(talk) 07:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've voiced opinions on the topic of Fram's ban, and on the status of the people who took admin or bureaucrat actions related to the case. In light of my involvement, I think the most appropriate action for me here is to recuse. --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Consensus to promote: Dweller
No consensus to promote
Recused: Deskana, Nihonjoe, xeno, Worm That Turned
Other