Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

 ''The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Requests for adminship/Liz. The final decision was that consensus exists to allow Liz access to the administrative toolkit. Please do not modify the text.

Given that this RfA has, nearing its end, been advertised off-wiki, it seems best to bring it to a close asap following its end time and evaluate the outcome. My apologies that I do not have time to write up an analysis of this RfA to start the ball rolling. Once real life commitments permit, I will return and provide one. In the meantime, this is clearly a borderline and contentious RfA that would benefit from one of these discussions between bureaucrats, and I encourage other bureaucrats to start the ball rolling if they are available to do so before I am. One thing that I will quickly mention is that I have been keeping an eye on are the very new accounts participating. I do not however think they have had much impact on the final outcome - having looked at those with fewer that 500 edits as this RfA progressed, I concluded they split roughly 9-3, i.e. in similar proportion to other more established users participating in the discussion. I should also note that I struck two comments during the course of the RfA (one in the support column, the other in the oppose column). WJBscribe (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Liz
 * I won't have time to comment in length about the candidacy proper until about 12 hours. At glance, the temperature of this RfA disappointed me; this is a volunteer offering to help out more. –xenotalk 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm perplexed by comments about lack of content contribution, given she has 12,389 edits to mainspace. I'm also bothered by people opposing because she has a high level of activity outside of mainspace. I'm mulling this, but minded to seriously downgrade opposes on these bases. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of clarification "downgrade" did not mean "discount" or "dismiss", but "give less weight". Not sure if that helps anyone understand me. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards promote here. Clearly the opposes about lack of content editing are off the mark. On the numbers, we should have sufficient support even without that discounting. Andrevan@ 13:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's also persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been giving the discussion some thought. This is not the first time that significant opposition has been generated by a candidate's lack of substantial content contributions, but Liz appears to have given the impression to those who focus on writing content that she regards them with contempt. I doubt that was her intention and suggest that she considers carefully how she gave that impression and avoiding doing so in future regardless of the outcome of this RfA. It is the main thing that has given me pause in setting out what I am about to write. There are some extremely well reasoned and nuanced opposes in this RfA (by no means exclusively, I am thinking of the points made by Drmies and Bishonen, which are picked up by a number of others). Again, I hope Liz will reflect carefully on them. That said, the majority of the opposition boils down to a complaint that the editor spends too little time writing content, and too much time frequenting "meta" noticeboards such as WP:ANI. That's fair enough and I do not for a moment suggest discounting such opposition. However, I think it's important to distinguish such opposition from examples of misconduct or misapplication of policy, which is often presented (with diffs) in opposition to RfAs. Indeed, many opposers praise Liz's knowledge of policy. Some opposers also praise her civility and describe Liz as a nice person, whilst others see her as contentious. That difference of opinion emerges before even looking at the support column, where I note that users have engaged with and addressed opposition rationales, many returning to restate their support. Reluctant positons are expressed in both columns, and it is clear many contributors struggled to reach a decision in respect of the candidate. I can't help but feel that a large part of the opposition boils down to "'not the type of admin I'd like to see" rather than establishing a case that Liz will misuse the tools if her RfA is successful. I respect the opinions expressed, but do not think it is the sort of opposition that is sufficient to overcome the wide support shown in this RfA. It is a close run thing, but I think the RfA shows a consensus that Liz should be an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still reviewing, and have not come to a personal conclusion as to respondent consensus, but I will say, Will, that there is more than opposition purely due to lack of content. Yes, there are some blanket "admin needs content" oppositions. However, there are a number where the concern lack of content is not just due to lack of content itself (e.g. #3 and #7), but indicates a possibly deeper issue of either not understanding the project's aims or an inability to react with other members appropriately (e.g. #1, #13, #33). There are also oppositions based firmly in the camps of civility/relationships with other editors and also based in concern about Liz's judgement. What makes this more interesting is the more-than-usual (in my opinion) switching between opposition and support (and sometimes more than once). I need more time to come to a conclusion, but I think that the problems raised are a bit wider and more substantive than just "not my type of admin" and I think that requires thought, now that we are discussing the issue. -- Avi (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been watching the RfA as much as possible (extremely busy IRL - the timing of the close is pretty much the only time this week I have an hour to sit down and contribute...). I largely agree with WJBScribe's analysis, but not the conclusions. There is a very large amount of opposition centered on lack of content contributions combined with spending time on drama boards. The crux of this argument is that as an admin, Liz would continue working on the boards but now be empowered to, for example, protect pages and block editors, without having the hands-on experience in dealing with content, disputes over which often drive the drama. Without having the relevant experience, it may be possible that Liz would inadvertently make errors of judgment in handling such disputes, and while her intentions would still be the best, any dispute or drama would be exacerbated by questionable admin actions. Given the borderline percentage, and the overall large number of oppose votes, I do not believe consensus exists to grant Liz adminship at this time.  Maxim (talk)  14:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is quite a tricky one. 200 supports is a very large number, but there is a sizable body of well-reasoned opposition, too, as Avi points out. I agree that some of what might be labelled 'content opposes' address broader issues. Courtesy to the candidate usually means we're keen to push the discussion through, but I don't think we should rush this. I'd like to see more Crat opinions and I'm also reading the talk page with interest. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Maxim's thoughts closely mirror my own. Liz has an impressive amount of support, but I don't really see any grounds on which we could reasonably discount the opposes. Whether the opposers who argue that more content creation experience is needed are right or not, it's not an unreasonable argument to make. This one looks like a "no consensus" to me. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At the outset, I believe that there is enough valid discussion amongst the opposition in this request that it is no longer "reasonably self-evident" (as we say in the risk transfer business) that consensus exists and a more detailed investigation is needed. I'd like to thank Will for bringing it up for discussion, Liz for volunteering, and comporting herself with dignity and respect throught the process, and, of course, all those who took the time and effort to participate in sharing their views and fostering discussion. I find that there are some major categories of opposition
 * Administrators need content creation experience, period.
 * Examples include oppositions 2, 4, 5, 7, and 27
 * Administrators need content creation experience to demonstrate various abilities needed for the role, including:
 * Ability to deal with other project members appropriately during difficult conversations
 * Having the necessary logical or reasoning skills to perform administrative functions. This includes application of appropriate weight to claims or statements of differing worth, provenance, or germaneness; judgement as to the application of reversions, deletions, locks, and blocks, PRODS, closing AfDs, and other such tasks
 * Understanding of the stresses that may be involved in generating encylopedia-worthy content and factoring that into decisions on how reversions, deletions, locking, blocking, and other content-related administrative tasks may affect editors
 * Examples include oppositions 1, 14, 21, 33, and 45
 * General concerns about Liz's judgement regardless of content-creation
 * Examples include oppositions 6, 9, 23, 24, and 30
 * General concerns about Liz's interactions with, or opinions of, other editors (individually or as a class)
 * Examples include oppositions 13, 16, 20, 44, and 56
 * Concerns about Liz's apparent focus on areas of Wikipedia home to controversy or "drama"
 * Examples include oppositions 25, 26, 35, 41, and 55
 * For that matter, many of the oppositions comprise multiple issues (not all of which are listed above) and, for the most part they indicate that project members have serious concerns about Liz at this point.
 * The supports rationales, in general, indicate that those members are aware of Liz's contributions and are not as concerned about the issues raised by the opposition. However, in my reading of the supports and their rationales, I am finding that for most every class of praise applied to Liz in the support, there is a corresponding class in the opposition which claims otherwise. For example Liz's judgement is used as both a support and opposition rationale by a significant number of people, Liz's interpersonal behaviour is used ad both a support and opposition rationale by a significant number of people; Liz's focus on ANI and similar boards are both a support and opposition rationale by a significant number of people, and so forth. Moreover, it must be reiterated that RfX is not a vote but a discussion. Therefore, both oppositions and supports without rationales, while important and clearly indicating the existence or absence of trust in the user, do not allow themselves to be used to better understand what is driving said trust or lack thereof. As such, as this discussion falls outside the "reasonably self-evident" zone, while I would not say that there is a clear consensus for Liz to not receive the tools, it is my opinion, at this time, that there is enough voiced concern, clearly addressing Liz's judgement, experience, interpersonal behaviour, focus, and bias, that I believe that there this discussion does not evince a clear consensus for Liz receiving access to the administrative toolkit at this time. That being said, firstly, I remain open to changing my mind if persuaded by valid and convincing arguments. Secondly, I would like to state to Liz that the oppositions themselves provide her the framework for addressing them. I think the discussion shows that should she spend sufficient time (e.g. six months to a year) focusing on addressing the concerns about her focus; her understanding of the needs of content-creators; her judgement about content, editors, policy, and their interrelationships; and the other concerns listed; when she returns to RfA, she will gain the support of many, many of the opposition, and should not have a problem demonstrating consensus. Once again, thank you Liz for volunteering. -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Avi, you sound very final. I'm still thinking this through and so are others. --Dweller (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I am not sure what you mean. The above is my reasoned take of the situation, and I spelled it out at length both to make my argument for the read of the project consensus and to open myself up to argument as per my standing position that I am open to changing my mind if convinced by persuasive and compelling arguments (as I did in the NihonJoe case). Of course, it isn't the final decision of the burecrat team; we haven't even taken a headcount yet [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]], and anyway, tradition will have Will close the discussion as he opened it (unless he defers or explicitly states otherwise). -- Avi (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I misunderstood. --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think less than half of cratchats have been closed by the person who started them. I certainly am happy for anyone to close this one once the crats who wish to participate have reached settled views, especially as this discussion is occurring mid-week when my availability is uncertain. WJBscribe (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be able to review and offer thoughts in about an hour or two. Just noting that here so people know I'm going to do so. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting that I'll read though this as well tonight (next 3ish hours) and note my stance. I skimmed it this morning and realized it was a lot to digest. Wizardman 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This RfA reminds me why I stopped nominating users, since at this point only article writers are apparently allowed to be admins. If that was the only battle, then this would be an easy close, and I would've closed it on that skim. Hell, the comments that were considered "baiting" (having to, gasp, treat article writers and non-article writers equally) sounds like she'd make a great admin, not a bad one. But a crat chat isn't about what a crat would vote, but how consensus reads. As Avi notes above, the opposes were various in nature. Even if I were to give minimal weight to the article-writer admin group, there were concerns about her judgement and perhaps spending too much time at the admin noticeboards. There's a reason why Drmies' oppose in particular was referenced by many following opposers; it shows the potential for tool misuse. Conversely, usually the supports are gung-ho about discounting frivolous opposes or trying to dismiss them, but in reading the supports I don't see much of that, basically just noting sensibility and levelheadedness, which is all well and good, but that's not what the opposition had an issue with. So, as much as I would like to promote this user and probably would have added a support, this is a rare RfA where the opposition does present a really strong case, and I can't in good conscience consider this anything other than no consensus despite barely being in the discretionary zone. Personally I'd say not to bother running again, just focus on the work you already do (which, thankfully, doesn't really need the tools). Wizardman  02:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I gave this a second read through this morning and I'm not convinced my view of this was entirely correct. For the time being I'll consider myself neutral on promoting/not promoting, if this is closed before I return so be it, looks like the consensus among bureaucrats has mostly shaped up and if I do change anything it won't make a difference. Wizardman  12:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Avi above, could you please be more specific about concerns about behavior/appropriateness in interaction etc. I found these arguments rather sparse. Although some editors mentioned things along these lines, and while I didn't dig exhaustively, I was hard-pressed to find diffs that showed Liz being in any way inappropriate. I did see mention of Liz being dismissive of content editing or of the views of content editors. As best I could tell, though, her dismissiveness was not in any way a violation of policy or decorum, nor did users provide an explanation as to how their diffs could be construed as such. There is no criterion for adminship that says you may not express a negative opinion on the value of content creation (nor is there a requirement or to write FAs, etc). Nor can I reasonably really say that Liz feels negatively toward content creation itself, based on any diffs that I read, although she certainly seems to find the most interesting part of Wikipedia to be the social aspect rather than the literary or technical role. At any rate, with 200 supports and a ~75% support rate, we have the numerical basis to find a consensus if we can't find a strong argument that concerns exist. While clearly Liz has made a few enemies and been part of "drama," if anything this makes her RFA all the more impressive considering the sorts of down and dirty wiki interactions she's been parcel to. Andrevan@ 02:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. The five examples of oppositions that focused on Liz's behavior towards others which I gave above are:
 * 13
 * "…I had to realise that the comment I alluded to earlier was not a slip, but that Liz seems to have a "thing" about content editors, some kind of resentment/agenda.…we can't have someone working as sysop who has a vendetta against content creators"
 * 16
 * "Admins ideally should refrain from taking cheap shots."
 * 20
 * "some of her comments do indicate a disdain for content focused writers"
 * 44
 * "candidate is somewhat hostile to content creators"
 * 56
 * "Will support after…a specific reappraisal of her attitude to those who actually write our articles"
 * Some other behavioral related comments include:
 * 10
 * "…but the attitude displayed here is (ironically, for someone who appears to be taking such pride in civility and attention to detail) both unacceptably rude and a demonstration that the tendency to wade into arguments fists-flying without bothering to try to understand what the background is is still very much with us…"
 * 17
 * "…talk page comments, especially passive aggresiveness and tag-teaming, can be far worse than any behavior in articles."
 * 24
 * "…in this thread on your page, you respond to him in a superficially civil way but a rather passive-aggressive tone —"out of the blue, you post on my RfA", etc — and point out with what sounds like satisfaction that you haven't responded to his email nor to his question at this RfA."
 * 28
 * "…couple all these with her "unnecessary needling" (that's using her own words from above) together with baiting and other instances of poor judgement in heated situations…"
 * -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did see there were a number of comments like that but I couldn't find any reasonable substantiating diffs to support the comments. In at least one example I was having trouble ascertaining if the opposing comment was actually reading the same diff as I - fists flying? This looks like a calm user responding civilly to a troll. Some of the comments ("passive agressive... tag teaming") linked to no diffs at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of our job here to also make sure that there is some meat behind these arguments and they aren't just smearing this user? The other diffs that came up were  My interpretation of these diffs is that all users should be treated equally and that content creators should not be given a pass, and that content creators are not being somehow persecuted. How were these diffs in any way hostile or rude? Or are we all forgetting to be charitable and WP:AGF? Andrevan@ 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely, Andrevan, in that we have to seperate true concerns from obvious grudge responses or drive-by opposes without merit. I read that link as well, and agree that the one linked discussion, on its own, does not paint Liz in a bad light vis-a-vis interactions. However, that one instance is not the only opposition based on Liz's attitude; there are at least eight others and probably more. Moreover, they did not strike me as obvious "grudge" oppositions, but honest concerns. It is certainly true that different people can develop differing opinions about the same subject, depending on their interactions. Moreover, the oppositions based on Liz's attitude are not the only class of opposition. As I said above I found it striking that near every character trait praised by Liz in the support section was mentioned—usually multiple times—as a problem in the opposition section. The multitude of classes, the multiple entrants in each class, the detailed supports and oppositions, and the fact this request fell into the "grey" zone, still leads me to believe that there isn't a consensus to allow her access to the tools. Near everything for which an admin requires the community's trust (judgment, interaction, understanding of the project and the needs of its members, etc.) has had enough significant opposition (in my read) to prevent the emergence of a clear consensus to promote. By all means, if I have missed a clear undercurrent of argument weakness, grudge oppositions, or other flaws in a large section of these oppositions which would serve to weaken them, please correct me. -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you link me to a diff you think is worthy of being called passive aggressive, cheap shot, rude, hostile, etc. I can't find any like this. Andrevan@ 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot, as when I tried to look through Liz's edits I am stymied by the vast number of semi-automated ones and I cannot find much of any substance in particular to support or oppose any one claim. That being said, I have no reason to believe that so many opposers would lie about the same problem; one or two, perhaps, but almost 10? They are not in a "bunch" either, these 9 being distributed between July 30 and August 3, which would not be the pattern of a concerted effort unless there is such a good organization behind it as to make it impossible to tell. Which leaves me to believe that there exists concern about Liz's behavior. If this was the only issue, that would be one thing. But this is one of a number, the totality of which needs to be reckoned if we are to determine consensus. The issue is not whether or not there is a consensus about each and every concern; the issue is did Liz demonstrate a consensus that she can be trusted with access to the toolkit. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no reason for the opposers to lie, but there is plenty of room for them to assume bad faith, which might not be borne out if they had provided some evidence, or simply lack a policy basis for their concerns. Of interest is Drmies' oppose, heavily cited, which actually praises many of the aspects that you mention (including apparently the best noticeboard response ever) and offers little in the way of negative information about the candidate. Because this is a hair-close case that is on the edge of being an uncontroversial promote, we only need to demonstrate the minimum level of counter-weight to the oppose arguments to find a consensus here. I think if the majority of opposers haven't provided any evidence and seem grudge-y, their comments should be weighted accordingly. Of note is that Liz's RFA appeared on off-site forums targeting her as a "SJW." This need not lead to a synchronized timing of opposes to constitute a canvassing issue. We also know she has attracted some opposition due to being involved heavily in dispute resolution, which really comes with the territory. If more than half of the opposing arguments for this borderline case are spurious or lacking in hard evidence, it would be a tough case to make that there was no consensus for adminship. Andrevan@ 05:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The antecedent in your syllogism indicates that you think that 37 of the opposers are spurious? Perhaps I have to re-read them yet again, but that is not how I viewed it. You make an interesting point with "…on the edge of being an uncontroversial promote, we only need to demonstrate the minimum level of counter-weight to the oppose arguments to find a consensus here." But that may be a more philosophical question. I admit to approaching this discussion trying to clear my mind completely and determine does there exist a consensus to promote. You are suggesting that your approach is assume consensus, is there sufficient evidence to destroy the consensus. If that were my approach, my understandning would be different, as I said in my original analysis: "while I would not say that there is a clear consensus for Liz to not receive the tools, it is my opinion, at this time, that there is enough voiced concern, clearly addressing Liz's judgement, experience, interpersonal behaviour, focus, and bias, that I believe that there this discussion does not evince a clear consensus for Liz receiving access to the administrative toolkit at this time." To borrow the terms of Bayesian statistics, this is a case where the prior makes a difference. My prior is the uninformed, or weakly informed, prior. You seem to be using an informed prior. While understandable, I'm not sure that is the proper approach. But, to continue the analogy (which I know was a subject of much discussion on the talk page [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]), this very discussion in and of itself indicates to me that the "data" (community response) isn't doing much to affect the prior, which supports my read of not enough information in the data, namely, no clear consensus to support. Once again, thanks; these discussions are helpful, and I still reserve the right to have you or anyone change my mind with persuasive arguments. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're off with this logic regarding priors. I'm not arguing that you should assume consensus and look for counter-evidence. A 74% support rate is within our traditional rule of thumb -- the 70-75% discretionary range in which many promotions have occurred -- to constitute a numerical basis for a consensus. That's where the "prior" of there being a consensus comes from. If there only a little counterweight to the oppose position, that should still be enough because we only need another 1% to push it up into 75% which is uncontroversially though not unequivocally a promotion. 1% of ~250-300 comments means that we need only discount a handful of opposes for the numerical strength to be sufficient. So while I said "half of the opposes" it doesn't have to be actually 37 opposes that we discount. More like 3-4. Andrevan@ 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It boils down to your starting that there is a consensus, since it is already in the discretionary range. I start from the perspective of looking at the discussion as a whole, and not in two stages. I think my approach is more in line with our job of determining if consensus exists in these discussions, and so for now, I am not persuaded to change my opinion. However, the fact that we disagree about this means that we should certainly further investigate how we should approach this facet of the role soon after this discussion is finalized. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely a difficult one. One the one hand, there are many, many supporters, which is always a good thing. Not all that many admins have been promoted with 200 or more support votes. The support votes are generally more than just "I like her!" votes, which is also a good thing, and speaks well of her in the community. On the other hand (and as others have pointed out), there are many well-reasoned oppose votes which are not simply angry rants or weakly-supported negativity. There are a number of valid concerns raised, valid concerns that I don't think can be discounted. Therefore, I lean toward no clear consensus to promote in this case. It is very close, but not quite enough. If the 'crat consensus is that there is no consensus, then I encourage Liz to carefully review the concerns and see what can be done to strengthen those areas, and then run again at some point in the future. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) @Nihonjoe and Avi. Both of you express the view that there is no clear consensus to promote. Is that semantic and you just mean no consensus? I wouldn't have brought this for discussion if I thought the outcome was clear and I worry that we have moved the bar if we're now saying RfAs need a clear consensus to promote in order to be successful. It would make our jobs easier, but I'm not sure it's what we're mandated to do. WJBscribe (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning to consensus to promote, but I'm persuadable. I'm anticipating that candidates will face various aspects of this one in future RfBs. We're rather split at the moment and I'd really like to hear from more Crats. Are there other Crats who are active that we could reasonably expect to weigh in without making Liz wait too long? --Dweller (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've nudged a couple and note that posted last night to say that they'd be along later today (and  obviously did similarly, above). --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read my position as "no consensus to promote" at this time, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. "No consensus to promote" is what it means. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, apologies if I my question was needlessly pedantic. WJBscribe (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been reading Liz's candidacy over the course of the week, followed by my scanning it yesterday and properly reviewing it today. After all the time I've spent reading and thinking it over, my evaluation: consensus to grant adminship - albeit narrowly.


 * I am on record stating that I do consider opposition centered on lack of content experience to be fully valid and non-trivial; as such, we bureaucrats should not throw it out automatically. This candidacy possesses a large amount of opposition based on that criterion and is the core of said opposition; however, despite the non-trivial nature of the rationale, in this case I do not think that it alone is enough to overcome the support and the other concerns listed in the oppose column do not rise to the level of significance that the content-based objections do. An example of the secondary concerns is Liz's supposed opinions about content contributors; my thoughts towards this are similar to what Worm That Turned has stated on this chat's talk page (I should note, however, given that he is the primary nominator, he did not influence my analysis here - he just better articulated much of what I wanted to say) and I have listened to what Liz herself said here. A higher than usual participation at noticeboards seems to be the other major source of contention and I agree with WJBscribe's thoughts above on this.


 * Overt axe-grinding seems scant and the overwhelming majority of people present in the oppose section are there out of good-faith motives; I was surprised at just how much of the opposition heaped praise onto Liz - there are numerous positive comments about her likability, her knowledge of policy and her kindness/good interactions with other people. Almost no one thought she would purposely abuse/misuse adminship and some of those opposing gave indication to their lack of any worries if she were to become an administrator.


 * As for the amount of participants on both sides, I mostly factored this out of my conclusion. 200/72 becomes 100/36 when divided by two, so to me, the "sheer number of supports" argument is countered by "sheer number of opposes" and vice versa. WJBscribe has already said above about the effect of new accounts on the candidacy.


 * Taking this all into consideration, I think there is consensus here to grant adminship to Liz; narrowly, as I said above, but nevertheless present. Acalamari 12:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that opposes based on content are not trivial. My questions above, where I was considering giving them less weight, have been well addressed by comments on the talk page, as well as by Crats. I tend to agree, actually, with much of what you say.
 * I'd also like to note that various contributors on the talk page have made comments to the extent that there ought to be an onus on people to bring diffs to support negative assertions at RfX. I think this is an important point, and should be explored properly at a suitable venue - after this RfA is closed. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Dweller; my comments on content-based opposition were a re-stating of what I've said in the past, as a part of my addressing of such opposition present in this RfA, not a jab against anything you or anyone else has said. Acalamari 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine and no need to apologise. I thought it was worth clarifying my position, as I made a very good job of making it muddy. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller that we need to seriously revisit how we approach various oppositions; whether it was creep or not, the points raised on the talk page are good ones. I also would like us to discuss the mentality we should have when entering these analyses (as I discuss in my last response to Andrevan above). If I were to have entered this discussion with ethe preconception that Liz should be promoted and it was up to the opposition to "derail" it, I very likely would have a different read than I do now, which enters the analysis with the preconception that Liz is not an admin, and must demonstrate that she has consensus to become one. What is supposed to be our baseline? -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a fairly old fashioned Wikipedian. When I was a newbie, the baseline was very definitely WP:NOBIGDEAL. I'm not certain there consensus for a baseline any more. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many who are disappointed that we, as bureaucrats, have not used our "bully pulpit" to affect RfA as an entity; perhaps this is one area in which we should get clarification. However, this page isn't the place for it. So after our Tahitian vacations once this closes [JOKE, :-(], I think we need to start exploring these questions more actively. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read over the RFA and I initially came down in the same area as Avi, with a decent reliance on Wizardman's thoughts. My rationale was that, even discounting the "admins must write content" opposes, there are still opposes that raise concerns about judgement and interaction on noticeboards (it's different issues if people feel she hasn't done enough content work v. she has shown concerning conduct in interacting with content writer (e.g., Dennis' "some of her comments do indicate a disdain for content focused writers" comment). That said, I've reflected on the overall participation in the RFA and the facts that they are many fewer "bare" supports than I would usually expect in an RFA and many of the opposes recognize her skills (e.g., Jusdafax's "the candidate is also worthy of respect, having a reasonably even temperament" comment), and that the candidate has been scrutinized by some ~270 people and 22 questions with a result at the higher end of the discretionary range. Therefore, I'm coming down as successful, based on the entirety of the RFA and without trying to adjust the of weight of the good faith beliefs held each side.  MBisanz  talk 14:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

With the caveat that I've not been involved in RfA recently, this looks like a successful RfA to me. The standard of comments is generally high, although a few more diffs would always be good, and there is plenty of detail to look through. There are genuine concerns among opposers, and they relate to more than one issue. The sheer number of supporters and opposers is of little relevance. However, quite a few opposers - more than supporters - state that their view is "marginal", a "difficult call", etc; in one case even stating it is a "moral support". I second Acalamari's comments and agree that, narrowly, there is a consensus to promote. Warofdreams talk 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving towards a close
Xeno has committed to coming back to this discussion today. Perhaps when they do they ought to close this? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get back to this last night to make substantive comments on the candidacy; other obligations left me with no time to deliver an opinion. And I still won't have time to adequately review and comment fairly and at length on this well-attended RfA for another 8 hours or so (but if someone feels ready to close, please do not wait on my account).
 * Generally, I understand the argument that potential administrators should have significant content-building experience and how a lack of such experience may negatively affect their approach to administration (this was a factor in my first RfB). So opposition on these grounds properly made out with evidence doesn't warrant any down-weighting. I can't help but think that had Liz done a lot more of this prior to standing, we wouldn't be here right now.
 * On the suggestion for me to close the discussion: we still have comments coming in with the discussion starting to lean towards the promote side. Have any of the bureaucrats who felt there was 'no consensus' been persuaded by recent comments? I wonder if the discussion would benefit more from my opining rather than closing, but I don't want to hold up the closing of this discussion further if that time has come. –xenotalk 15:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Xeno: There's no reason you can't do both, but I think your opinion is what we really need - any of us can close this. WJBscribe (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will strive to comment sooner. –xeno<sup style="color:#000">talk 15:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From MBisanz's comments, he was swayed from no consensus to consensus and Wizardman was swayed to neutral away from "no consensus" [although isn't that in and of itself no consensus?] -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it's been about 24 hours since your comments, have the subsequent discussions swayed you at all? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read the subsequent discussion (Acalamari and MBisanz in particular have made some very good points) but I still think the consensus to promote is just not quite there. It is a close call, though, and I understand where the 'crats who would promote are coming from. 28bytes (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with 28bytes on this one. It is a very close call, and this discussion has been good. While I can see where the "consensus to promote" opinions are coming from, I disagree that there is a consensus to promote. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Before this is closed, I think this concern brought up today about canvassing should be addressed. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. There had been canvassing on Reddit, Wikipediocracy, etc. See I think it strengthens the argument that the opposes should be counterweighted to find a consensus to promote. Andrevan@ 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, it certainly appears that many more supports came in on the last day than oppositions. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. I didn't feel that the canvassing had much sway on the discussion and there is some interesting statistical analysis on the talkpage that shows a surge in support, not opposition. I suspect the surge in comments towards the end was actually people who had been watching the discussion whilst sitting on the fence deciding to participate before the RfA closed. My view of the outcome of the discussion does not include any adjustment for canvassing, which would be guesswork anyway as I'd have no idea which way to adjust. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In review and consideration of the post-RfA discussion, I believe consensus exists to promote. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary
Just jotting down a rough idea of where we're at (includes "leaning to" and may not be final positions) - <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Successful: Andrevan; WJBscribe; Acalamari; Dweller; MBisanz; Warofdreams; Xeno
 * No consensus: Maxim; 28bytes; Avi; Nihonjoe
 * Still to comment/Undecided: Wizardman
 * Recused: Worm; Useight

Decision
With Xeno chiming in, I think it fair to say that the bureaucrats as a group have found the discussion demonstrated that there is a consensus amongst the respondents that Liz should be afforded access to the administrative maintenance tool kit. Anyone disagree? Will, will you do the honors sans a last minute objection? -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Will's asleep, so I flipped the bit.  Maxim (talk)  01:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was indeed. Many thanks for doing the honours. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recusals

 * Quite obviously - I'm recused. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I participated in this particular RFA and therefore recuse myself. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this discussion, the related nomination, or that of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''