Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat chat


 * The following thread is preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish. The final decision was that consensus exists to make ScottishFinnishRadish an administrator. Please do not modify the text .

Discussion

 * Starting a bureaucrat chat for this candidacy, given the support percentage (around 72%), the volume of participation and the arguments given on all sides; this, to me, warrants scrutiny by more than one bureaucrat. I am still in the process of reading the RfA and will give my verdict within 24 hours. Fellow bureaucrats, discuss accordingly. Acalamari 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Acalamari, for opening this discussion. It’s late here but I will read through the RfA in the morning and offer my thoughts. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote a detailed explanation of my thoughts on this RfA, but unfortunately the entire thing seems to have been lost in an edit conflict. I will offer an executive summary instead, in the interest of not slowing down the discussion. I see the oppose rationales as reasonable positions for editors to take, so I would not assign any particular class of them a lesser weight, but given the raw percentage and the direction the community has given us to expand the discretionary range downwards to 65% in order to compensate for the added scrutiny modern candidacies receive, I see a consensus to promote. The concerns raised by those opposing have simply not persuaded enough of the supporters to change their minds to move this one into the unsuccessful column. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seen, will read through as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, the opposition falls into three categories: SFR is inexperienced (and/or is "too new"); SFR does not edit in the article space sufficient to be considered "experienced enough" to be an administrator; SFR has temperament issues when dealing with controversial situations, which could potentially lead to heavy-handed adminning and unnecessary hasty/involved sanctions. For the most part, the first two concerns are binary: either SFR meets someone's activity/editing criteria, or they don't. The consensus on these first two points clearly lies with those in support. The third issue is probably the most troubling, as folks are understandably concerned about involved/inappropriate sanctions being levied, or other administrative actions being taken in a way that reduces the amount of transparency or editorial oversight from SFR. There were a number of examples given in the opposition, but unlike past RFAs there does not appear to be one issue that significantly changed the outcome (see as comparison Tamzin or Vami IV); in other words, the support percent dropped into the 70-75% range fairly quickly but then never left that zone. I do expect ScottishFinnishRadish to take the opposition opinions into consideration going forward, but I see a consensus to promote. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As a minor note, I do find WTT's analysis of the "mind-changers" to be rather interesting; I cannot think of another RFA with this percentage of support that did not have at least a few people change their overall opinions of the candidate during the process. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall have something for you today. Thanks for opening.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, I'd like to indicate this is my first cratchat, so if I do anything spurious, drop me a line. This RfA has been one of the highest turnouts for a while, but with some pretty poor arguments (on both sides). Opposer arguments are largely down to a couple of different niches, with a general lack of trust being put in place. There are suggestions that this user is somehow too good at the system, that they started "too well", and that they have made choices until this point as they specifically want the tools. It is not our job to decide whether this is true or not, but rather agree or disagree that the community believes this to be true. However, I would like to comment that any indications of someone opposing this because of an accusation of being a sock has been given significantly less weight in my eyes. There are zero policy reasons why someone who was a sock could have editing privileges, but not be able to be an admin. It's a binary thing, where either this user is a sockpuppet and they should be banned (or indicate such a thing with the usual exemptions) or they aren't a sockpuppet and should be able to run for RfA without accusation. Regardless of the result of this, if there is speculation of puppetry, then an SPI should be filed (with corresponding evidence).
 * That being said, this isn't the only issue that was brought up - issues with the users tenure, previous faults and potential hat collecting were all mentioned. I echo Primefac's comments on these oppose !votes. I also agree with WTT that whilst we should be wary on admitting new corps, we have no minimum tenure, and have had plenty of opportunities to add one. I find a consensus to support, echoing Primefacs well written !vote above. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for organising, Acalamari. I have been following the RfA, which has raised a number of concerns regarding the candidate, including the seeming dichotomy of that of being a returning user because of ScottishFinnishRadish's knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's ways, and that of not being experienced enough. Another dichotomy is that supporters mention that SFR has written two GAs and been very helpful in responding to edit requests, while opposers are concerned that SFR doesn't have enough content experience. Supporters feel that SFR has the right attitude and clue to be an admin, opposers feel that SFR can be rash and uncivil. From following it through it appears to me that supporters feel comfortable with what they see of SFR, while opposers are uneasy about something they see in SFR, though the exact reason for that is difficult to pin down. Some opposers feel that SFR has been deliberately setting out to be an admin, and that makes them feel uneasy. I don't think this is an easy one to call. While watching I noticed the percentage indicator creeping down, which might lean toward an oppose, as - despite SFR addressing concerns in the question section, and supporters returning to add more rationale for their support, the trend continued downwards, albeit slightly. Though all the concerns raised are understandable, only two - that of being a returning user and that of not having enough experience - appear to be raised by a substantial enough number of opposers (and rebutted by supporters) to be considered serious impediments. The concerns of incivility and rashness are not widely shared by the opposers; the two main concerns are lack of experience, and the suggestion of being a returning user. As I mentioned in the RfA, I don't feel it is our role to judge if SFR is a returning user, nor if SFR has enough experience; I feel that our roles are to assess if the community feels confident enough in SFR to become an admin. On examination this morning, I feel that sufficient of the opposers have indicated that they are reassured by SFR's comments regarding SFR's understanding of Wikipedia's ways that the concern regarding being a returning user is not an impediment. However, I am not yet sure regarding the concern about broad experience. I intend and hope to have my opinion on this matter later today. SilkTork (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This morning as I was writing the above, I was inclining toward accepting; however, after reading through the RfA again, and noting both the range and the strength of the opposes, I got the distinct impression of a significant body of people who do not currently [have enough] trust in SFR, and would like to see SFR get more involved with a greater range of Wikipedia activities, particularly stressful ones, so they can see how SFR behaves under pressure. There are a number of concerns regarding temperament, and this grew toward the end. The final comment in the oppose column of "choose caution, even if in err", strikes me as particularly telling. This is a fairly borderline RfA, and to err on the side of caution, allowing SFR to come back again in, say, 12 months, seems more prudent than to err on the side of risk with a difficult journey to amend that err. As such I find no consensus to promote to be the more prominent message I get from the RFA. SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added "have enough" per suggestion on talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing an RfA with a lowish raw % in the discretionary range, with a range of well-expressed and heartfelt opposes. I think I've rarely seen so many strongly stated opposes for a Cratchat RfA (and re number 70,, I think not only Crats but other users find the strength of support/opposition very helpful - RfA is supposed to be a conversation leading to consensus). On the other hand, like SilkTork, I find issue with a number of the opposes, especially as I think the answer to Q6 is both significant and plausible. However, with this much, and so varied, well-expressed opposition, I feel disinclined on this occasion to start going down the route of trying to notionally discount or give lower weight to some opposes. Regardless of outcome, I think that the nominee should reflect on the oppose rationales - many of them could be worked on by this user. For me, I find no consensus to promote. Regretfully, as I think this candidate offers plenty and I hope to see them as an admin some time. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dweller just a quick note (not sure if it changes your opinion), the discretionary range is 65% - 75%, so this isn't on the low end of the raw numbers. WormTT(talk) 10:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just popped in briefly and seen the confusion I've caused. Some people have been kindly interpreting, but I think I made some sort of error as I've no idea where the "lowish" came from. Just ignore it. Apologies. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seen, should be able to review within ~16 hours. — xaosflux  Talk 10:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the supports, a non-trivial number are of the I'm not bothered by a point an opposer raised type, but otherwise don't add much to the discussion about why the candidate should be supported. Conversely, almost all of the opposition added to the discussion reasons why the candidate should not be supported. I don't find that there is sufficient opposes to call this a "fail", however my overall read is that the discussion resulted in no consensus to promote. The primary opposition trends are regarding things that will likely be naturally overcome if the candidate continues to make positive content contributions to the project over some more time. — xaosflux  Talk 00:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I Agree with AmandaNP that the primary opposition has been of the "generically" type, with a recurring theme that they would like to have a larger time frame to observe the candidate (not days, perhaps months); also agree with Acalamari that the anti-oppose type of supports I mentioned above do not appear to be "spite" supports. Even with my own secret-sauce weighting criteria in play I don't see this strayed from the discretionary zone. — xaosflux  Talk 10:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I intend to go over this today, but am rather busy so if I don't get to it, please go on without me! WormTT(talk) 10:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I found I had a spare half hour, so I thought I'd jump straight in. On the surface, at 72% support we are leaning towards an area where we should be promoting a candidate, but since we're in a discretionary area, we also need to consider the comments made to see what sort of issues are raised, and how they are rebutted. It's clear to me that ScottishFinnishRadish's lack of tenure is a concern for many of the opposers, which can be combined with significant early knowledge to imply the possibility of a previous account. However, I am going to give less weight to these concerns. I appreciate there is a risk involved in accepting new admins - but the community has explicitly refused to set a minimum tenure, and without some actual proof of previous account this does boil down to a bad faith opinion.
 * That said, I'm not discounting these votes all together, as RfA is about trust, and it's clear that these opposers simply do not trust the candidate - and important factor. Similarly, the idea of lack of experience, which goes along hand in hand with lack of tenure is a valid one, and should be given due weight.
 * The other concerns I'm seeing raised should be given their due weight, lack of content creation / mainspace edits are issues some of the community base their views upon. A "barrel ahead" attitude is something that I've seen raised as a concern with admins who have been removed for cause.
 * In summary, there clearly are valid concerns raised by the opposers, but they have not persuaded the supporters. Interestingly, I have not seen many individuals change their opinion during the course of the RfA based on the opposite side's opinion, neither side has persuaded the other, which is unusual at a contentious RfA. Overall, I believe there is a consensus to promote, despite the concerns of the opposers. WormTT(talk) 11:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting I've seen this and will review the discussions later today. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had a chance to read through things now. I agree with Acalamari's assessment, below. I don't see the concerns about sockpuppeting being very valid since no one has presented a case over there to have it investigated. There are plenty of legitimate reasons someone might have more wiki knowledge than the average new editor, and since no sockpuppet investigations have ever been opened, I don't put much weight in those concerns. Concerns expressed about incivility or hot-headedness don't seem to carry a lot of weight, either, as there doesn't seem to be a pattern shown by those expressing those concerns. Many of the opposing editors expressed opinions regarding not enough experience, but a large number of supporting editors (more than the number of those opposing with this as a concern, I believe) specifically addressed that in their support opinions. Many of those supports were also reaffirmations, too. Given that those things, and the fact that there was no sudden spike of opposes or changing from support to oppose (I don't think there were any of these, which there usually are when something provable and substantiated used for opposing), I find there is sufficient consensus to promote in this case. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an amazing amount of passion for an RfA, especially when compared to the earlier days of sysoping. Before looking at some of the particulars, I'd like to make a brief broad comment.
 * In the early days of the Bureaucracy, I felt that the Bureaucrat should be sparing of personal observations; that is, the Bureaucrat had to see where the consensus lay, by volume and then by reading the contentious arguments on each side, if necessary. So (theoretically) the 'crat was merely interpreting the community's will.
 * Numerically, I believe we were originally looking at 80% for admins, 90% for 'crats. Then it softened to 75%-80% with the understanding that you needed some special issues to justify going below 80%. Now I see we are at 65%-75%. Isn't that a long way down?; but then this is decades later.
 * As for food for thought, what are we looking for in this RfA? Early on, Jimbo stated that he didn't want sysoping to be a magic thing; that he even considered making some users sysops at random, just to show it wasn't that big a deal. But that was two decades ago. The other side is: will this person be a plus for the Wiki? But, moreover, can he do harm: if so, what? Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Things change, and one thing which has changed massively is the amount of scrutiny which RfAs and RfBs receive. Back in the mists of time, when I went through them, there was a much stronger sense that it wasn't a big deal, and a few months of competent editing, followed by not picking any arguments during the discussion, generally got everyone 90% support.  While the raw percentage of support required may have come down, I think it represents at least as strong a level of community confidence in the applicant. Warofdreams talk 20:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My turn to be the crat travelling at the start of a cratchat. But I'm now back online, had read much of it during the week and will respond when I've had a few hours sleep.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I was talking the numbers before, right now the 'crats that have stated an intent are 66% to promote. Is that consensus? LOL Cecropia (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK so having slept on it, read and reread this RFA here are my thoughts. The raw count is in the discretionary range and clearly in the upper half of it per the broadening of that range a few years ago. I'm not seeing anywhere near sufficient weak or moral supports to significantly reduce the support percentage, yes there are a couple and a couple that accept some of the oppose rationales, but as others have noted, this RFA is unusual for the lack of traction that the oppose arguments have had on the supporters. There are Opposers who have struck, and people who have moved from neutral. I'm also tempted to count Chris Troutmans comments as de facto a support. Many supporters have clearly responded to some of the reasons raised by the opposers, others have simply !voted, but it is long established that a support !vote is agreement with the nomination. The trend line is also fairly flat, though it did dip by a couple of percent in the last couple of days, but I'm not seeing the sort of last minute collapse that would justify assuming that a proportion of the early supporters would also strike their supports if given another 24 hours. Looking at the Opposers I'm seeing a near mirror. Yes there are a couple who struck and a couple who marked their Oppose as weak, and given that each oppose !vote is worth a couple of supports, if anything that would mean more than 2% of the Opposition is "weak" and only 1% of the supports. Looking at the reasons given for opposing, clearly this is one of those RFAs where several arguments are in play. Tenure is long established as a criteria that matters to many !voters, I think we can safely say that we have consensus that it is a criteria, but not with full agreement as to where the threshold is. I wouldn't fancy the chances of even an otherwise textbook candidate if they had less than one year of tenure, very few expect more than two years, and this candidate with 18 months had a number of civil opposes on that criteria. Pre wiki experience is a related issue in that one of the arguments for a tenure requirement is that time will out a returning problem editor. I don't discount the sincerity of the concerns that were displayed on this front, and I hope that whatever the result of the cratchat that SFR continues editing in a way that ultimately renders this concern moot (note to the nominators and potential nominators contemplating similar situations; rather than disclosing a real world identity to Arbcom, I suspect it would have been more effective if a trusted neutral such as Arbcom were given the identity of the WikiHow account) . If the tenure argument was RFA looking like a driving test with a backseat crowded with test examiners arguing about the criteria for a test, this was RFA at its most contentious. The requested edits controversy seems to be more at the standard templates that we encourage people to use than anything SFR related, there were a couple of mistakes made and acknowledged, but nobody seems to be arguing that there is a problematic pattern. I didn't understand the arguments about content contributions. Sometimes we get an opposer who expects an FA, but it is rare to get so many opposes re content contributions for someone who has two GAs. There was at least one oppose at the end of the discussion where someone had queried whether they'd noticed the two GAs. We did get one opposer dismiss the two GAs as short, which is true. But I'm not seeing the sort of arguments over content that would normally discount this as evidence of the candidate being a content contributor. Obviously they weren't from so long ago that GA standards have changed, and in 7 days no-one has challenged SFR's work re sourcing or other content related issues that would tarnish those GAs. African American educationalists are way outside my wheelhouse, but if there is something about these GAs that was problematic, the members of the Opposse did not make that clear to the rest of the RFA crowd. So I'm left where I started, the RFA is in the upper half of the discretionary zone. So I read this as close, but consensus to promote. On a broader note, this was one where there were multiple oppose reasons given by different members of the opposse, and several instances of opposes that did not agree with other reasons for opposing the candidate. I'm wondering whether that should make a difference as opposed to RFAs where all the opposers were of one mind.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm home from a long day of work and have had a look through the RfA and this discussion here. Firstly, it's good to see that for the very large part, the RfA has been good natured, and many comments both in support and opposition are clearly reasoned.  Editors on both sides have largely engaged with the same issues, and it's clear that a substantial minority are not convinced that they would trust SFR sufficiently as an admin.  While I could discuss details at length, my thoughts are very similar to those of SilkTork in particular.  I find no consensus to promote.  I don't know whether SFR will consider applying again in a year, but I hope they will consider it. Warofdreams talk 20:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a few observations regarding this before I jump into a full read of the RfA. Like Lee Vilenski, I find if a sockpuppet accusation is going to be made, it needs to have some evidence behind it and be taken up through normal community processes. It's not in-line with the AGF pillar to level these accusations as character assasination, especially during an RfA. Beyond that, I agree with Dweller that the strength of supports or opposes is very helpful. It helps me weigh how much thought was put in to the support or concern, rather than just seeing the wave of a hand type support or oppose. I also echo WTT's comment about voters digging in the trenches and how we have not had many, if any, flip sides because of the concerns raised. With that, I'll go review the RfA in a short bit here and be back with my opinion on consensus shortly after. -- Amanda (she/her)  21:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna start by explaining the difference that I see with tenure vs. experience, as they are two different animals. As WTT notes, we have failed to ever set a minimum tenure at Wikipedia for an admin. Tenure does not always infer experience or lack thereof, it's just a measure of time. Experience on the other hand is actually participating in activities on the encyclopedia. There are plenty of people in the world who have the tenure for a position, but don't have the experience required, and can make a poor candidate. Now that I've split that up, I'll continue. Tenure !votes don't strike much of a chord with me, where as experience does.
 * I'm honestly a little disappointed with some of this RfA !votes. I figured we'd get more than a wave of feelings and get some solid evidence behind opposes. But instead, we are left with people concerned generically. While I don't discount this concern, it's less substantive than the usual RfA of opposing for x reason. So we are left with weak 'feeling' !votes for sockpuppetry and tenure, and then, we have more solid experience (including mainspace concerns) and tempterment concerns. Moving into the support section, I also see a ton of 'I've read the opposes' type !votes, which is not that usual with RfAs, especially since a lot of the supports usually come in early.
 * Considering both my early thoughts and new thoughts, the 'feeling' !votes as I mentioned above skew the strength of the oppose section. Because we are in the higher end of the discretionary zone, that pushes it over the line for me. While I don't dispute that there are many opposes that bring up good points the candidate should take to heart and work on if granted the tools, I feel that there is consensus to promote. -- Amanda (she/her)  23:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is up to the community to evaluate the candidate; the role of the bureaucrats is to follow the wishes of the community. It is not the role of the bureaucrats to evaluate the candidate nor to cast "!supervotes."  That said, comments that lack a basis in policy do not carry as great a weight in determining consensus.  I will point out that there is no policy that requires RFA candidates to disclose their IP editing history.  If the community were inclined to adopt such a policy it would have to be crafted carefully in order to be in compliance with the privacy policy.  I believe a consensus to promote exists.  Uninvited Company 02:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Acalamari's analysis
The opposition: For me, the sockpuppetry accusations hold zero weight. Anyone who is seriously concerned about ScottishFinnishRadish being a sock should bring their concerns to the relevant sockpuppetry processes and with evidence. Having "a feeling" that someone is a sock because their early contributions showed some experience with how wikis work is contrary to the assumption of good faith and a personal attack when a valid explanation (answers 6, 10 and 14) has been given. It's not our job as bureaucrats to determine whether or not someone is a sock and for those whose job it is, there is precedent for them to outright ban a candidate without our participation. If ScottishFinnishRadio ends up being banned next week, next month or next year, those processes will have done their job, just as we would have done ours in determining the consensus here. So, again, I am holding zero weight to the sockpuppetry accusations and have ruled them out of my determination.

Another opposition rationale I gave little to no weight to were those who opposed based on WP:NOTNOW / WP:NOTYET, as that applies to brand new users with snowfall failure candidacies, not people with experience and majority support like ScottishFinnishRadish, and those to those who opposed solely on "hat collecting" when it was pointed out that ScottishFinnishRadish had to be convinced to run and the only extra permissions they hold so far is IP block exempt. Otherwise with tenure, I'm not going to repeat what has already been said by my fellow bureaucrats above; I endorse Amanda's position here.

By contrast, the opposition based on ScottishFinnishRadish's mainspace contributions are much stronger as they are based on actual solid evidence (low mainspace percentage, for example), not feelings, and I will continue to go on record stating that a dearth of mainspace experience is one of the strongest reasons to oppose someone and completely valid. Given that ScottishFinnishRadish has stated they intend to do admin work in article space, it's fully understandable that those in opposition want to be assured that ScottishFinnishRadish has the right experience to operate in that area as an administrator. However, where this position does fall down is that ScottishFinnishRadish has two Good Articles - as noted by many - and is working on bringing other articles to that status, which is evidence that they do know how mainspace works and how to function there, as those in support such as theleekycauldron and Rusalkii argue.

The strongest opposition argument here, in my determination, is temperament; this concern is acknowledged by those in support, such as User:Chocmilk03 and Bilorv, with the latter arguing that ScottishFinnishRadish's attitude "could do with improvement". JoJo Anthrax's oppose contained multiple instances of evidence of questionable temperament and policy interpretations, and gave an analysis as to how that could affect ScottishFinnishRadish's actions as an administrator. Several others directly agreed and cited JoJo in their opposition while many more agreed in opposition indirectly. Towards the end of the RfA, the concerns about being a sock had faded away and concerns about judgment and temperament were prominent, and several in support did agree even if they were still supporting; regardless of what happens in this bureaucrat discussion, I do strongly advise ScottishFinnishRadish to listen to these concerns and to reflect and adjust accordingly.

The supporters: I acknowledgewhat Xaosflux said here about supports who disagree with the opposition but otherwise add nothing to the support reasons themselves. I've even given a similar lower weighting before, as I did in another bureaucrat chat. However, in this case, I do regard those supports to be more than balanced by the lower weighted oppose rationales I mention above, as well as the general assumption that a support means "I agree with the nomination" and that additional support reasons add to it; the difference between my determination here and in that other chat is that the supports here are comfortable despite the opposition, rather than supporting to spite someone or something else.

A large amount of the supports argue against the sockpuppetry accusations and seemingly low contributions to mainspace, for reasons that I cited above. Wugapodes was especially effective in their support for countering the most common reasons cited to oppose ScottishFinnishRadish, with several people agreeing directly or indirectly with them. Robert McClenon and the massive analysis by Yngvadottir also appeared to heavily counter the opposition, thus seemingly keeping people in support or adding to that column. Multiple people returned to the discussion to review their support and those re-affirming vastly outweighed those switching to oppose or neutral.

Unless there was something I missed - it is a gargantuan RfA, after all - I didn't see any obvious bad faith supports for me to dismiss immediately. Again, stating that you're not bothered by the opposition's reasons isn't the same as supporting to spite them.

So, after all that, where do I stand? This has been a tough one to wade through, but I give a consensus to grant adminship verdict here. If the opposition had focused purely on mainspace and temperament, and left out anything to do with tenure and sockpuppetry accusations, I'd be joining those stating no consensus.

On that note, it's late where I live and I should have been in bed awhile ago, so if there are any replies to this, it'll be awhile before I can respond to them. If you reached this sentence, thank you for reading. Acalamari 02:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my rather different perspective. We try to make a successful RfA an expression of consensus; meaning that a bureaucrat shouldn't have to do a lot of analysis. For better or for worse, when we set a range of 65%-75% as a gray error, it is almost guarantees that the promoting 'crat[s] must analyze the results to the point of saying "this objection isn't important," "this support is weak," and so on.; i.e., become a moderator or even a "super voter." Therefore, my personal judgment on this particular RfA is that we have no consensus to promote but the preponderance of the sentiment and arguments mean that we should promote. Cecropia (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to be more of a pest than necessary, I say "no consensus" by any reasonable understanding of the plain meaning of "consensus." Cecropia (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving on
If I've understood Cecropia correctly, I agree. Although I've stated my opinion that the RfA did not have consensus, this CratChat clearly does. We have twin obligations: to thoroughly discuss and not to extend the delay for the candidate too long. I think even after this short period, it's evident that we've reached consensus here to promote the candidate (and thanks to so many Crats for weighing in so swiftly). I think it's time to close. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 20:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Good night, Gracie. :) Cecropia (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur we have a combined consensus that the discussion leaned towards promotion.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with above, am closing this as successful. Thank you to those who participated. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Recusals

 * I haven't been very active these past couple weeks, and will sit this one out. I trust my peers will read this well!  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have personal responsibilities that are taking up a lot of my time at this moment and I will need to recuse from this one. My apologies. -- Avi (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Like Avi, I am presently unable to give this request the attention it needs, but there have been assessments by a number of other bureaucrats, so I feel comfortable abstaining. Useight (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * While I have carefully gone the RfA, on further consideration, I feel that it would be most appropriate for me to recuse from participating in the closure. At any rate, I think there is clear consensus among bureaucrats to promote at this point.  Maxim (talk)   20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary

 * Consensus to promote: 28bytes, Acalamari, AmandaNP, Lee Vilenski, Nihonjoe, Primefac, UninvitedCompany, WereSpielChequers, Worm That Turned
 * No consensus to promote: Dweller, SilkTork, Warofdreams, Xaosflux
 * No consensus, but would promote: Cecropia
 * Recused: bibliomaniac15, Avraham, Maxim
 * Abstain: Useight

Close
The participating bureaucrats largely agree that there exists a consensus to promote ScottishFinnishRadish to administrator. — xaosflux  Talk 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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