Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk/Bureaucrat discussion

 ''The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk. The final decision was that consensus existed to trust Trappist with access to the administrator toolset. Please do not modify the text.

- bureaucrat discussion
I have been considering the outcome of this RfA for a while now. I think it is an appropriate instance for me to seek the views of other bureaucrats, and in particular other bureaucrats more active than myself, in determining whether a consensus exists for promotion. Numerically, the numbers of supporters and opposers are finely balanced at the low end of the range where it is generally accepted that bureaucrats have a discretion as to whether or not to promote (thanks guys!). The RfA however has some special features which take it away from the norm, and the opposition is as a result somewhat different to that which I usually see. In no particular order, I make the following observations: Reading through the points on both sides, I am leaning towards the view that a consensus may exist for promotion, but I am by no means convinced and would appreciate further input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The requesting user does not intend to use the entire admin toolset. Their focus is to be in relation to editing protected pages.
 * 2) The admin toolset has not been unbundled to allow this feature to be allocated individually, so it is "all or nothing". Either Trappist the monk becomes an administrator, or they do not.
 * 3) Concerns with granting adminship for a limited purpose are the main reasons cited by those opposing.
 * 4) Many of those opposing on this basis express reluctance or state their oppose to be weak.
 * 5) A significant number of opposers also cite civility/temperament concerns.
 * 6) Those supporting express themselves to be comfortable with adminship being granted for limited purposes.
 * 7) Unlike the opposing ones, very few of the supporting comments are noted to be made weakly or reluctantly.
 * It has been suggested on my talkpage that it would be useful to refer you to Requests for comment/Template editor user right by way of further background to some of the issues discussed in this RfA. I am happy to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading through both the support rationales and the opposes, both sides make good arguments but a core of the opposition seems to be an objection to the idea of limited-focus adminship rather than an objection to the candidate themselves. I can't bring myself to assign a lot of weight to that objection given that virtually none of our admin core works in all admin areas, and most focus on a small handful of areas, and not infrequently just one or two. WP:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella comes to mind as an example of a "single-purpose" RfA where the candidate did what they said they would do: focus on one administrative area of interest and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Art_LaPella not use tools they don't feel competent to use]. Are there counterexamples, where a candidate is promoted to focus on a specialized task, and then goes nuts making bad blocks or improper deletions? If there were I could be persuaded that that's a valid concern. I give more weight to the concerns about temperament and curtness, however, and the supporters don't seem to address that concern at all. So this remains a close call in determining what the community wants here. If I had to close this one myself, I think "no consensus to promote" best reflects the situation, but it would be a very close call and I think calling it the other way would be a reasonable choice too. Sorry to be so mamby-pamby, as one editor recently put it, but that's how I see it. 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to discount the opposes that are based on the limited use, or bundling/unbundling, or anything similar, as that's not on the candidate, but the process. If that was the only issue, this would be a pretty easy call. The civility and demeanor issues, however, are a lot more concerning, and it seemed that opposition was shifting towards that later on rather than the use issue. Because of point five solely, I'm really on the fence on this one; I can certainly be convinced one way or the other yet. Really, 28bytes said it better than I could have; closes don't get much tougher than this. Wizardman  16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading through the RfA, the bulk of both the support and opposition seems to fall into two major categories each:
 * Support
 * Trappist is trustworthy enough to receive the admin package. His actions and interactions are sufficiently courteous and competent enough to be given the mop in toto, he can be trusted not to abuse the privileges with which he will work immediately, and he can be trusted to "grow into" privileges he will not use immediately. If Trappist were to have run for a "regular" RFA, these people would have supported him anyway (example: Support 10).
 * Trappist is trustworthy enough to receive the admin package for his requests. His actions and interactions are sufficiently courteous and competent enough to be given the mop to perform the actions he describes, he can be trusted not to abuse the privileges with which he will work immediately, and he can be trusted not to use the other privileges. If Trappist were to have run for a "regular" RFA, these people may or may not have supported him, but more likely not. (example: Support 58).
 * Oppose
 * Trappist's actions and interactions are sufficiently courteous and competent enough to be given the mop to perform the actions he describes, and while he may be trusted not to abuse the privileges with which he will work immediately, no one is trusted not to restrict themselves from privileges to which, when all is said and done, they do have access. If Trappist were to have run for a "regular" RFA, these people may or may not have supported him, but more likely not (example: Oppose 3).
 * Trappist's actions and interactions are not sufficiently courteous or competent enough to be given the mop to perform the actions he describes, and if Trappist were to have run for a "regular" RFA, these people almost certainly would not have supported him (example: Oppose 9).
 * My read of the entire discussion, is that the plurality of responses fall into support category 1; however, that block alone probably would not have indicated a consensus of all respondents to trust Trappist with the tools. However (yet again) the respondents in support block 2 are aware that Trappist would be receiving access to more tools than merely those he has voiced a direct need for, and are willing to trust him that he will stick to that commitment. Supporters in both blocks are aware of the concerns of the opposition's block 1 and 2, yet continue to support for various reasons (they fid him courteous, or at least not sufficiently discourteous, they trust him to stay focused, or they trust him to grow into further roles at a reasonable and measured pace). The two blocks together, in my read, do indicate that a consensus of the respondents have judged Trappist to be trustworthy enough to receive the tools at his word, and I believe that the RfA should indicate such consensus to be found. Should Trappist grow beyond his stated boundaries without standing for a new RfA, it will be up to the members of support block 2 to decide whether or not to file an RfC/RfAr etc. but they have indicated they are comfortable with that risk. -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would generally agree with my colleagues that consensus has been demonstrated. Specifically, the supports have shown why they believe Trappist is suitable to be an admin, while a number of opposes find no problem with his suitability for adminship, but object to the suitability of the tools for him (see, e.g., #7, #8 #13, and #21). As I interpret the purpose of an oppose, it means the user is unfit for the tools, not that the tools are imperfectly designed.  MBisanz  talk 03:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is consensus to support twiddling the bit, but also that that twiddling come with a word of caution to work on the "bedside manner", so to speak. Admins have to work with pretty much everyone, including people with whom they may not agree or get along with generally. It's a good idea to do your best to be courteous to everyone, regardless of any personal opinions. That said, I don't see any significant opposition to the candidate (as others have mentioned), but rather to the idea of limited scope of usage or limited toolsets, which is really irrelevant to this discussion. RfA is about whether someone is fit for being granted the toolset, and I don't think sufficient evidence has been presented which would prevent granting the toolset in this case. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Trappist create a userpage, however. It's generally helpful and less likely to cause confusion among the general populace. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on that point... at the very least, #redirecting it to User talk:Trappist the monk would prevent new users from hitting the "create this page" dead end when they click on Trappist's signature. 28bytes (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points from me:
 * 1) I have struck a comment made in opposition by an admitted sockpuppet of a user who had already expressed their opposition to the request under a different name.
 * 2) In response to the question as to whether this RfA should be extended (which I should have addressed in starting this discussion), I rejected that possibility because: (a) a substantial number of contributors (129) had already expressed opinions; (b) the discussion had already continued over 12 hours beyond the standard 7 days by the time I came to close it; and (c) the pattern of contributions to the discussion over the preceeding 48 hour period did not suggest that the participants' views were converging such that consensus would become clear if the discussion was extended. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that consensus for promotion exists. My reasoning is quite similar to that of MBisanz; there has not been a strong case made that Trappist the monk is unsuitable for adminship. A significant part of the opposition is to do with that he is requesting the tools for a specific reason. The design of the admin kit should not be held against him, as it is accepted that he has proposed to do a useful and beneficial task with the tools that he needs. The concerns about temperament are not strong or numerous enough to prevent consensus from being reached.

An aside note on going beyond the stated boundaries: We, as a community, if not given a reason otherwise, should trust our editors—especially, but not only, those who have been around a long time and have shown clear commitment and dedication to our project. For some issues, such an approach may be fairly naïve; I'm thinking of interactions in matters that are a source of major contention, ranging from nationalistic disputes to civility. But, the promise of not using admin tools beyond what was agreed to in an RfA is not difficult to keep. I think it's a pity we must discuss what to do if such a simple promise is broken. Surely, that bridge could be crossed if and only if there is a need? For me, crossing it now doesn't make for a collegial atmosphere.  Maxim (talk)  13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary
I count four bureaucrats leaning towards the conclusion that a consensus for promotion does exist (WJBscribe, Avi, MBisanz & Nihonjoe), with two bureaucrats leaning towards no consensus (28bytes & Wizardman). I suggest we leave it a few more hours in case others are able to contribute or anyone changes their mind. If nothing changes, I am minded to close this request as successful. I agree with others above that the candidate should be encouraged (although he clearly cannot be compelled) to create a userpage. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading through everything again, I'm actually leaning towards promotion myself, since while the lack of a userpage and the civility diffs did bother me, usually if a demeanor issue is a problem the RfA doesn't end up anywhere near the discretionary range, so that did not appear to be an issue for those who commented. Wizardman  13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of Maxim and Wizardman's comments above, I believe we now have a 6-1 split, following approx. 24 hours of discussion between bureaucrats. On that basis, I am going to close the request as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request closed as successful - thank you very much for your input. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (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.''